My definition of philosophy is personal truth, and my own truth guides me through life.
I will describe my own thoughts through short, practical essays with a length of between one thousand to two thousand words.
The concepts in the essays will be expanded upon in the book ‘The Philosophy of Intention’.
Philosophical Essays
I will publish a series of practical essays on various topics with the common theme of freedom. The standalone essays will be detailed enough to present a concept while the overarching thesis will be developed over the course of numerous short essays.
#3
Faith In this essay I will look at humans and the concept of faith in our world. This term is perhaps too general, and perhaps used at times to belittle someone else’s convictions. I have normally heard the word used as ‘confidence in someone/something’ or ‘absolute belief in someone/something’. These are two distinct definitions. Having faith that a person will do the right thing implies doubt. Belief in God implies no doubt. Whatever the definition, there is no absolute proof behind faith. So how can these two definitions be reconciled under the umbrella of one word? I don’t know if they can, but it brings up an interesting point. Before I dive in, I will briefly recap the first two essays. In the first two essays I looked at the human genetic predisposition to serve and the fact that the majority are manoeuvred into serving a minority. In the first essay I looked at freedom and I stated that humans are not free. More so, I argued that the human mind was designed to serve, obey and to be creative. The first two characteristics are the foundation of our totalitarian world, the third is critical for our overlords to obtain useful work from us. In the second essay I argued that humans are steered towards serving the few via two critical institutions, schools and businesses. Schools are in part used to instill a mindset of obedience; businesses are used to apply philosophical principles of servitude to maintain the powerful. In this essay I will argue that faith is not limited to a vague notion of hope nor an unquestioning belief in God. I will argue that humans believe blindly in virtually anything they are told. This includes scientists, artists, politicians, philosophers and business leaders. I believe that all people are manipulated into believing in the ideas that powerful men put forth. I will argue that events that structure our world and our faith in them is nothing more than belief in a powerful man’s idea. I will argue that humans confuse theories and ideas with facts. I will argue that those who control us know this well and use trickery to poison our thoughts via the mechanism of faith. Let us start by looking at macro examples in our world. Anything from the theory of climate change to the big bang theory, to the theory of human evolution, to why the world is at war, to what is consciousness. Any of these macro arguments will do. These examples are not the same in substance and this is why I have chosen them. It really makes no difference once you scratch the surface. I would challenge any person to explain any of the above arguments in detail using his or her own words. Can the reader prove any one of the above to yourself, or does the reader simply have faith because that is what is expected of the masses? The reader will have noticed an important word in three of the five examples. The word ‘theory’. This noun is not an easily definable word, perhaps confused by design, perhaps by accident. We could look at theory as something that derives from the scientific method, but this is often not the case. Theories are often little more than ideas to explain something that humans struggle to understand. In this short essay I cannot consider all five examples, so I’ll look at one. Let us take the fun little idea called the big bang theory. Humans can’t understand how our universe simply just ‘was’, therefore, it had to start. I find this to be a bizarre and desperate supposition, but I do understand why many people crave an explanation for our universe. Thus someone made a proposal and this became the idea of the big bang. I will state clearly that I highly doubt that scientists who defend this theory actually believe it explains the origins of the universe, assuming the universe originated at all. Yet many people I’ve encountered believe this theory to be fact. I think it takes a massive leap of faith to believe this theory if one starts thinking about it with a critical mind. No one was there. No scientist can prove the physical laws at the ‘beginning’ were the same as now. No one knows what came before it, assuming anything came before it. The big bang theory sounds suspiciously like a miracle. I have never met a person nor read an article that has convinced me that the big bang was the absolute start-up of everything. Assuming there was a start-up. But I have heard the term ‘big bang’ used often for the creation of our universe. I have noticed that ‘theory’ is not tacked on to the end. It’s just ‘after the big bang’. I have never heard anyone describe the event to my satisfaction, yet it seems to be fact in the mind of many people. Why? Because ‘science’ said so? Did ‘science’ actually say so or has a proposal been warped into fact? This strikes me as faith. A blind, unquestioning belief in someone else’s idea. Who thought it up? Based on what? Why do people from all walks of life in the West say the universe started with a big explosion from a dot? A dot. A big dot, a small dot, a medium sized dot? This isn’t clear to me. Apparently, a single point that included everything in the universe is now expanding into vast nothingness. And perhaps our universe will contract back into a dot and start over. Everything that exists came from a dot that was floating in the ‘outer-nothing’. It sounds suspiciously like the hand of God intervened. How exactly is that scientific? What does it take to believe this if not faith? What other aspects in our lives can we not explain personally but we fiercely believe? And why? Because some ponderous institution or some man with a dozen degrees hanging on his wall said this is the truth? If we cannot reasonably explain something ourselves and we choose to believe it then we are relying on faith. If we are honest, there is no human alive that can explain the myriads of theories or practical aspects of life well enough not to rely on faith. The most brilliant scientist and the most erudite philosopher will base their thinking on others. They will be forced to use faith if they state a fact they cannot explain. Thus, we rely on assumptions. Assumptions given to us by whom and why? When we rely on ideas given to us by others we are moving into a faith mindset. I argue this makes humans easier to govern. I choose to briefly question the idea of the big bang because I find it to be a fairly harmless theory to believe in. I can’t see the harm in someone having faith that everything started with a dot. But I believe it masks the disturbing likelihood that faith permeates our life and we simply accept what is told to us but those who govern. If a person believes in the big bang without being able to explain a single aspect of the theory, then what else does he or she believe in? If we continue to offer blind faith to our institutions, what can we be coerced into doing? Will we change our lives to suit the next theory which then becomes an act of faith? The answer is yes, because humans continue to do so. Does this essay state that the above-mentioned theories and ideas are untrue? That is outside of the scope of my thesis. This essay is not to confirm or refute theories, but to point out the fact that we are not making our own decisions based on hard thinking logic. Humans take at face value what is told to them by supposed superior thinkers and powerful institutions. I personally believe that each person can be his or her own mentor. Relying on someone else weakens personal critical thinking abilities. So now I will return to my first essay. If we want a chance at freedom, we will need to apply our own logic to the world. If something doesn’t ring true, then we should trust our gut. I believe it’s time to put the sacred cows out to pasture.
#2
Steered towards Servitude In my first essay I argued that humans are not free because we are genetically programmed to be creative worker slaves. I stated that we can easily be trapped into roles which require obedience because of our genetic makeup, but I would be remiss not to look at how we are driven to entrapment. In this second essay I will look at the concept that genetic programming is not sufficient to control humans, thus we are steered towards servitude. Schooling, Big Business, and ideology are the tools used against us. The essay will only touch on the arguments and in the future my book will go into much greater depth. Let me begin with schooling and learning. In general, are key elements used to guide the human race towards a mentality of perpetual servitude. Nation state histories and ideologies are the common foundation with which to build the house of lies. An incontestable sludge that describes how a nation was founded, thanks of course to ‘universal’ ideas of freedom and prosperity for all. These one-sided histories and forced patriotism are extremely common, and I would argue universal. They are hammered into the young person’s head and reinforced with the naming of squares, streets and monuments after the men who ‘created’ the particular nation state. Thus, the schooling itself goes far beyond what is taught in the classroom. Whatever the form of government, left, centre or right, we are surrounded by physical manifestations of ideological teachings. These have the purpose of reminding us to obey the ideals of our founding fathers. Never have I heard of founding mothers of any nation state. The learning and teaching always begins with a group of wealthy middle-aged men who sculpted our glorious future years ago. I will briefly touch upon schooling, then I will continue on to business, the second part of the strategy to steer humans towards servitude. I believe that the focus of learning should be the basics to ensure a child has full access to the aspects that govern modern societies and the ability to challenge them. There are three basic items, reading, writing and arithmetic. To these one can add art, music, culture and to some degree, history (though not in the ideological way it is taught and I will tackle his in a separate essay). Once the basics have been grasped (note, not mastered) a student can be encouraged to study other specific subjects. But the problem is these subjects are often driven ideologically by industry, governments and big business. I have spent many years in working in industry. In my time, I have often heard complaints that young workers entering the workforce for the first time have not been properly instructed by the schools in how to work. I personally rejoice each time I imagine that a youngster starting in a company comes with a fresh mind that had not been corrupted by the slave mentality. I like to think that they received open, unbiased instruction so that they can affect change instead of blindly obeying. But I fear that what I see is an illusion. A projection from my own mind hoping beyond hope. What I see are bright-eyed kids who have coated in ideological sludge. I fear my colleagues do not see that the new worker was indeed corrupted by the ideology of servitude. So, in reality, my colleagues complain that the youngsters have not been not sullied enough. They do not actively think this with malice, it is simply a result of the society that is bending us. The ideology is simple, obey your superiors and tow the company line. It is a straight forward, soul crushing militaristic way of thinking applied to all of society. I cannot think of a more egregious formative procedure than instructing students to conform to the standards of Western business philosophy. Business dismembers creativity and has repercussions far beyond the workplace. If business philosophy settles into a young person’s conscience, it impacts all levels of his or her thinking and encourages obedience to whatever creed the political thinking of the day requires from its slave class. Teaching a young adult to adhere to so-called business ‘ethics’ is pure manipulation and distorts the perception of reality. There is the risk that one will actually begin to believe that Big Business has ethics, when their only reason for being is to amass obscene amounts of wealth in the hands of the few. And to act as another weapon of control on society. I do not know where the foolish refrain of ‘rich businessmen create opportunities’ comes from, and I wonder if anyone actually believes it. It does not seem reasonable to me that the people spouting this nonsense can believe it to be true considering governments create laws to favour Big Business and not local ones. Perhaps the lucky man who has inherited a powerful business and believes it is his divine right to govern over his employees might see himself as spreading benevolence through nonsense jobs. But does he actually believe he would have been in the position to dish out merciful handouts had he not been born sucking on a silver spoon? If he believes the rich make the poor richer, I have nothing to say. If he doesn’t, then he knows there is nothing that he does to provide jobs, but rather, it is the sum of the parts of his business that does all the work for him. What is significant is that we are told that Big Business is a force for good which makes us rich. For a tiny fraction of the population, it is true, for most it is a lie. To make this system work, it is sufficient to obey the lie, one need not believe it. By accepting that Big Business is doing much for the collective good is another spoke in the helm of slavery. I believe viewing slavery only in the classic example of humans taken away in chains and sent to work in the fields and factories does us a great disservice. This is one example of slavery, an extreme one, but it is not the only one. Viewing the extreme as the only reprehensible version of slavery risks clouding our judgement towards what is not as extreme. Our way of proletariat life in the workplace is simply a lesser form of slavery. You obey the person above you regardless of the logic of his or her decisions. Your pay depends on this, without it, you cannot live. Unconsciously for the worker, but consciously for those who run our world, a mild form of slavery has replaced an extreme form of it. This has been made possible due to an indoctrination as described in the paragraphs above. With constant brainwashing an abhorrent system has not only become acceptable, it has become right and just. By accepting this system our basic civil/human rights are eroded while we are coerced into believing that this is a free life. This is not freedom by my measuring stick, but simply a chain with a long lead. Yet this organization of our Western society is accepted as inevitable, as though it were the rising sun. It seems as if the system of governance was something out of our control. Instead of deeply considering whether or not our system is conducive to a good life, too many people immerse themselves in it, hoping to climb the ladder. The goal then becomes reaching a questionable retirement age. That’s it. Work at some pointless job and hope you don’t die before you retire so you can enjoy a geriatric cruise. This way of thinking, acting and obeying is then passed along to subsequent generations. This is possible because there is a translucent hand that is guiding this. How do I know this? Because I, like many of you, am living proof of it.
#1
We Are Not Programmed for Freedom In this brief essay I will argue that humans are not free because we are genetically programmed to be creative worker slaves. Governed from birth to conduct our lives as servants, we can easily be trapped into roles which require obedience. I believe recognition of this genetic predisposition is critical if the goal is to achieve freedom for humanity. By recognizing what we are, I believe over a course of generations it will be possible to effect change in and across cultures. The definition of freedom may never be fully understood or agreed upon, but respecting the right to live as one chooses is a tangible goal. Before I argue my thesis, I will briefly indicate the simple definitions of freedom that I will be using. One can think of these definitions as the ‘gravel’ under the ‘concrete’ of my argument. Briefly, a person is free if he or she has freedom of expression, can think what he or she wants, and the person cannot be a slave. I will not extend the definition of freedom to a person who can ‘act as he or she wants’, as I can find no reasonable qualifier for this statement making it impossible to apply to my arguments. From our birth up until our early years we are completely dependent on caregivers for survival. This is not a short period of time like most other creatures, this goes on for many years. Young humans are bonded to whomever will keep them fed, clothed, warm, clean, safe, accepted and housed. I believe that without love and acceptance a human is doomed to be miserable, but I also believe that a genetic component results in our wanting to be controlled. This dependent start is necessary for our species, but the fact that it persists leads to a life of obedience. The question of why it persists is often thought to be environmental and cultural, but I argue that our strong need for unquestioning order and stability is based on our genetic makeup. These genetic factors encourage humans to obey and allow for control of the masses. These genetic elements are easily exploited by people in positions of power. Let us consider the human mind as an organ distinctly and specifically designed for three services: to obey, to work and to be inventive. These three attributes may seem mutually exclusive, but I will argue that they coexist perfectly well. We need to solve problems in our everyday life that require creativity, yet we easily fall into line when an authority orders us to do something, regardless of the coherence of the order. We see this in zero tolerance laws, we see this in government control, we see this in wars against inexistent enemies, we see this in business. I believe the workplace is a simple example in which to examine my thesis in this short essay. In the modern workplace the worker is expected to labour to set rhythms, solve problems and tow the company line. With approximately thirty years of work experience, twenty of these in multi-lingual and multi-national workplaces, I have seen no exceptions. Every single company I have worked for or collaborated with, either as a client or as an employee, expects obedience, problem solving and constant output. In my experience, the company receives all three from the average worker without question. This might seem perfectly logical for business, but what I have seen and experienced is anything but logical. I argue that businesses are inherently irrational, unless viewed through the lens of oppressing humans. Consider the link between modern day money practice, business and human nature. The mechanisms of money control can trace its roots back thousands of years when the loaning of capital was used to gain power over an individual and govern society. This has not changed; he who loans or gives work is the man who is in control. Since humans are easily controlled, this continues in the workplace which serves as a diluted military. Business does not leverage the human condition for the survival of the business itself, nor to guarantee a living wage for all. It may attempt to create a work life balance because the current Western dominated business model expects it, but the fundamental goal of business is to create profit. Therefore, business can be seen as logical if the owner or shareholders wish to maintain a state of human repression by taking advantage of what we are: creative slave workers. I cannot view business as logical as I view humanity through our potential, not what our genetics determine us to be. My hope is that enough of humanity will recognize what humans are and make every effort to create a freer life for all. Unfortunately, human genetics makes business control possible and personal freedom difficult to achieve. To better understand my thesis of business and the human condition, one only needs to work in a small sized company for full comprehension. There is no meritocracy that will be rewarded to a human who will not blindly obey. If a business must choose between a thinking creative or a thinking slave, the business will choose the latter. The business will choose the bondsman even if the output is lower for the simple reason of governability. One might expect that such irrational thinking would lead to the inevitable failure of the business itself, but I will argue the exact opposite. In my experience all businesses repudiate the erudite free human. Therefore, all businesses sink to the lowest common denominator and a dysfunctional society governed by business can stay afloat. Simply put, this appalling system works because virtually everyone adopts it. Let us look at the effects of being a creative worker slave via the challenge of going against the grain in a workplace. It does not matter if you have the agreement of your entire workshop or office, when you challenge the board of directors you stand alone. If you do not have the mental fortitude to accomplish this task, I would argue it is not advisable to mount a challenge. If you do not even have the strength to stand behind someone willing to risk his proverbial skin, then you have even less reason to attempt change. Consider one of the definitions of freedom in the beginning of this essay, the freedom of expression. I ask those who disagree with my thesis to imagine confronting a high-ranking manager about a question that is inherently wrong to the workers but desired by the board of directors. If the reader is put in that situation, I think it would become clear to him or her that humans have freedom of expression insofar as it does not cause any disruption. To me that is not freedom at all. The reason why humans fall into the pattern of creative obedient work is that we are genetically programmed to do so. I will state boldly with no exceptions; every single last one of us on planet earth is programmed to serve. Those who live their lives free of these constraints can do so because they have strong-armed their own genetics and have concentrated on being creatives. These free humans have understood that happiness is not the end goal for living, only by being creative can a human attain freedom. Why is it that humanity cannot change society to be free? There are many reasons but since I am analysing the genetic human condition, I will consider only this aspect. Humans are made up of three parts: the creative, the worker and the slave. Therefore, two thirds of a human’s essence is obsequious and the remaining third has the monumental challenge to overcome the less desirable aspects of his or her being. I argue that there is a genetic reason why one must put in a much greater effort to break out of a negative mentality and embrace a positive one than vice versa. I do not support the thesis that our condition it is due exclusively to culture and upbringing. It is easier to stay trapped than it is to become free because we are programmed to obey. Thus, the task for gaining personal freedom is greater because of the effort to overcome our genes. But it is not a match to win, freedom requires constant mental sustain. These efforts are hampered by the fact that a person who wishes to find personal freedom will not find him or herself surrounded by others seeking the same objective. There is often no ill will nor indifference from other people, they are simply programmed not to rock the boat. The concept of freedom is immensely complex, but since it is strongly felt by many, I believe the concept should be analysed in detail in future essays. I maintain that achieving freedom for humanity is hampered by the fact that the majority are not aware that we are programmed for servitude. This secret knowledge is used against humanity to keep the knowing few governing the unknowing many. This implies that we humans have not lost our way. Instead, we are exactly on the path that was genetically encoded in us. This does not mean that we cannot reach for the stars, but it does mean we need to understand where we are starting from if we wish to improve our lot. Humans are not free, so we have much work ahead of us.