Activism Change

What is REAL?

Question:

                            OPEN LETTER Dear Conrad,      Please forgive me for not answering your sooner, but I have had to go through a lot of thinking about what I should be going in Cyberspace.  My goal here is to work as a transformationist which is why I thought a project studying the architectural structure of the Moo movement is very important to understanding the way the New World of Cyberspace is evolving.  And yes, I think we need to build a new architecture which *includes* all people.  In order to build a new architecture where everyone has equal access to the information technologies means that we must build a world founded on the ideal of sexual difference.  The purpose of my research is to redefine reality by revisualizing a world ruled by sexual difference, and thus, to construct a new planetary order based on this new balance of power.  To do this means we must change the economy of the Word.  Without this shift in power, the energy necessary to create a new architectural Vision will not be possible to amass. In Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette’s book _King, Warrior, Magician Lover:  Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine_, they write "Words, in fact, define our reality; they define our worlds.  We organize our lives and our worlds by concepts, by our thoughts about them, and we can only think in terms of words.  In this sense, at least, words make our reality and make our universe real" (53).      According to the Oxford English Dictionary, one of the meanings of the word "real" used as an adjective is royal, regal, kingly.  Used as a adverb real means "having an objective existence, actually existing as a thing."  From this definition one can see how, since the patriarchal revolution, the definition of reality has been connected with the objective world of things. Since, under patriarchy, the archetypal king is in control the land it is no wonder why land was called "real estate" and why everything public in Britain today is considered under the Queen’s domain.  Is it any surprise, then, that she is the wealthiest women in the world?  Is any wonder now why the global corporations are eyeing Cyberspace in terms of its real estate opportunity?  Is it any surprise that they see it as a possible new way to institute a global shopping mall?        In Roger Karraker article "Highways of the Mind" printed in _Whole Earth Review_, he writes, "So the metaphor of the need for "Highways of the Mind" across this land is very deceptive.  It really could turn out to mean "Super Toll Roads between Castles" (8).  If the global corporations are not stopped, the wealthy will move from Kingdom to Kingdom on the "Highways of the Mind". In an email post, sociologist Daniel A. Foss defines reality:      Reality, meaning, since the word began this sentence,      [the conventional interpretation of social] reality, is      also enforced *vertically*, by interested social,      economic, and political elites whose dominance of mental      life is called *hegemony* for short.  Meaning, that’s the      way things are, that’s how people do *business* in this      world, that’s the bottom line, that’s the nature of      things, things have always been this way, it’s human      nature, etc. ad inf. reflect assumptions enforced upon      the population by objectively existing rulers whose      rulership is ultimately based on monopolistic control of      the means of violence.      The Oxford English Dictionary also defines realism as the "Inclination or attachment to what is real;  tendency to regard things as they really are;  any view of system contrasted with Idealism."  It also says that realism is "the principle of giving practical subjects the chief place in education."  Furthermore, realpolitics is defined as "practical politics;  policy determined by practical, rather than moral or ideological considerations."      Clearly, we can see how the anti-ideology of "realism" has dominated over the ideology of the Neutopia, a future world which is not based on "real estate" but on the morality of human rights, free universal care, and Neutopian ecocity communal designs. Professor Drucilla Cornell points out in her book _Transformations: Recollective Imagination and Sexual Difference_, "Part of political struggle is to shift reality through shifting the meaning of our shared symbols.  Politics is not just about power but also about the very basis of what can be become "real" and thus accessible to consciousness and change (194)."          Another thought on these lines is the word "royalties" which are given to a writer or corporation or whoever for their creative output.  In the _New World Dictionary of the American Language_ it defines royalty as "a royal right, as over some natural resource, granted by a monarch to a person, corporation, etc.  The final part of the definition reads, "a share of the proceeds from his work, usually from his work, usually, a specified percentage, paid to an author, composer, etc."  For my poor struggling writer friends whose entire live work is bound up with selling their books so that they can make enough money to continue to have the income to support their writing, freedom of the Word in Cyberspace seems very threatening as it does to the rulers of the printed word who have made their Empires off the Word.  Could it be that if all written transactions, and therefore, knowledge, were to become free,  this then would lead to the downfall of the capitalist system since according to the "Holy Bible", "in the beginning there was the Word?"  Yes, first there was the Word and second come the Authors who said you are going to pay me a fee to hear my words so that I can pay the Authority, the hereditary King or Queen for a piece of "real estate" within the walls of the city.      In a capitalist system, royalties are part of the prestige system that determines who will be able to make a living off of their ideas and words.  Royalties determined who will get the payment.  For the most part, these are the writers who sell out and perpetuate the capitalist hegemony.  At this point in the information revolution and the development of the Internet, writers who have access can post their ideas for free.  So, for some, there is no toll booth in place for authoress/authors with which to collect in their writings so that their private wealth can increase in their bank accounts.        In a capitalist society, even the most virtuous writers with the most honorable goals for humanity are stuck in a royalty system.  For an authoress or author, a successful best seller could mean millions of dollars added to one’s account.  The "successful" revolutionary writer is then trapped perpetuating the very system he or she is attempting to overthrow. Therefore, success in a postmoderist context can be compromised by personal greed and criminality. The revolutionary writer of the book publishing Establishment is caught in a Catch-22.        How tempting it is for writers to say that they will not post their words for free, holding back their knowledge in order to "make a living" through their royalties.  Moore and Douglas write, "Whenever we are detached, unrelated, and withholding what we know could help others, whenever we use our knowledge as a weapon to belittle and control others, or to bolster our status or wealth at other’s expense, we are identified with the Shadow magician as Manipulator.  We are doing black magic, damaging ourselves as well as those who could benefit from our wisdom" (115).  The entire educational, medical, and legal professions are, in fact, working in this negative way, withholding information or services to those who can not afford them.  Without money it is difficult and nearly impossible for the poor to receive the knowledge and help that they need.  Capitalist doctors, lawyers, educators, and artists work black magic as they make money by making knowledge scarce when it ought to be free for all.     So, it all boils down to monarchy, monotheism, monopoly, and money, money the sacred abstraction of the rich.  Without it, one can not live.  The entire world social system circles around it. The rich and famous are the Queens and Kings, the stars of the money system who everything revolves around.  Hollywood star Queens complain that male stars make more millions than they do.  Yes, we can see the inequality of pay between women and men, but the real question for our image makers is: why aren’t they working for love; why aren’t they trying to free us for the evil of money?        We find the answer in a _Newsweek_ article on Hollywood: Hollywood has gone corporate and socially conscious films don’t sell.  Hollywood now has a global audience and new delivery systems.  Jeff Giles writes, "The film itself is just the celluloid "software" to feed into the media chain.  The software is only one product in the portfolio for a corporation juggling syndication rights, joint ventures and trade tariffs, all while cutting cost. And executives need to pull this off without pausing in the race for market share."        The world market is rapidly shifting from an industrial base to an information base, from a gold based currency to an electronic currency.  This shifting reality is presently in a state of global anarchy. What I have read about revolutionary millenarian movements is that this transition is precisely the way that they occur as we move from the old rules to no rules to the new rules. As of now, Cyberspace is a domain of no rules, of anarchy.  Anarchy seems to be a necessary stage in the development of revolution.  Without anarchy and the breaking down of the old rules of the world market, nationalism, and private property, the new rules of the synthesis of global democracy and personal meritocracy with the ordered world of Neutopian ecocites can not happen.  So, you see we are in a power struggle over which Image of Cyberspace will rule us.  

… read more »

Response:

                         OPEN LETTER Dear Conrad,      Please forgive me for not answering your sooner, but I have had to go through a lot of thinking about what I should be going in Cyberspace.  My goal here is to work as a transformationist which is why I thought a project studying the architectural structure of the Moo movement is very important to understanding the way the New World of Cyberspace is evolving.  And yes, I think we need to build a new architecture which *includes* all people.  In order to build a new architecture where everyone has equal access to the information technologies means that we must build a world founded on the ideal of sexual difference.  The purpose of my research is to redefine reality by revisualizing a world ruled by sexual difference, and thus, to construct a new planetary order based on this new balance of power.  To do this means we must change the economy of the Word.  Without this shift in power, the energy necessary to create a new architectural Vision will not be possible to amass. In Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette’s book _King, Warrior, Magician Lover:  Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine_, they write "Words, in fact, define our reality; they define our worlds.  We organize our lives and our worlds by concepts, by our thoughts about them, and we can only think in terms of words.  In this sense, at least, words make our reality and make our universe real" (53).      According to the Oxford English Dictionary, one of the meanings of the word "real" used as an adjective is royal, regal, kingly.  Used as a adverb real means "having an objective existence, actually existing as a thing."  From this definition one can see how, since the patriarchal revolution, the definition of reality has been connected with the objective world of things. Since, under patriarchy, the archetypal king is in control the land it is no wonder why land was called "real estate" and why everything public in Britain today is considered under the Queen’s domain.  Is it any surprise, then, that she is the wealthiest women in the world?  Is any wonder now why the global corporations are eyeing Cyberspace in terms of its real estate opportunity?  Is it any surprise that they see it as a possible new way to institute a global shopping mall?        In Roger Karraker article "Highways of the Mind" printed in _Whole Earth Review_, he writes, "So the metaphor of the need for "Highways of the Mind" across this land is very deceptive.  It really could turn out to mean "Super Toll Roads between Castles" (8).  If the global corporations are not stopped, the wealthy will move from Kingdom to Kingdom on the "Highways of the Mind". In an email post, sociologist Daniel A. Foss defines reality:      Reality, meaning, since the word began this sentence,      [the conventional interpretation of social] reality, is      also enforced *vertically*, by interested social,      economic, and political elites whose dominance of mental      life is called *hegemony* for short.  Meaning, that’s the      way things are, that’s how people do *business* in this      world, that’s the bottom line, that’s the nature of      things, things have always been this way, it’s human      nature, etc. ad inf. reflect assumptions enforced upon      the population by objectively existing rulers whose      rulership is ultimately based on monopolistic control of      the means of violence.      The Oxford English Dictionary also defines realism as the "Inclination or attachment to what is real;  tendency to regard things as they really are;  any view of system contrasted with Idealism."  It also says that realism is "the principle of giving practical subjects the chief place in education."  Furthermore, realpolitics is defined as "practical politics;  policy determined by practical, rather than moral or ideological considerations."      Clearly, we can see how the anti-ideology of "realism" has dominated over the ideology of the Neutopia, a future world which is not based on "real estate" but on the morality of human rights, free universal care, and Neutopian ecocity communal designs. Professor Drucilla Cornell points out in her book _Transformations: Recollective Imagination and Sexual Difference_, "Part of political struggle is to shift reality through shifting the meaning of our shared symbols.  Politics is not just about power but also about the very basis of what can be become "real" and thus accessible to consciousness and change (194)."          Another thought on these lines is the word "royalties" which are given to a writer or corporation or whoever for their creative output.  In the _New World Dictionary of the American Language_ it defines royalty as "a royal right, as over some natural resource, granted by a monarch to a person, corporation, etc.  The final part of the definition reads, "a share of the proceeds from his work, usually from his work, usually, a specified percentage, paid to an author, composer, etc."  For my poor struggling writer friends whose entire live work is bound up with selling their books so that they can make enough money to continue to have the income to support their writing, freedom of the Word in Cyberspace seems very threatening as it does to the rulers of the printed word who have made their Empires off the Word.  Could it be that if all written transactions, and therefore, knowledge, were to become free,  this then would lead to the downfall of the capitalist system since according to the "Holy Bible", "in the beginning there was the Word?"  Yes, first there was the Word and second come the Authors who said you are going to pay me a fee to hear my words so that I can pay the Authority, the hereditary King or Queen for a piece of "real estate" within the walls of the city.      In a capitalist system, royalties are part of the prestige system that determines who will be able to make a living off of their ideas and words.  Royalties determined who will get the payment.  For the most part, these are the writers who sell out and perpetuate the capitalist hegemony.  At this point in the information revolution and the development of the Internet, writers who have access can post their ideas for free.  So, for some, there is no toll booth in place for authoress/authors with which to collect in their writings so that their private wealth can increase in their bank accounts.        In a capitalist society, even the most virtuous writers with the most honorable goals for humanity are stuck in a royalty system.  For an authoress or author, a successful best seller could mean millions of dollars added to one’s account.  The "successful" revolutionary writer is then trapped perpetuating the very system he or she is attempting to overthrow. Therefore, success in a postmoderist context can be compromised by personal greed and criminality. The revolutionary writer of the book publishing Establishment is caught in a Catch-22.        How tempting it is for writers to say that they will not post their words for free, holding back their knowledge in order to "make a living" through their royalties.  Moore and Douglas write, "Whenever we are detached, unrelated, and withholding what we know could help others, whenever we use our knowledge as a weapon to belittle and control others, or to bolster our status or wealth at other’s expense, we are identified with the Shadow magician as Manipulator.  We are doing black magic, damaging ourselves as well as those who could benefit from our wisdom" (115).  The entire educational, medical, and legal professions are, in fact, working in this negative way, withholding information or services to those who can not afford them.  Without money it is difficult and nearly impossible for the poor to receive the knowledge and help that they need.  Capitalist doctors, lawyers, educators, and artists work black magic as they make money by making knowledge scarce when it ought to be free for all.     So, it all boils down to monarchy, monotheism, monopoly, and money, money the sacred abstraction of the rich.  Without it, one can not live.  The entire world social system circles around it. The rich and famous are the Queens and Kings, the stars of the money system who everything revolves around.  Hollywood star Queens complain that male stars make more millions than they do.  Yes, we can see the inequality of pay between women and men, but the real question for our image makers is: why aren’t they working for love; why aren’t they trying to free us for the evil of money?        We find the answer in a _Newsweek_ article on Hollywood: Hollywood has gone corporate and socially conscious films don’t sell.  Hollywood now has a global audience and new delivery systems.  Jeff Giles writes, "The film itself is just the celluloid "software" to feed into the media chain.  The software is only one product in the portfolio for a corporation juggling syndication rights, joint ventures and trade tariffs, all while cutting cost. And executives need to pull this off without pausing in the race for market share."        The world market is rapidly shifting from an industrial base to an information base, from a gold based currency to an electronic currency.  This shifting reality is presently in a state of global anarchy. What I have read about revolutionary millenarian movements is that this transition is precisely the way that they occur as we move from the old rules to no rules to the new rules. As of now, Cyberspace is a domain of no rules, of anarchy.  Anarchy seems to be a necessary stage in the development of revolution.  Without anarchy and the breaking down of the old rules of the world market, nationalism, and private property, the new rules of the synthesis of global democracy and personal meritocracy with the ordered world of Neutopian ecocites can not happen.  So, you see we are in a power struggle over which Image of Cyberspace will rule us.  

… read more »

Response:

Filed under: Human Rights

Related Posts

• Killing Civilian is a War Crimes
• Can your crew get help for you?
• Bastille Day Weekend
• Water war leaves Palestinians thirsty
• NY Times-The Death Factory
• Vote Nader, Bush&Gore both Suck.
• Journalist Beat and Jailed for Buying Toys for Poor Children
• Foreign campaign contributions - right-wing baloney
• Burma: Tourist Gets 7 Years for Singing
• Human Rights In Islam