How did we kill the dream ?

                              Current affairs through different perspectives helps me make sense of why the world is what it is. You have circumstances, ideologies and their momentum, and the need for status quo. The need for status quo is what kills the future. What makes change impossible is our need to keep our world as it is. A few month ago, late december, a man desperate called Mohammed Bouazizi burned himself because he was so frustrate about the regime under he which he lived. Tunisia was ruled by one man and his clique and nobody thought it could change. This man was desperate and showed the whole world what desperation lead to. The population of Tunisia understood him, they got touched by him. It was beyond a political preparation, it was beyond a political will.
 
And so the revolt started.  Inspired by this revolt, already inspired by the sacrifice of one man, the Egyptians followed. The Egyptian were even more important as they all found themselves in different cities, put their religious difference aside (something that was problematic in the months in before) and go on a general strike. Supporters of the Mubarak, the leader of that country, did try to get into a fight, the police did attack them, but they resisted. Their courage inspired, just like they were themselves inspired by the Tunisian.

The domino had started in the regions: Bahrain, Jordan, Syria, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Gaza and finally Libya. In all these countries with horrible conditions, the people thought it was time for a change. A fearful change, a change that would change our perception of these Muslim. Muslim are not democrats in our imaginary. How could they rebel for something like democracy when we so carefully managed to make them our own private devils?

   It has to be noted that in Europe, with the help of big media corporations who manage to distort the language of politics to a language of managers, the right wing started stripping out rights difficultly gained and we thought about protesting. It took us time to decide and it is still possible, but there is a need to be comforted, a need for our habit to go undisturbed, we need the status quo.   Luckily, we were not the only one to need a status quo. The Arab League is a club of rich dictators representing a bit part of the Muslim world. They did not like to see the people rising against some of their members. Since September 11, the Arab world had a good other in the American, someone they could blame for their problems, just like we blamed the Muslims who can't integrate as we make things harder for them. They needed the old  world we new, they didn't want the uncertainty, especially since most of them did used violence to bring down the beginning of revolts.

The solution was simple, though the consequences not well thought off. The Arab League went to the United Nations and sacrificed one of them. Colonel Kadafi of Libya was the perfect scapegoat. He had oil, that would insure that whoever would go to war with him could expect a revenue at some point. He was crazy, so he couldn't be morally defended. So a resolution passed at the United Nations to protect the people who wanted change their fate, something honourable if we do not count the consequences.

  The European leaders in need of a diversion and the American leader needing at that time to appear strong jumped on the occasion when the Arab Leaders sat back and shut their own revolt down. Everything is back to normal. The people of the regions have lost their precedent stating that they could with perseverance change their fate. More than that, they went back to hate we Westerners who can't stop taking a moral stand because it makes us feel superior. We on the other hand do not worry about the laws passing by because the war is our interest. Everything back to normal and we lost the dream of change.

blog 1

Everybody is a writer, everybody is a thinker. Well, people express themselves in different ways and most people do not dare to do so. I know I lack the corońes to express everything on my mind. I sincerely do not know where to start and how to start. I do not even think a confession to a priest would be what I need. Is repressing all my feelings, all my thoughts, all my desires, all my hatreds, everything I despise what builds me and the way I think? Or is there nothing in me and everything I repress is actually the stuff that is worthy to come out and the only thing I should work on is the form in which it is going to come out? 

I do not know where I stand. The real trauma of life is trying to understand that everybody else is also the centre of the universe. It is to see that everybody finds their ways to deal with life. No one knows how to deal with life so we all invent excuses. We legitimize the way we think in a way we think is reasonable and what we do not want to accept is that reason has no grounds to stand on. Reasons is just the universal lie to deal with life. The only frustrating thing is that the most popular the reason, the bigger the lie.

The French existentialists did try to share the idea that life is what you make of it, so deal with that freedom. Nietzsche held a more or less equivalent speech though he did not have much balls most of his life to act on his impulse, to run and get the girl he wanted, and the one time he got to act as he wanted people got surprised by the inconsistency of his behaviour and locked him up. Why do we freeze in front of the unexpected? We are all pussies. And we gang up on the cocks to drown them. But the cocks are to be admired! The real cocks, not the wanna-be cocks who dress in a fashionable ways for their bohemian ways.

Deal with the impossible should be our life motto. But there are so many me's. I suffer from my humanity and strive to accepted as well...I know that so many facets of my life would displease one or the other person. Where does this fear of rejection comes from? Are we only confronting ids and superegos? Are they one and the same? Should I really care? Should we really care? I find that not so many people care. Not many people realize that news are the same, wither it is about politics, economics or film stars, it is all some form of entertainment which will never change us until each of us try to make a single analysis, a real point of view on the questions. Knowing facts amounts to nothing except for our scientific mind. And for our scientific mind, everybody wants to be an expert. What about the real strive for universal knowledge where everything is interrelated as it is in reality?

I do not know where to put myself. I feel like a chameleon sometimes, having the knowledge at hand to perform a social interaction as expected. My mother taught me that it was an essential skill. She actually taught me that creating the improbable was a blasphemy. And I do, most of the times when I am with her, suffer from that repression. I do repress myself normally and my hypotheses is that everybody do. Could it be that it is only the 2^nd siblings that do? I am not sure. As I said, the first trauma is the misunderstanding that the centre of the universe is relative. My second trauma was my position in my family. It is normal to be a younger brother and an older brother at the same time. Is it supposed to be? There are so many researches on 2^nd siblings that the trauma gets wider.

Anyway, I rarely blog ( as put a purely personal segment of my frame of mind at a given space-time) but felt like it. I am writing at the moment a short history of the world where I am trying to understand what holds a society together and what are the processes of change. Synchronic/Diachronic;Wave/Particle- one of the real problems of contemporary philosophy alongside the existence of the fourth dimension (a dot lives on a page, how can he ever notice us?)

a first draft to a beginning of a theory of everything

Here is the outline of a phenomenology of the world as we know it. It is based on different esoteric sources, acclaimed or ignore by our history, from the Bible to Zizek, only understood by the initiated and the learned. I will try to write a vulgarised version of the world we see. I will take 7 basic principles, as 7 has historically been one of this number easily remembered, a number reaching the sky but still balancing on earth, before the fall into eternity. 

The first principle is the one of the verb, the one that settles this long long philosophical dialectic, probably the first one : all is mind. It is a very solipsistic approach, one that denies maybe the existence of others, therefore unsympathetic. But it is one of the truth maybe of our specie, we grew out of empathy. I am not stating that I am not in favour of the consideration of the other, but it is not in our essence any more.

The second principle is the power of the verb to hide the lack of subject. There is nothing if we don't put a name to it. The tree in the forest does make a sounds when he falls is true when I state it. It isn't true if I'm there and I am incapable of naming anything, but I am just an observer that doesn't externalize whatever can be externalize with words and meaning. A sign hides the lack of sign, language is both our power and our lie. There is no “I” whenever I do something, but only when I instantaneously look back to create this “I”. The micro-second based between the past and the future is this lack.

The third principle is that everything is changing, as language is changing, as meaning add to each other, everything moves and will move and multiply as everybody share their verbs and their meaning of the world to transform everything constantly.

The fourth principle is that opposite meets over and are just the opposite side of a Möbius band trying to reach the lack, the unreachable emptiness. For example, sex and death are opposite only in our mind, as they are only both sides of the spectrum that is life, which doesn't exist without either.

The fifth principle is that everything has a rhythm, a frequency, a wave. Historical dialectic exist in our lives, where we first want to live the life now with others, and other times we want to reach the heavens by our own self-development. Humanity will fill part of him-self at some point, to fall back onto a localistic mind. The faith in the “economy” will be more powerful than the politic to then see the politic be more powerful than the faith in the “economy”.

The sixth principle is the gender bias of every action. We are sexualized by our condition so we observe every actions from a gender perspective. This does not mean that men see the world in one way and women in another – but simply that there is always two way to see an action : pushing and pulling, constructing and destroying, leaving coming...

The seventh principle is the empowerment of causality. Everything in our mind has consequences. Emancipation is just the knowledge of all the rules we created in our mind. Once ourself mastered, we understand the relativity of regulation to change the rhythm of everything we see unfolding under our eyes. Pushing one way the balance to have a reaction, extending the space of emptiness to create complexity on a spectrum or closing it to create tension.

But empowerment is nothing, it is just a word put over the nothingness of life. Anything is worth being done, for the sake of being done. Jeecee, Fat B'dda, lil Epictetus all found these truths before me. It is just that since Bearded Marx came in, he changes the balance for a while, and it is good thing as wisdom was disappearing under the verbs of uncontrollable institutional vehicles. We just need to find truth in ourself. Just do not tell too many people I am spiritual ( for god sake I am not – only for mine). It is just useful principles to understand why the rest is complicated and senseless...