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
tue, december 29, 2009 | link
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'.
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
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.
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.
Health Care and 'The First Law of Biology'
mon, september 7, 2009 | link
(Why a for-profit health care entity cannot be successfully
employed to efficiently diminish, and eradicate where possible, ill-health and disease among the domestic mass of humanity.)
When considering the inefficiencies and run-away costs of
health care and health insurance it’s not accurate or adequate to blame it on greed or technology or even a market run
amok. We need to look deeper and examine not only the core of human behavior but perhaps the root of all
biological behavior. The ‘First Law of Biology’ might state: “The primary concern of
biology is to survive and flourish.” Stretching this out it might read: “The primary concern
of virtually any biological entity, whether a single organism or a composition of organisms, appears to be to survive and
flourish.” It appears that this objective will supersede all others. There will,
of course, be subjective interpretations of ‘survive’ and ‘flourish’ but, for the vast majority of
biology, its’ perspective regarding survival and flourishment will be the genesis of its’ behavior.
At first glance, this doesn’t seem to be big news but, on closer examination, it might help explain many of the
problems with our ‘health care system’ which has been described, among other things, as grossly inefficient, wildly
expensive, and exclusive.
Domestic ‘health care’, which could be
defined as “the endeavor to diminish, and eradicate where possible, ill-health and disease among the domestic mass of
humanity”, and ‘health insurance’, which should be an attempt to provide affordable access to ‘health
care’, are the two main components of our ‘health care system’. It may very well be that
our ‘health care system’ is “broken” because, in violation of ‘The First Law of Biology’,
we have attempted to employ a for-profit biological entity to provide ‘health care’, i.e. a for-profit entity
whose stated objective, or apparent function, is to diminish, and eradicate where possible, ill-health and disease among the
domestic mass of humanity. The stated objective, or apparent function, of the entity appears to be in direct
conflict with its primary concern. If the for-profit entity succeeds in its stated objective or apparent
function (to diminish ill-health and disease) it will contravene its primary concern (to survive and flourish).
This is because, as it succeeds in its apparent function, it will also diminish, and eradicate, in direct ratio to
its success, its need to exist and therefore itself.
the above observation is counter-intuitive, the validity of this perspective becomes apparent when we consider the converse.
If the for-profit entity whose stated objective or apparent function is to diminish, and eradicate where possible,
ill-health and disease among the domestic mass of humanity fails in that objective and ill-health and disease, instead of
diminishing, actually flourishes then the for-profit health care entity itself will also flourish. As disease
and ill-health flourishes and expands, the entity employed to diminish and eradicate it will also flourish and expand in direct
ratio to its failure, all the while reaping profits. Simply put, a for-profit health care entity will suffer
and diminish as it succeeds and will survive and flourish as it fails.
The solution to this conundrum is for ‘the domestic mass of humanity’ itself to take responsibility and
pay for the diminishment and eradication of disease and ill-health among ‘the domestic mass of humanity’.
If the cost is being paid by ‘the public’ on behalf of ‘the public’, other than paying what’s
necessary to make the process a viable, sustainable, economic enterprise, no entity would profit from the survival and flourishment
of disease and ill-health. In fact, ‘the domestic mass of humanity’ would flourish from the
diminishment and eradication of disease and ill-health in two ways; as the once diseased but now healing entity and also as
the entity who is paying and will now pay less as disease and ill-health is diminished and eradicated where possible.
There would be no entity who will suffer from the diminishment and eradication of ill-health and disease and there
is no entity who would profit if disease and ill-health flourishes. It is the exact opposite of what happens
when a for-profit health care entity is employed. It appears as though there will always be employment
for those engaged in ‘health care’ and they should, justly, receive commensurate pay but the parasitic profits
and gross inefficiencies of today can be diminished, and eradicated where possible.
advantage of ‘the public’, as an entity, taking responsibility for the diminishment, and eradication when possible,
of ill-health and disease is that ‘the public’ can bring the power and influence of the entire domestic mass of
humanity to bear against the threat of disease and ill-health. As it stands now, it’s not the job
of the ‘health care system’; not the health care providers and even less the health insurers to determine the
causes of ill-health or to develop strategies for mitigating discovered causes. After all, under our current
system, the providers and insurers, profiting from disease and ill-health, are neither motivated nor able to address cause.
Much ill-health and disease, diabetes, obesity, and asthma for example, is rooted in the behavior of ‘the public’
in collaboration with industry; the food industry and the energy industry in these cases. If ‘the
public’, as a whole, takes responsibility, encouraged or even forced by the fact that it’s bearing the cost of
its own ill-health, for the diminishment of its own ill-health and disease it can, through its strength in ‘the market’
and its power in ‘democracy’, effect changes in cultural, social, and industrial behavior that can mitigate the
causes of much of our ill-health and disease, and save ourselves untold wealth. ‘The public’
or ‘the domestic mass of humanity’ must function though, as an entity; it is only with our collective economic
and political strength that we can endeavor to guide ourselves out of this self-inflicted ill-health and disease, both physical
Wake up call: http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/tipping-point-2011