|
|
One perspective, given exercise with voracious appetite by many in this country and around the world, is that the
domestic mass of humanity and, by extension, the global mass of humanity, is to be played as the host organism; i.e.
the victim of what is, in effect, the parasitic design of large domestic and global economic entities.
This website, with your help, intends to explore how this dynamic is being played out and how we, domestically and globally,
as a component of the entity which is all life, can perceive and influence our role not only as a component of the
'host organism', but as a component of the HOST organism. The HOST organism is the entity which is all life on Earth.
We, the human species, are only, as we appear to currently understand all life and our role within it, an inconsequential
component of the HOST organism. This is because we appear to currently perceive our mandate, individually and collectively,
as surviving and flourishing, in the moment, at the cost of any and all. In fact, within this paradigm, we appear to
be insignificant except as a detriment. If we were to consider the entity which is all life as a pyramid, with all the
species stratified according to dependence, (and not 'nested' or intertwined and mostly interdependent as we are),
in order to get a foundational 'base' and a 'pinnacle', we might find bacteria at the bottom and homo sapiens at the top. Virtually
all life, it appears, depends upon bacteria while virtually no life, it appears, depends upon us. It actually appears
as though the entity that is all life would be better off without us; yet we are entirely dependent upon the entity which
is all life, which is entirely dependent upon planetary and galactic conditions extremely similar to what they were when life,
as we know it, was fostered. We do appear, however, to wield a deeper density of consciousness than other
organisms of other species which permits us to perceive and consider the influence of our existence and behavior, not only
upon each other, but also upon the other components of the HOST organism which are, all of them, foundational and integral
to the existence of the human species as we currently know it. To this extent, the density of consciousness that
manifests not only about human beings but other organisms of other species can be said to manifest about the HOST
organism in that the HOST organism is its genesis. With this consciousness is borne responsibility; perhaps, among
other things, to share perspective and to endeavor to discover and implement strategies contributing to the survival
and sustainable flourishment of the entity which is all life.
As we all contribute to this exploration, we need to consider the apparent singularity of the individual human
organism and consequent potential singularity of its perspective. This could be called 'the fire and the glory'.
It appears that behavior might very well be the result of perspective, what an entity 'sees' when it looks
out on the universe. Perspective might very well be the result of biology and experience upon that biology. It
appears that the biology of each individual human organism is singular and the experience, in total, of each individual
human organism upon its biology also appears to be singular. If perspective is the result of singular experience
upon singular biology then perspective itself might very well be singular. In addition, biology appears to
be fluid, dynamic in that it is not identical to itself for any two moments of its' existence. Experience
also appears to be fluid, dynamic. If perspective is the result of singular, dynamic experience upon singular, dynamic
biology then it's no wonder that subjectivity appears to dominate at the level of the organism. 'The fire'
is the rage and frustration of dissimilar personal perspective and what appears to be the fact that we, each of us, only
have a piece of the whole. 'The glory' is that we do, in fact, possess a piece of the whole and our piece
appears to be as valid as any other piece given that it is a manifestation of our singular, streaming experience
upon our singular, streaming biology. While it can be deflating to understand that my perspective is
profoundly limited by my impossibly narrow experience upon my impossibly limited biological composition,
possessing the ability to communicate, if I can share in the perspective of another, I might gain access
to perceived realities that I was not 'issued' and which, perhaps, can only be provided by that specific organism or
entity. Keeping in mind that my perspective and consequent behavior, as well as the perspective and consequent
behavior of all biological compositions (individuals and collections of individuals), appears to be a manifestation of experience
upon biology, then considering not only a biological compositions' behavior and expressed perspective but its biology and
experience upon that biology up to that moment may help in understanding consequent behavior and expressed perspective. Given
all of this, instead of 'knowledge' and 'belief', perhaps what we possess is 'processional perspective'. 'Processional
perspective' is that perspective which we possess at any given moment, from which we proceed. It is also 'processional'
in that it is subject to the dynamic nature of biology and of experience.
|
|
|
Capitalism and Health care
Under our economic system
the providers of goods and services are mandated to provide as few goods and services as possible for as much money as possible.
The consumers of goods and services are mandated to procure as many goods and services as possible for as little money
as possible. The tension between the two is what's known as 'the market'. The
consumer, if he or she doesn't like the cost or quality of the good or service being offered has two choices: go somewhere
else or choose to do without the good or service altogether. As the good or service we're talking about here is health care
or, more precisely, the diminishment or eradication of ill-health and disease, no one can, or should, be forced to choose
doing without the good or service altogether; which means they must seek affordable, quality, goods or services somewhere
else. There is nowhere to go! We are all sheep in a pen and the health care providers and insurers
and drug makers have perpetrated a bloodbath of skyrocketing costs and diminished services and the gilded republicans and
the gelded democrats are trying to insure that it stays this way.
'The market', you see, appears
manipulable depending on who wants what. For thirty years the republicans have been carrying the guidon for the large domestic
and global economic entities who extol the virtues of 'the market' and who pony up millions against the mere pittance we citizens
pay our legislators in salary resulting in the repeal of both taxes on the very rich and regulations attempting to protect
us sheep from wanton evisceration by industry: energy, health, drug, insurance, agriculture, banking and defense. All of these
industries and the super-wealthy reap unimaginable profits but when the crap hits the fan, even when it’s their crap,
who pays? WHO #@&%! PAYS!!? The sheep pay. Under the current health care system
and under the proposed Senate plan; they pay with their life, physical and financial. This
raises a few questions concerning ‘the market’. Why do we have socialized fire protection? Why do we have socialized
law enforcement? Why do we have a socialized defense industry? I used to think that those industries are socialized simply
because they are integral to the health and safety of society. But then, if that was true, why wouldn't health care be socialized
because, clearly, health care is even more integral to the health and safety of society than those three industries.
After all, we are chipping in against the potential threat of fire and the potential threat of crime
and the potential threat from outside of our borders because not every one of us will experience fire or crime or
an attack from outside of our borders but we are ALL guaranteed to experience ill-health and disease.
So, why are fire, law enforcement, and defense socialized and not health care? This conundrum is solved when you realize that these four industries, contrary to what most of us have
believed our entire lives, are not about people but are about wealth. One percent of the population of the U.S. reportedly
controls ninety-five percent of the wealth and they need us, the other ninety-nine percent, to chip in to finance the protection
of their wealth from fire, and crime and from threats from outside of our borders. It is incidental that these industries
also help people (who holds the notes on all that you own? Who insures it?). If the protection of people was the reason for
the existence of these industries then health care would have been socialized a long time ago because, even with exaggerated
flaws found in other universal health care systems, a single-payer system is, by far, the most dependable and cost-efficient
system for diminishing, and eradicating when possible, ill-health and disease among the greatest number of people. But health
care in our country isn't about people. Like fire, law enforcement and defense it also is about wealth, not the preservation
of wealth, but the generation of wealth. We seem to be a seething mass of penned sheep, guaranteed
to experience ill-health and disease and the parasitic health care entities; insurers and providers and their ever-increasing-quarterly-earnings-investors
and our legislators with their shepard's staff, aren't going to give up their place at the table without a savage fight. If
only, instead of sheep, we were wolves in sheep's clothing we could march en masse in Washington and in our home towns across
the country and inspire those legislators who aren't actually already hosting the parasites to fight for their, and our, American
lives and pass, at the very least, the House plan.
tue, december 29, 2009 | link
|
|
Wake up call: http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/tipping-point-2011
|
|
|
|
under construction
|
|
|
|
|
|
|