RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

writing for godot

AN ABSOLUTE PLEASURE SOCIAL CONTRACT MANIFESTO FOR OCCUPY WALL STREET

Print
Wednesday, 23 November 2011 08:00
Everyone would be more likely to "buy in" to a new social contract if there was certainty, or even a HOPE for absolute humor. Absolute humor might even be better than absolute love, because what is love, after all, if love is taken too seriously? Love can be sickeningly sweet as in the movie "Love Story" with Ali Mac Graw". Was there anything funny in that movie at all? As the social contract "is", "it" provides an excuse for bullying and those who find bullying funny, are really only laughing because they are glad the bullying is happening to someone else, and the last laugh is on who DOES the bullying because they have wasted their time bullying, because they are taking the "power" they "have" over others too seriously, so instead of using bully "power”, bully "power" uses them! The victim of bullying, is also taking themselves, their identity, their constructed self, too personally and thus bullies themselves!

What everyone should do when confronted with a bully is to laugh at the bully because the bullies THINKS they have the POWER TO bully in the first place! To prevent bullying all anyone has to say is: It is funny that YOU think You Have the POWER to bully me, when YOU need to HAVE YOU BEFORE there even is a YOU TO COMMUNICATE WITH! In other words, we all take ourselves much too seriously! It is the RELATIVITY of the social contract that motivates all levels of bullying from the slightest language contests, ie demands for "civil" attention, "respect" from others.

For instance let's look at what is really contained in our simple "hello". "Hello" is a DEMAND for others' attention. What we need is the guts to start telling people, when then say "Hello" that you understand that they may need our attention, but if they worked on making themselves enjoy their life, i.e., by giving THEMSELVES enough attention, then they would be sufficiently a "celebrity" to themselves, so they would hardly need to bother us with their need for attention! Likewise, when people insist on making us defensive with their questions, even just the omnipresent "How ARE you", we need to stand our ground and refuse to be placed on the defensive. We need to say: "I HATE QUESTIONS!" If we do this enough, then, when we are brought to court, as we inevitably will be because it is against the law (well, almost lol) to be anti-social!

It will then be a learned response when you are questioned! Then, our "defense" to any charge that can and will be communicated, will be that it is your right to remain free from being made defensive, i.e., instead of saying "I refuse to answer the question on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me". You can avoid even being pre-defensive, by OBLITERATING the VALIDITY of questioning. If you just say it is the PARTICULAR question you have issues with, then you are opening the door to continuous unending questions, because it seems that there MAY be a question you will answer.

If anyone accuses you of anything, you can say, There has to BE a you before you can accuse ME of anything and in this way you can make the accuser go on the defensive, because they will have to prove that there is a them before they can accuse you of anything. WHATEVER they say, you can say something back that will make them EMOTIONALLY, as opposed to making them physically defensive! Make sure it remains on this emotional level, instead of escalating it to a physical level and be prepared to run away fast, and furiously because they may hit you, etc.

This is where your instincts and intuition come into play. The more sleep you get the better are you at telling that you may have only a split second to get away to avoid being hit, and also be prepared for ramifications other than of a physical nature, UNLESS you can win over bullies and judges, (they are practically equivalent: just consider Judge Judy as an example!) with your humor! When you are intuitively and instinctually, etc., sure that what you have said or written IS funny and “they” still want to silence (they really want to virtually, if you are lucky, or actually, assassinate you, but they may settle for muzzling you), then you may need to sleep more, instead of writing, because you are just way ahead of your time!

There are "put-downs" of all kinds due to derivative comparative language constructions, and to all kinds of outright actual physical violence, i.e., famine, wars, legal and extra legal punishments, up to and including the death penalty! This manifesto provides and introduces the possibility of replacing the current RELATIVE social contract with an absolute HUMAN contract. This manifesto is a beginning to a PERMANENT non violent revolution, where this ABSOLUTE HUMAN contract will be PERMANENTLY undergoing revision until each and every person is able and willing to provide their own ABSOLUTE HUMAN CONTRACT to and for themselves. All emotionally vulnerable input, and/or criticism for elitism, etc., will be considered valid and changes will be made to this manifesto accordingly, unless it can be determined that the input and/or criticism is CONSTRUCTED, i.e., socially, culturally derivative, because instead of being HUMAN in content then such input will have the FLAWS of false emotional "vulnerability" i.e. defensiveness, unless it can be shown that the input is instinctive and/or intuitive, in which case the input will be free from all ego and drama and will be NATURALLY valid and thus free from defensiveness.

The goal for this MANIFESTO is to provide STRATEGIES for achieving an ABSOLUTE HUMAN CONTRACT that will be ABSOLUTELY INCLUSIVE, instead of exclusive. This ABSOLUTE HUMAN CONTRACT will be the basis for what is HUMAN instead of what is socially and culturally constructed. What is HUMAN about all of us HUMAN BEINGS and what is UNIVERSAL about our HUMAN Being-ness is/are our emotions, our natural emotional vulnerability, AS OPPOSED TO OUR CONSTUCTED IDENTITY EMOTIONS. Our NATURAL HUMAN EMOTIONAL VULNERABILITY is our universal emotion that IS without EGO and/or DRAMA. All emotions that have ANY ego and or DRAMA are CONSTRUCTED instead of HUMAN emotions, with the only exceptions being those emotions that are instinctual and/or intuitive, i.e. those emotions that are original instead of DERIVATIVE from social and cultural constructs.

We need to have a consciousness that allows radical perceptions of awareness.We need to be able to at least address the POSSIBILITIES that we all bully ourselves and/ or others in order to "fit into" society. This "fitting in may be taking a mental, physical and spiritual toll on us. In fact, instead of fitting in and living in society at all, we all may be only PRACTICING to live. Instead, The social contract is doing the "living" for us. Now that might be OK if the social contract also did our DYING for us, too! However, unless we gain a kind of controversial unlimited consciousness awareness, we may all be doomed to a politically correct, emotionally sterile, PRACTICE type existence, instead of authentically living, at all! This is because as long as there are people without their basic needs met, we, who have our basic, and even our luxury "needs" met, will have some measure of defensiveness to deal with, even if the defensiveness remains subconscious.

There has to be a discomfort about the unfair distribution of resources and we distract ourselves from the reality of the contingency of others dying through a kind of defaulted resignation and/or a communication to self and/or others of hopelessness, i.e., " It HAS to be this way", and/or "There has always been and always will be the poor", or, "It is impossible to be free from the dichotomy of duality", etc. There are risks and inconveniences involved in changing the status quo, We are aware that this is similar to what we all must deal with when new technologies emerge. Homeostasis (stagnancy?) is disrupted, but perhaps we all need CLASSICAL technology, to affect our language. (Perhaps the concept of “The Human Microphone” now being utilized in THE WALL STREET OCCUPATION IS an example of the paradox of “classical technology”).

We need to become aware that we need humor and and communication innovations, like the surprize involved in turning subject into object (chiasmus) as much, or even more than we need computer technology. We need to know that the biggest risk of all is to go through life as though everything is the way it is because it HAS to be that way, because we need to realize what Henry David Thoreau did when he reflected about his dissident experiences : "I went into the woods to front nature, to learn all that it had to teach, to live deliberately, and not to find, when it came time to die, that I had never LIVED(emphasis added)”. We need to be aware that we can and must replace the social contract with a human contract that values human emotional vulnerability and substitutes emotional vulnerability for monetary currency.

We need to re-evaluate thinking on identity constructs in order to try to achieve limitless, i.e., universal consciousness. We Need to become aware that the possibility of freedom from ego and drama, the possibility of being free from limiting identity, even just the HOPE of same, is well worth any and all discipline that is required,for it is even beyond what we all seek: namely love. This is a kind of love that is spontaneous, as opposed to the derivative kind. This is a kind of love that is cooperation that is free from labels, stereotypes, comparisons and competitions etc, because the love is universal and this love and cooperation is free from labels, and/or any identity at all etc. This kind of love/ cooperation with humor, (humor/ cooperation with love) fulfills absolutely, or at least until and unless physical, bodily necessity intervenes.

Prior to achieving and even seeking such universal emotional fulfillment, our most basic physical or primary needs have to be met. We need to know the difference between what is authentically basic and what is egotistically and/or dramatically desired instead of needed. We need to know the difference between quality of life issues that are ALWAYS contingencies and issues of life and dearth, ie real traumas that are life and death issues. In order to know the difference we need to have a self, a personality, etc., that is experientially valid INTERNALLY, so that there is an awareness of what is ego and drama constructed and what is present reality.

One way to achieve this critical experiential validity is through awareness, similar to that achieved through Dialectical Behavior Therapy or DBT, a kind of cognitive therapy. In DBT unconditional, approval and/or radical self validity is mirrored and/or given. Acceptance is unlimited, unconditional, as opposed to most other communication practices, therapies, etc., where judgment, criticism, i.e., bullying is the practice, and almost expected. (Tolerance may be a kind of a neutral or default type of communication, closer to negative bullying as in "if you are avoiding being part of the solution, you are part of the problem", because tolerance is a mere expansion of one's comfort zone. In other words, if a communication makes a so-called tolerant person defensive, then the persons tolerance can be seen for what it is, namely a thin veneer of civility.)

A person experienced in radical self acceptance (a skill learned from DBT) will be able to overcome defensiveness at all costs, that is as long as the communication avoids being a threat to ones' most basic needs. (A definition of universal communication of human civility in a Human contract is a communication of love, graciousness, and/or emotional vulnerability while simultaneously being free from defensiveness.)

What may need to be addressed is the before and after of communication about what exactly constitutes ones' most basic needs, i.e., Ben Franklin had natural needs being basic and artificial as all else. We need to pierce this veil of drama, i.e., consumerist frenzy, etc. by awareness that such a dramatically competitive comparative life may be a fictional (unauthentic) life of mere distraction. To do this we need to understand the function of labels and stereotypes. For example do labels and stereotypes "emerge" as judgments sans critically thinking about duality (i.e. the chiastic “Are you doing the judging or is the judging doing you”?) Such order (or chaorder?)is a kind of range of "glueyness" to "expansiveness" (i.e. conservatism to liberalism) and thus pre-empts the flaws needed for the universal "before and after" of authentic self and other communication.

There is a unique ambition that manifests itself in subliminal communication that is free from all kinds of limitations, even political correctness. This is, or may be a kind of universal ambition, a human contract that communicates in a humble, ego and drama, i.e., hubris-free AGENDA. This human contract would be achieved through awareness of how stereotypes and labels too often "do" our communicating and our "living" and our "loving" and even our “HUMOR”for us, or in place of us having HUMAN agency, because we settle for socially correct, and/or politically correct "agency" instead of emotionally vulnerable human agency.

If we truly want to communicate effectively, humanly, we need to take some risks because before anyone can become the very best that they can possibly be, they must first empower themselves to experience life's pre to post gamut. We need to emerge INTO uniqueness by risking letting go of the habit of being distracted, on auto pilot, living as if by remote control. This also means becoming aware of the habit of applying labels because labels provide a sort of negative "fitting in" as if a square peg can be forced or made to "fit" into a round "hole" of belonging in this world.

Labeling substitutes for the risk taking and the resultant emergence of the authentic self. Labeling can also be perceived as a kind of "trying on" or a kind of "pre-belonging" to a practice type of self, a kind of self-without-awareness. We often find this pre self preferable, to (risking?) belonging intimately to our HUMAN self, and paradoxically "losing" oneself in the organic nature of humanity. This(“losing” )is a kind of ultimate, exquisite, individually unique vulnerability that is,(or may be?)the essence of humanity.

An example of such vulnerability is when we occasionally need to risk failing in order to go beyond failure to the competence of failure, thus achieving self reflection, awareness and understanding. (Failure being defined as where and when we fail without the insurance of there being a safety net to "fail safe"). The result of such failure is, paradoxically, the leadership of the "soul"", which leadership frees us from comparisons and defensiveness, similarly to being in a state of "Flow". We occasionally communicate this way, i.e. to ourselves, when we experience what is known as "flow". ("Flow" occurs when we are "in" the present moment to an uniquely optimal degree).

Any communication, i.e. writing that constitutes reflection of the flow experience is unique communication and it is stereotype free consequently, before and after being subject to any limitations at all whether judgmental, political, social or even (especially?) personal. Perhaps it is an attempt to communicate a kind of self gratitude, or a bestowal on the self of incommunicable award or honor, undiminished by limitation of award/reward. (Perhaps this is why among competitors, nothing is ever enough in terms of winning, maybe we intuitively know this.)

Such a communication would lead to leadership utopia where we would practice responsibility before any mandates come from external sources, and we would master the choices that exist prior to that which is politically (conspicuously to subtly) correct. In this way we would become masters at being responsible for ourselves while we would practice choosing our freedoms. In order to emerge into such a community, i.e., where a limitless human contract replaces the social one, we need to learn that language is only a raw material with the potential for use as a tool. Language needs to be dug up and mined via filter of critical thinking informed by reflection of/from the flow of experience, before it can be fashioned into a tool.

The philosophy involved considers that all language is pre-language if there is no critical thinking and reflection informed by flow. In terms of visualization, our raw materials, or our language resources are submerged (due to distractions of all kinds) in a state of shock, as it were, resulting in eventual crippling or a kind of paralysis of the language ability (thus we have what is considered "tolerance" but is more accurately indifference). On the other hand, post-language can become a commodity (or a sufficient contingency) to be pursued as an end in it self.

We all could, for instance, go before and after the range of what is possible (i.e. fantasy) to probable (reality)? We could all try to risk communicating from what is pre possible to what is post possible, then we might “settle” for “JUST” the POSSIBLE! lol) For instance we could see both covert and overt communication as a practice kind of written or spoken communication and we could see pre-communication, post-communication as being ego less talk or writing. In other words if someone is covertly bullying by whining or overtly whining by being a bully, they could learn to first confront themselves by communication that they are merely practicing being a bully to others (whiner = covert bully, bully = overt whiner), when they are expert in being a bully-whiner/whiner-bully, to THEMSELVES.

In any case, whining to bullying or vice versa is at best negative ambition/negative communication, etc., and at worse it is negative “existence” whereas authentic confidence is unique ambition and therefore free from limitations, i.e., absolute as opposed to relative existence, etc, because authentic confident communication is also ego free!

Too often instead of living life, life lives us. Unfortunately many of us want the illusion of a passion that is really addiction to distraction and denial. Restorative (unique)life and the communication that proceeds from that uniqueness, involves embracing the competence of failure as well as the awareness of the DISABLING, accoutrements of success; i.e. extrinsic honors and awards. The covert message being "I crave appearance over freedom" and the overt messages being:"we(society) will externally control you with rewards".

For instance, one intrinsic reward I "give" myself is taking the appointments offered to me to teach. I have motivated my students by communicating to them in exaggerated ways, because so many college students are in the habit of being distracted, and unless they are "shocked" (somewhat) by statements, (or unless you can deliver your message in music and/or visually, etc.,) their attention may drift. I also use motivations such as humor and props. I ask them to consider what communication might be like if we were all exquisitely, humanly, vulnerable. For instance what might we be like if we were free from limitations of all kinds? I suggest that in such a community the "commodity" being "traded" is uniqueness.

Many of us are at difference stages of authenticity. Some of us have yet to emerge thus we are pre-responsible, pre-culpable, infant-like, etc. Some of us are responsible namely we have rights as well as duties and some of us are post responsible, (i.e., altruistic). We may all, at different times, either regress due to stress and the resultant de-compensation or we may progress, at times, to be Good Samaritan. But we need to be or become aware that we need to authentically experience communication or else communication experiences us. Too strong identification with all social and cultural constructs, gender, race ethnicity, religion, family, career etc, is a restraint on our authentic souls and selves and therefore restrains our communication potential.

The social contract a hardly a contract at all when there is inequality and therefore the meeting of the minds is lacking. We are as infants and children under constraint of physical inability to be on our own i.e. without a means to support ourself by a career, etc, and we are under the emotional constraint of our blood ties. Instead of knowing the terms in the social contract we are often bullied into conduct or bullied into being restrained from conduct, and, as a result the conduct does us instead of us having any agency of "performance.

Too often among poor families there are many victim of shame. To overcome this shame we need to become a "social worker" to the self by becoming aware of the emergence, maintenance and enhancement of our universality and humanity. Then we can understand the enmeshment of a family and the adoption of the entire race, gender, and all social, cultural constructs, as extensions of self. Each member of a family and each member of a race, gender, ethnicity, etc., too often sees, by extension, a responsible, part of her self in the family, race. gender, culture, etc., and in each others conduct as well. Thus there is impossible effort and utilization of energy due to identification extension to provide unconditional acceptance of their own "kind"( and on the other hand there is dehumanization and de-identification to any and all who are other, especially those who are judged to be have an any identity, or a “shadow” or a “dark” side to us (i.e., the “black sheep” or poor relations, etc., in a family)I am reminded of Derrida's "Rendering delerious that interior voice that is the voice of the other in us.")

As a result, defensive postures are taken at all costs, but the cost is to the detriment of ones' individual energy and emotional and communication resources. Thus there must eventually be diminution and then fatigue since the self has only acquired a PRACTICE social, cultural construct for a "base". For authenticity to emerge, we need to focus on risking emotional vulnerability to become strong enough to generate resiliencies, because the social contract, and the proscription to be politically correct, takes a toll on all us. Instead of focusing energy on defensiveness and the predicted speech ranging from the formal( Queens English) to the informal (slang, "gangsta") rap/talk,etc.,imagined to be required.

We need to risk communicating uniquely, perhaps with more of a sense of humor. (Humor is limited mostly because any and all humor has to "PASS" through a Politically Correct "filter", and we are all so "filtered" ourselves that we can hardly even get "in touch" with our instinctual and/or intuitive sense. Political correctness, etc., in the social contract, limits open listening and true communication and leads to symbolic violence, (academic mobbing, etc., verbal isolation, perhaps even CHOSEN autism of a sort) on top of race, gender, class and work isolation, etc.

Unique communication needs to be practiced and modeled by peer communicators. We need to stress that we risk practicing to communicate with others, with all others, instead of just those who look like us, and risk the possible rejection, etc. because there is a larger, greater prize with the risk we take, namely that by so doing we can master communicating with our self. In reality we only practice understanding what others understand within themselves and we only practice understanding what others relate to us. We can only be experts at understanding what we communicate to ourselves about ourselves. "Family" understanding will only be practiced, at best, but if we have a kind of "family" of self, giving "birth" to ourselves, by finding ourselves, being our own best friend, loving ourselves, then instead of being victims of longed for love, we can be a community to our self, and we can communicate expertly, with expert validity, to ourselves.

Due to the social contract and political correctness we must isolate ourselves from openness, or bear the tremendous costs in terms of enormous repression, de-humanization, etc.(There are signs, though of a beginning trend in media where the dark or shadow sides of humanity are beginning to be experimentally viewed with halting acceptance, i.e., "Shameless" a cable TV show that is a US version of a UK Original "Shameless" where shame is overcome.) Unless and until we risk being emotionally vulnerable, we risk losing the opportunity to truly know ourselves. The plus side of being open is that it acts as a kind of therapy by functioning as cathartic. It also helps others to follow suit and gives others a model to emulate.

There are many who think that the openness only adds to the shame being revealed but if this criticism is analyzed it can be traced to a kind of resentment of uniqueness and separateness. For instance, revealing a less than honorable past may harm the families or the cultural groups' reputation: telling truths about oneself thus has consequences for others and the "moral" thing to do is to take especially other's dramas into consideration. Well, that's exactly what has makes us a nation, and a world of and for ourselves and others’ DRAMA. We have "considered" our authentic selves out of existence.

The poor and especially the under classes have the sheer energy of passion for survival. The poor are the dynasty of passion, and if they are freed from the self and/or other imposed guilt and shame by the empowerment of communication and education they can empower the rest of us with the commodity of their energy and passion, and we can all be re-invigorated, re-innovated re or maybe pre-created so we can refashion (or for the first time fashion) our authentic selves out of our blaze selves. A critical assumption is that we are able to achieve a unique life where there can be inner fulfillment, wisdom, meaningful purpose, flow, as well as outer social fulfillment.

This might be called a paradoxical "democracy" of uniqueness or democracy where the ultimate is intimate. We need to address the stakeholders, bureaucracies, businesses, and communities that have what they think are "objective" social justice interests in maintaining an arrogant certainty or habit which masquerades as a status quo. These stakeholders choose to avoid taking risks to even ALLOW controversial communication issues, namely the flaws in the social contract, law,etc., to emerge. The purpose of this essay is to bring awareness and scrutiny to bear on blaze individuals, stakeholders etc, so that those who are addicted to the illusion of "security" within the social contract can begin to become extricated from the morass that the social contract is. Otherwise individuals will have to settle for being inauthentic, i.e., when they enmesh with others to form societies, businesses, institutions, multinational corporations, bureaucracies, etc. and consequently, policies, become diluted visions of consensus that is hypocritical, because it is "consensus" like the social contract, based on illusion, namely flaws and exclusions.

Phillip Howard, in his book "The Death of Common Sense, How Law is Suffocating the US," refers to Justice Cardozo who said" (we need)...., to complete and correct the rigidity of instruction by suppleness of instinct". We need to promote awareness of the psychic, intrinsic rewards that reinforce the doing of activities(authentic communication where we risk being vulnerable in an egoless way, i.e., sans drama, that are enjoyable in themselves. This essay could be subtitled "Stakeholders Anonymous" because it attempts to confront all stakeholders , i.e., everyone "IN" the social contract, because stakeholders are only ritualized "versions"of or images of authenticity, because by relying on standard communication practices they are not holding their stake in society, their stake in society is holding them.

Too often we displace issues involving our proximate self i.e., our uniqueness issues with externally public issues: Sept 11, immigrants, family, etc. We agitate for discipline to be impressed upon newcomers to our groups, country, family, etc. and we inject our poisonous pedagogy of comparative competition and hard nosed survival of the fittest on others as a rite of immunity/passage to acceptance, with the hope for unconditional connectedness, the American dream, etc. Vivian Gornick ("Who Says We Haven't Made Revolution?" New York Times Magazine, 4/13/90) states "The Longing for Connection may be strong, but even stronger is the growing perception that only people who are real to themselves, can connect."

Of course the major way we “connect” is through communication. Issues that become invested with "public" interest become monopolistically held and supported or railed against. There is a kind of cartel on what is legally, morally, culturally appropriate and in mindless reactions the two political etc extremes operate: like a sensitivity "bank" deciding on the range of, or ratio of: excuse to accuse proportion, retribution to proscription proportion and the privilege to the immunity proportion. Meanwhile, the absurd distortion is itself out of all proportion.

We need authentic individuals, role models who bring us out of the mystification of appearances and out of the justification of illusions, and into awareness of self. Edgar Z. Friedenberg in Dignity of Youth and Other Atavisms says: "One needs to feel that tentative solutions to the problems of a shifting universe are not only real and trustworthy solutions, but that they are also ones unique solution." We need energized thinkers who lift our spirits with hope, instead of "anchor" persons who stultify us. We only need resources to provide for basic needs in order to think, and that beginning certainty, call it a hint of intuition, makes the "pain" involved in becoming newly aware reward the risk of thinking for ourselves in the first place, by enhancing and nurturing our "infant" certainty that is free from defensiveness and comparisons.

True security and certainty is that conduct and/or communication that proceeds from an authentic individual. It can be conduct, language, etc characterized by its ability to confront and, by so doing, the conduct and/or communication results in bringing about insight, awareness and understanding, in other words, we need conduct and /or communication that "shakes you up," that takes risks, otherwise it is part of the problem (anesthetization, illusion and mystification). Likewise, when safety becomes THE guiding principle we live by, are we living a life of safety or is safety living us? Are we fighting our fears or are our fears fighting us? Are we going to use our emotions or are our emotions going to use us? We need to comprehend the mystification of appearance and the justifications of illusions.

We all want security for our self, our family, our country, our world, but perhaps the closest we can come to having real security is HAVING a safe and secure personality from which and to which we communicate. Maybe the "best" way to achieve that safe and secure personality is by achieving awareness (and/or uniqueness?) from our life experiences (experiences being defined as a range of behavior, conduct, from practicing to have experiences, i.e. theory,(thusly we have only drama) to actually having the experiences, i.e. the range of having an experience, the experience having you, flow, reflection about same, etc. In turn, then, perhaps that can be turned into label and stereotype free universal communication. Until then we have great, although negative, investment in our illusions (especially communication), we are mostly out of control i.e. in the extreme it is called Alzheimer's" or too much in control i.e. withdrawal from communication or "Autism".

This Manifesto attempts to motivate others to risk vulnerability so we can be change agents in our society. But do we have a society or does our society have us? Likewise with government, law, justice etc. Some extremists in the media suggest that we are in the third world war. Perhaps we need to get down (in order to get up?) to pre basics, namely defining humanity, a democracy that can be free from limitations of all kinds, not just the blue to red kind because there is a kind of dignity that comes and goes, before and after the comparative range of what is commonly accepted as morality. It is a kind of pre to post humanness that uniquely satisfies the soul before and after it comparatively satisfies.

THEREFORE: WE, the undersigned, choosing our new non violent revolutionary names do agree herein (IN ANTICIPATION OF UNIVERSAL HUMANITY FEELING NOW OR IN THE FUTURE) to identify with THE FOLLOWING AND/OR SIMILAR HUMAN emotional vulnerabilities to be added ) THAT THE FOLLOWING human emotional vulnerability is universally and, absolutely valid and evolutionarily strategic towards the development of THE HUMAN CONTRACT and when at all possible we will freely choose such HUMAN emotional vulnerabilities in exchange for our socially and culturally constructed IDENTITIES:

In the past we experienced what it feels like to "communicate" to our soulless constructed, identity selves. We think that others have this emptiness, too. For instance feelings of hope dying in our souls, etc., These were unbearable feelings. We felt like we were unable to share or communicate. In other We became autistic to our souls, etc. This soullessness, etc., of self was worse than any punishment from outside of us. We thought at that our pain and sorrow was due to others and due to the world being unfair and cruel and due to the untruthfulness of persons in our lives. But now we realize we all could be in a kind of vegetative state, disabled. We think we may have begun to take "baby steps" toward being truly human. So we begin by trying to make whole the people we think we must have hurt emotionally. Perhaps we want to help ourselves get restorative forgiveness from those we think we have harmed, we will do whatever it is we must do, providing there is hope to gain forgiveness. Because we are all just PRACTICING to be human. We all agree that we have to "pay our HUMAN EMOTIONAL VULNERABILITY dues" and until then we are all just virtual human beings who, at best, deserve a virtual human contract. We have great desire to motivate those who merely manage their lives and mistake management of a life for living a life. Our goal is to motivate the emergency of truly representative leaders including those in the underclass, instead of the "image-managers" we have now. We need to enhance the pool of leaders with those who are knowledgeable by their past experience being in the underclass. We have been or are able to IDENTIFY and empathize with, and VALIDATE the HUMAN EMOTIONAL VULNERABILITY of those have been homeless and/or alone, We identify and empathize with and validate those having zero economic resources, those who had to dig down into themselves, their authentic HUMAN self, their HUMAN essence self, and there they discovered their pool of human resources, their resiliency. Without money blindfolding them with fears of losing security, they found the freedom of risk taking that "paid" them in the commodities of vision and certainty. We are aware of our humanity from its depths to its heights. When we take risks based upon our humanity instead of based upon our security (i.e. economic security)we find that energy, desire, commitment, meaning, comprehension, etc. stretch and true relaxation results.
Signed Date

Barbara Todish THE ANONYMOUS REVOLUTIONARY November 24, 2011

_________________________________________ _________________

_________________________________________ _________________
_________________________________________ __________________
_________________________________________ ___________________
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Email This Page

 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN