| NO FAULT, NO BLAME __________________________ This essay is really about our so-called 'human' and particular language/s as an experience, expression, extension or product of our peculiar 'human' animal behaviours and our development by natural selection. This is not to say that other animals, or other animate (moving) creatures (as we define them) nor even inanimate 'objects' (as we define them) have no language. Language is a means of expression and communication; so then are any other forms of active behaviour. Since every object in the universe (itself included) is changing, it may then be considered active and therefore have a language and communication. Natural selection is the means by which we have achieved our present 'status' or 'sate' as human animals, insofar as we, as human animals, record them in our minds or otherwise; and by the very nature of our sexual behaviours that are peculiar to our species as 'human' animals, we reproduce. If your belief is contrary to this notion of natural selection (as defined by Charles Darwin and others), then read no further. A closed mind, is not that of the author. I believe that all life (as defined by human animals) has communication skills (however these may be defined). 'Life' as we 'humans' call it, can possibly best be defined simply as the 'inflow and outflow of energies'. Those 'energies' are those wordless, undefinable things that make us alive. Our 'death' is merely a possible failure of 'inflow' of energies but still the 'outflow' into a natural earth. I believe that our communication skills enable us to communicate with our environment whether animate or inanimate, as we define these terms. Less-'modern' Men (including women, of course), were/are hunter-gatherers. (I believe we still are but by different methods) We have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of our ancestors' behaviours; their individual behaviours or togetherness behaviours are most often, unknown to us. (Consult aborigines of any country (local peoples) and they will show you, probably, quite ably). We assume a relationship with these people from a more present knowledge than of old. For example, who says women are the bearers (of our children), men are the providers? If anyone knows (for sure!, it's your personal truth) then let me know. Let the world know. You can't or you won't. There are many words that seem to assume a responsibility for our behaviours. The notions of 'Duty', 'Obligation', for example. The word 'behaviours' has, fortunately, been reduced to small letters and a plural. That is, we have no 'Behaviour' as an ultimate description of our reactions to the world (singular) but various 'behaviours' (plural) that we exhibit during our changing times. Change is the key. The use of CAPITAL letters to denote polarities such as Truth and Untruth are polarities which circumvent the continuum between them. Life is a continuum. It is a participle (that is something ongoing and happening, now; it is not static or non-moving). There is no ultimate or Ultimate Truth, only truths. Their is no Untruth only untruths. And so on for all moralistic or words which describe qualities ( like good, evil, beauty and so forth). These are complex sentences. They are complex because they contain words that need explanation/definition. The explanation/definition of words is a purely personal one based on the experiences of the use of these words. Most, (if not all), dictionaries (which proclaim to define words and their meanings) define words dependent upon their authors, their experience and the regurgitation of material they have come to believe). The explanation/definition of words is much of the cause of today's unhappy world, full of the people who use them. It is not a notion that the earth upon which we live, has. Words evoke images in our minds and these images are relevant to a particular person (an individual) who showed them to us. For example, the earliest word that a child learns is probably 'Mum' or some local derivative (possibly based on the easiest of sounds 'mmmm'). The image thus evoked or invoked in the child's mind is determined by the how, when, why and so on of its first and subsequent use. If this 'Mum' is associated with a tit and milk and comfort, then the word always evokes this memory (it becomes part of the biological memory we carry to the grave). If the word is associated with a negative, then this is the feeling that is invoked in the child. Being a 'Mum' is the hugest responsibility a person can take, make or break. Being a consistent, positive 'Mum' is the best a child can have. But it has to come at the beginning, not anywhere afterwards. Sorry, it's almost too late (it can be open-ended, it may be repaired but we can never be sure). So this essay, as most of mine are, is about language. That is, the written and spoken language. There are many, many languages and along with those languages, local changes (dialects). I don't mean, necessarily, physical languages, such as English, Russian, Portuguese, Hungarian and so forth. I mean the language of our bodies; body-language in many guises. These include the most important language, feelings. Feelings are not emotions. Both are important. Feelings are often described as emotions but they are not the same thing. To emotions, we attach words (which need to be defined and their definition is personal). Feelings are personal and have no words. Feelings are what we have and react to by our behaviours. I feel happy, I act happy. I feel bad, I act bad. It's as simple as that. I feel happy, I act happy, others feel happy. I feel unhappy, I act unhappily, others feel unhappy. This is always personal stuff. There is no god-head. I am positive because I enjoy the earth of nature. I deplore the World of Men. I therefore try to (it's not easy given an input of negative behaviours from so many people) act in a positive way; this make others act in a positive way, although one seems to be losing a battle of some kind. (That's being cynical; but cynical has its place.) The reverse is a truth also. The sad thing is, that the world is acting in an unhappy way. (The earth is quite happy and goes on its way). Nature's language is pure and cannot possibly be negative, since it works fine left alone. This unhappy nature of the World is what needs to be changed. It seems very strange to me that the negative seems to be the norm. I have no idea why this should be. The human animal, with its communication skills, seems, somehow, to need to attach some sort of responsibility to others of its kind (or non-kind) and not to itself. How this may have come about historically is certainly a mystery to me. In other words, we do not seem to want to be responsible for our own behaviours. Hmmm.... Thus have men (and women) have invented certain 'gods' (an ultimate authority but who knows why) who are responsible for their behaviours in some way. ("It's that Adam bloke, he started all this nonsense"..."Spare ribs, they only get in your teeth!") This is a great way of 'passing the buck'. Whatever these gods may be or represent, they are invested with powers which 'normal' people seems to lack (as their awareness of being aware dictates). It may be, it seems to me, that since any one man (or woman) has the in-built mechanism to survive, he/she goes by the best road possible. Given that man/woman is a survivor in his/her own right and may be realising their possible shortcomings, he/she is then given to allowing others to think or speak for him/her self. This, of course, leads to the downfall of such a creature. The bigger the bully will survive. A bully is an individual (or a group of similar persuasion/s) who is aware of certain individual's weaknesses, (usually their humanitarianism). By means of a language (carefully controlled and self-defined) both verbal and non-verbal, they are able to coerce others into a belief that is theirs alone; (probably and most certainly not yours). This is most often by a physical strength, not a reasonable, moral one. That is, 'Do as I say, or I will beat you up!' (Or whatever words they use (Whatever god says....etc.)) Enter the unhappy breed, the controllers. I disown these creatures. They work through their greed (an extended version of the reasonable needs of others) and their own vulnerability as creatures who fear the earth and themselves (mostly) and others who merely want to be left alone to their own devices. They control because they can accumulate an 'army' of followers who are as unhappy as they are; whose greed is theirs; whom they can pay money to control others and whom they can coerce to 'vote' for them in some so-called democratic ('will of the people) nonsense that perpetuates their myths and their bully behaviour. (Why should I shout for them and wave silly flags for their bullying behaviours towards my friends and me and call where I live a Nation? A Nation is certainly is not!) There is no democracy. Democracy is supposed to be the will (I assume 'free-will') of the majority of people. This 'will of the people' is not borne out by the rhetoric of politicians calling democracy! Democracy is the 'will' of the people. But this 'will' is never heard! If you believe it is, you are living in a fantasy that will kill you, physically/and or mentally. Democracy was once defined as: Government of the people, by the people and for the people. Better it had been defined as: Management of a people by competent individuals (with proven management skills), by common consent of all people (not the statistical few). Then it would also have been for the people. Statistical analysis is another sham; another rip-off. Your 'democracy' is delivered to you by those who are unhappy. These people will never make a safe world! They do not have the abilities/skills to do so because they are sad, unhappy people who fear for their own existence. Thus fear and unhappiness drive these people to destruction and their negativity will drag, unwillingly, the rest of us who are not unhappy to their destruction and ours, who don't want it! Gangs of individuals (so-called governments, kings, queens, despots, dictators, lords, ladies, gods, christs and so forth), led by this common unhappiness of or in themselves, lead inexorably to our total destruction. Whether they are smaller gangs who terrorise individuals or larger groups is of no matter; they destroy themselves and others (most often the innocent). Their mentality is of destruction, not creation, whatever they think or say. They think they are strong because they can kill, not by their own individual hands (i.e. their own personal physical strength) but by weapons created (by others) for the killing, which at least, is 'killing at a distance' i.e. pressing a button and never seeing the consequence face to face. These people could never actually kill at close range (i.e. vis-à-vis), they do not have the 'balls', as they say. Fear destroys because fear is most often unhappiness with oneself (and we are possibly all guilty of that for some reason we know or don't know). They think us poets are weak. These bullies have no strength beyond their muscles. They cannot win a fight for life. It's these people that invent the words they throw at us, like 'duty', obligation, 'for King and Country', 'for our children' and all that nonsense. These people don't fight, they get some-one else to do their dirty work, then claim them (and themselves, of course) to be heroes. But when we fight (us poets), we ignore the bully; he will go away; ultimately. He will go away because he has no sustainable strength or argument. We have, us poets, writers, songsters, creative magicians who want no answers but are happy in what we do. We have a strength they can never dream of. This does not reflect the 'do-gooders'. Do-gooders are controllers in their own right. They also want control of others. Do-gooders, include religious fanatics (such as missionaries), who want to foist their inaccurate beliefs on others. Although they proclaim that they work for humankind, they work for themselves, since what they do is invade the notions of others, who have particular reasons to their beliefs and usually local ones. The object is not really to make a 'happy' world in which we can all grow and nurture as individuals (who may or may not want to belong to a particular group for a particular reason), it is to make others cow-tow to their beliefs, all or nothing. They kill, maim, hurt others in this quest by the most diabolic means. Once again, the history of Man speaks. Somewhere/somewhen, this chain of unhappiness must be broken, if any of us place a value on our individual lives. Most of the people born, even though disabled, (as we all are in our own way), are perfectly fine left alone without those who deem to take control of us, whatever they may say their motives are. The motives are theirs, not ours. As I've often said before, controllers are those who take charge of others without their consent. They control others because they cannot control themselves. They are usually some kind of bully. Why do we need bullies to guide us? Their end is greed for themselves. By giving these controllers sanction to control (as part of our free-will) we not only end up with these people controlling us as individuals but the rest of us who have no desire to be controlled at all. In other words, if you value your freedom, don't vote for a controller. If you feel the need for some management in some aspect of your life, then appoint a manager who has valued and tested management skills. For example, if you have a cold, you go to a doctor whom you hope has some management skills of your problem. You would not go to a carpenter, who may not have the skills. And vice versa. If the doctor does you no good, you find another. If the carpenter does a lousy job you get another. It's free choice, not a political coercion. The major problem is that we have been led to believe, over many centuries, that a political dictatorship by a controller or controllers, is the correct way to go. It isn't. A truth is, it can't be. Controllers have nothing to offer others; nothing but negative activities or notions and your personal unhappiness. The meek (weak) are the controllers. Without the strength of the hunter gatherers they cannot eat; they do not have (or are too lazy to use) the skills. This strength of the hunter/gatherer lies in the persistence to look after flora and fauna that are edible and produce food for us to exist at all (what we consider to be sustainable growth). These hunter-gatherers take, from the earth they tend, only what they need. Controllers eat off the backs of these persistent souls who want only to do their job. These hunter/gatherers are not interested in controlling others for their own means. Controllers get fat and fat-headed from over-eating. Controllers only get rich off the back of others for the same reason. Our whole human history is evidence of this, no quarter left unturned. Self-regulation is there, it has just been forgotten because we have been coerced/bullied to believe that we need others to look after us. Hence our 'nanny' states. These states, however, have no interest whatsoever in the charges they are supposed to 'represent', whatever they might say or however they come to represent. The concept of 'Nations' and 'Nationalism' Individuals Individuals are those people who are bound to no other person, their concept/s, their notion/s or otherwise by any means whatsoever. They are their own people. Individuals have no masters, gods or otherwise. They act according to their own motivations, not those of others who would deem to control them. That is no to say, of course, that they do not react to others. On the contrary, they react most definitely and for positive ends. Individuals want to change an unhappy World into a positive earth, where everything is for the good of all. To less than individuals (i.e. individuals or groups with some other, mostly negative purpose), this is a naive dream. To the individual, this is a possible reality. Anything esle is destruction. Groups and Group Psychologies Groups (i.e. more than one person) are a number of people who have similar ideas. Groups can operate as positive or negative members of the larger group of humans. The largest group of human animals, is the so-called Human Race. This group is split into many sub-groups. These are defined by other groups according to their likenesses, positive or negative. The sub-groups can further be defined in terms of smaller groups, until the final group (as it is defined) becomes a duo (two people). Prejudices against other groups are made for whatever reasons by one groups against another, usually from fear. Prejudices, of course, are negative; they have no values on the earth. Nation and Nationalism A nation is a particular group of peoples. Peoples includes every type of person/individual, from whence they came, usually by migration. A nation has set boundaries for its people/s 'fences', (a concept of european history). The word 'nation' is a notion/concept of those who wish it to be so. Outside of this, there is no 'nation'. Nations seem to adopt a peculiar feeling for some sort of icon, usually a flag of some sort. This icon then separates them from others. These 'nation's' boundaries (most often expanding to others' territory, without their consent and for whatever reason) then determine the behaviours of the groups (not often individuals) and cause problems to and for the rest of the world, especially the individuals, (who want none of this nonsense). Thus do we get 'nationalism'. This is the ultimate horror/terror of so-called 'humans'. The waving of nationalistic flags, the desecration of others' entitlements to survive on their own merits without the coercion and bullying of others. Nationalism breeds wars. There is no escape from this notion. 'History' has proven this. The 'history' of the 20th Century, is a history of wars, conflicts and other negative behaviours. It is not a century of 'peaceful co-existence'. Individuals have tried to correct this but to no avail. The notion of 'Nationalism' and its negative aspects seems to win. Nationalsim breeds wars because it has a group psychology that is unhappy, negative and sad, whatever it proclaims otherwise. Nationalism breeds terror and terrorists. They may well be our demise as a 'human' race because they seem to have control. That control is a belief of those who bow to the media, which in itself has become negative. We 'ordinary' people don't want this. We are happy in a sad and unhappy world created by controllers and despite them. I am most certainly not a 'bible-puncher'. There are, however, as in any book, a wealth of statements that are a truth and in this book., whoever said it, "What ye sow, so shall ye reap', is a truth. This is a truth, in my belief, that peoples commit themselves to. If any 'nation' comprising of immigrants, nomads and otherwise is commited to the destruction of others (by whatever means they devise) or by their pig-headed, ignorant, arrogant attitudes or negative behaviours and their acceptance of a one-creed philosophy and flag-waving mentality, then they deserve what they get. They have brought it upon themselves. But not the innocent, who are by definition innocent and individual. Migration and Immigrants No so-called Nation (however defined) has ever developed without its immigrants. Immigrants are those people who settle in other places from whence they are born and/or bred. All immigrants have their own cultures and sub-cultures which they take to their new home. (Home being defined as the place that they wish to live). This is what a so-called 'Nation' is all about. It is a variety of individuals (born by sexual reproduction which is the basis of our 'human' nature) who choose to live in a place that they consider they are now part of. However, the notion of 'When in Rome' does not always apply. I believe it is a spurious notion derived from those who would coerce others to believe them and not ourselves and force them into 'nationalistic' behaviours. Immigrants are different from nomads (although nomads may be immigrants!) Nomads Nomads are peoples that travel their earth only in search of sustainable materials for their existence. Nomads gather only what they need during the correct seasons for food and comfort. The nomad is the hunter/gatherer of any age. This certainly does not preclude his intelligence, which, probably, far outweighs that of many self-indulgent so-called 'intellectuals'. The earth belongs to no-one, god or otherwise, assumed or believed in any philosophy. Therefore no one person or group of persons has any entitlement to claim otherwise. As individuals, we may choose to live where we wish upon this earth. The notions of 'Territory', 'Country', 'Nation' and so forth, are notions created by humans; they are assumptions of the ignorant; they are not a reality nor a truth; they are created by controllers for their own ends. 'Territory' is a larger amount of ground than 'place'. Animals (including humans) have their 'territory'. They also have their 'place'. A place is a particular spot where they feel comfortable (not their 'place' in a hiearchy of human circumstance), the same way that a cat, for example, will complete several manoeuvres before settling to take rest. All animals (including humans) have a 'comfortable' place of rest. Their 'territory' is a function of their 'space'. 'Space' is what we consider, as animals, to be the area in which we feel most 'comfortable'. If another animal 'invades' this space, we feel threatened and react accordingly. Occupying anothers' 'territory' or 'space' without consent, is the act of a bully. We correctly get incensed when a person invades another's physical body without consent. We call this act, 'rape'. It is the violation of another. Most people will not accept this behaviour. Why do we then allow others, on a 'grander' scale to do the same thing? But that is history. It is also current history. |
| Return to CONTENTS page |