Good morning - once again from the Southern California Coast,
(Remember we could be vacationing in Hawaii ...)
I'm feeling much better this morning for two reasons ... I got yesterday's post out ... of me and onto the screen, and I didn't read or listen to the "News" this morning.
This idea of the "News" is an interesting thing of course. On a basis of "what's out there" (in the world proper) it's all "news" of course as it happens. But this isn't what we've all come to learn "News" (note the upper-case "N") actually is. "News" is what "News-makers" define the "News" to be for us. This is a "deep" concept of social ontology, what John Searle calls "institutional" or only true as an agreed upon institution. In other words this stuff the News-makers put our attention on as News is only "THE NEWS" because they say so. Your birthday, your kid's birthday, your parent's birthday(s), your best friend's birthday isn't News, but if a "STAR!" has a birthday especially an "important" one (I think each one you make is important - at least to you!) - like "Pamela Lee Anderson Turned Fifty Today - Now The Star's Age Matches Her Breast Size!" - is News because THEY (the News-makers) say it is!
You must get this idea of social ontology to get "IT" at all ... and ultimately to become free of it or become a "maker" yourself. This is the difference between being the cow, the cowboy and Ben Cartwright. When you don't "get IT" you are the cow, being herded around, fattened up for slaughter or drained of milk everyday for the whole of your life, when you do "GET IT" you become the cowboy at least in the game getting to make choices for yourself and deciding if you will or won't just now do it - "they" (the ones who most influence the "instituional" facts and landscape) may still have the ability to set the mileu within which you operate - but you can call some of the shots for yourself, when you really "GET IT!" - you also set up your own set of "institutional facts" that you'll operate by and from - you get to own the Ponderosa (or bug off and just do your own thing because you can read the flow of the system itself).
This of course is highly discouraged by "those in charge" the ones setting the main agenda. You may (actually probably do) work for them - even if you're self-employed. These are the "Board Members" who run the general economy of the world.
NO THIS IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY PIECE! ...
It's simply the way many and most, if not all, precious resources are controlled. It's unlikely to be you controlling them. And, it's not a free and unprejudiced govenment doing it for you, or in your best interests, either. This is an age-old system designed to keep those already there "THERE" ... and guess what ... the News-makers work for them. In fact they pay for the education the News-makers get BEFORE THEY BECOME NEWS-MAKERS! These are the folks underwriting the journalism programs in schools, deciding what will be taught and who will teach it - it's so pervasive it seems "ordinary" - which is exactly what makes it an "institutional" fact.
I'll give you an example to chew on ...
Does marriage exist?
Now you may all say "Of course marriage exists!" You may even say "I'm married myself - and my wife will tell you it exists even when I don't want to believe it!" But the question in every case is "Where does marriage exist?" What makes marriage "real?" "Who says 'This IS married and this IS NOT.'?" These are socially agreed to, socially constructed "rules" that we AGREE TO ABIDE BY!
Here in the good old U.S. of A. we are watching on one front a debate about whether or not same-sex couples can be married or not. If marriage simply "exists" the answer must be of course they can, they simply have to go through the ritual of doing what it takes to "be married" then they are married, no? (Like "getting" pregnant or being sterile.) But NO! "WE" DON'T CONTROL (OR OWN) OUR OWN MARRIAGES! Our marriages are an "allowed" form of social contract by those who do own our marriage contracts ... not us ... "WE" can't do it ourselves, or for that matter "un-do it" ourselves ... only "THEY" can declare us "un-married" if we meet the prescribed protocols and rituals they demand us to go through, and then they agreed to declare us "married" or "un-married" as the case may be (purely at their discreation, we actually have little to say about it - except to make the request, and then only when they are ready to hear from us).
Do not mistake this little point of rule ... the rules are not made by you and I, there is still a monarchy running the world, we are still living in Imperial times ... and the only difference is "THEY" put that particular social fact behind the screen - just like in the "Wizard of Oz." But that man behind the screen is unimportant ... pay no attention to him (at your own risk and peril of course - "Dorthy" died (Judy Garland) trying to meet their demands of what was socially acceptable by the rules "THEY" set - and it's just as likely "THEY" killed Norma Jean (Marilyn) for overstepping her bounds ... what's interesting is they got away with it ... not like Mark McGuire ... Shit! Shit! Shit! I can't get away from the damn News).
The "where" by the way of most social contract and rule is in the legal court system. What you want to "get" is how are those who sit on the judicial benches around your country and around the world put there? They are as free as the journalists are once they get there of course, but they are much less free in doing what it takes to get there of course. Ex.: U.S. Supreme Court Justice selection and confirmation process. Do you know that legally ANYONE CAN BE NOMINATED TO THE SUPREME COURT. You do not have to be a judge or even a lawyer to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. But how does it actually happen, how steeped in the politico world are these folks before they are nominated? Do you think they get picked because they among all are the "best suited" for the job? Or maybe rather because they are among the "Best Suited?"
By now I think you get my point. The world you live in is comprised of millions of social agreements and contracts ... that you MUST abide by to some extent or another to be allowed to roam freely ... and you had/have little to do with setting these in place. Yet you always retain the option of choice ... AS LONG AS YOU "GET IT!"
So maybe next year we go to Hawaii, they get it you know ... any two consenting adults can get married there if they want to ... and it's legal.
Enough for today ...
Joseph
P.S. - Remember that despite what may sometimes seem like rambling, I'm on the trail to where I'm going, and if you'd like you can choose to come along. It's the "Freedom Trail" that I'm following ... and the intention of ambling about these routes is to become aware ... it's an eminently practical and applicable journey ... especilly for those who want to become free and ultimately become a "Maker" themselves ... at least in your own lives and maybe even in the lives of those you love.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Mornin'
(that's how we speak down here in the south)
Robert Heinlein said if the natives rub blue mud in their belly buttons, rub blue mud in your belly button. He also said obey the eleventh commandment and keep it wholely.
The eleventh commandment being:
THOU SHALT NOT GET CAUGHT!
AMEN.
You mention the millions of social contracts and agreements we MUST abide by and it is so... and we DO retain choice as long as we GET IT....and I wonder how many social contracts are so completely invisible that even those who GET IT don't see them.
Case in point, of those
'consenting adults' getting married in Hawaii...was either of them 11 years old? Would it still be legal?
Richard
PS. Social Contracts... ya fuckin'A(that's how my cousins from Jersey talk), ya Fuckin'A better GET IT... or you'll end up thinking it's your DUTY to go get kill 'cuz our leaders need a war to stimulate the economy or to keep us distracted while they rape our environment in the name of 'an SUV in every driveway'.
Social Contracts...Even if you do GET IT, most of you guys have already been permanently maimed and maybe have already maimed your sons in agreement with a social contract that says it's, at least acceptable, often recommended and by some groups, required to cut a substantial portion of a boys penis off.
How about a social contract that says a child's(abiding by our existing SC definition of child) body is their own and a parent has no right to mutilate it in any way.
No cigarette burns.
No broken bones.
No caning.
No poking permanent holes in their ears.
No cutting off their foreskins.
.... oh and how about
No vaccinations?????
RTA
Post a Comment