salaamarifat

Fucked

2011-10-18T15:20:00.000-07:00

This is fucked. We have entered a new phase where globally, we have class conflict and the bourgeois values which continued to dominate from aristocratic times into modernity and even embody the baby boom generation in the North are being challenged. This leads to the question, who the fuck am I to comment? I have no idea where I stand in your eyes, and I have found very little social space in my life which hasn't been exposed as being mainly fictitious. As such I have craved interactions which avoid the lie of normalcy. My statements do not align me nor do they negate me. I am free, and I suffer, and it is good, and I'm happy but I am angry and you know what, there is no need anymore for pretensions. It is actually a beautiful song for the moment for me, and maybe for the era if everyone could get over themselves about Alanis. 'I've got one hand in my pocket, and another is holding up a peace sign'. Again, I quit smoking and I loved the line about flicking a cigarette. One insignifant non-outcome of my non-crisis with un-identity and my acultural expressions is whether I will smoke or not again.

Here is another thing. A lot of people say a lot of really fucked up things on internet forums, I've noticed. There is a tendency for discussions to degenerate. Sometimes people need to be scolded even for their ignorance. But, when you scold them for spelling and grammar instead, you are just exhibiting that same bourgeois tendency to exert power that you have based on your pedigree. Why not stick to the content of the message? Not being able, or not being willing to spell something properly, to communicate in a banal way for the sake of the pedantic expectations of the mediocre, to be free of grammar and spelling and worries about paragraph length or any such bullshit rules about good writing, and still write good, that should not be punished. Only that which is oppressive and coercive in nature should be rejected for the sake of freedom, not style. That way if someone comes forward with terrible English but radically inspiring forthright truth and reality, you won't be a hypocrite when you are able to celebrate these words as your liberation from imprisonment by your own limiting value system. Slap. Do you like being scolded? Now, go fuck off please. Get off the internet and find the Great One.

The Jinharian School

2010-10-02T14:20:00.002-07:00

My identity here is anon to the general public, known to some. But my last name is Jinha.

Today, after a long period of not writing and feeling somewhat frustrated with that, I did what I could and wrote down what I was thinking about. I was also frustrated with my Master's thesis and the way in which the Open Access movement has ironically become less open to diverse ideas about the Openness paradigm. By Openness paradigm, I am referring more to a change in approach to intellectual property provoked by the communications revolution than other uses. This paradigm is rather new in fact, and it may be premature to call it a paradigm. But it is real enough that the 'trailblazers' ought to be discussing it this way by now. Trailblazers are also those who can create new realities, new self-fulfilling prophecies. So, it is useful to talk of the paradigm and the shift.

The Openness paradigm is not just a new trail to blaze, it is a new trail system. The trails themselves create bridges, and openness is a kind of plateau where trails and barriers cease and open space and sky nourish development. We can say there are some natural and constructed barriers that these new trails alter, but they need not be destructive, and the plateau is natural and fruitful.

The Open Access movement is but one trail going towards and coming from Openness. It is a trail that must cut across many constructed barriers and to navigate some natural obstacles in order to arrive at the plateau. The plateau is a world where all the peer-reviewed research that exists can be accessed equitably, sustainably and efficiently by all who have desire and interest. The assumption is that in general desire and interest in knowledge is useful for human development and more useful when the desire and interest in not obstructed. The assumption is that in general, peer-reviewed research contains useful information that at least some people in all societies can use for the betterment of the human condition. The argument of the trailblazers is that this world is possible and perhaps inevitable. I agree with some reservations because this is a world of the future, and the future does not exist. In the world that does exist, I believe it is possible for me to get my hands on any research article that exists somewhere, and in particular if it on the world wide web, and we are moving closer toward a world where that is the reality for all who would have desire and interest. Then there is a question of the time, effort and resources it takes different people in different parts of the world to do this.

Partly my thesis suffers because I have lost my desire and interest in reading research articles. It also suffers because the Open Access movement has come to be dominated by a School of Thought I have a great respect for, but an ambivalence towards its dominance. I would argue that the School even has a leader, and thus since Schools of Thought are frequently named after their leaders, I would call this School the Harnadian School. And so, I decided to create my own School of Thought, one which does not yet exist since it has no adherents. Still, almost all Schools of Thought have some motivation which is reactionary, though the reactionary motivation can simply be to cease self-censoring one's dissent or disagreement and begin to synthesize reaction, original thought and to create new realities. Thus, the Jungian School was in part a reaction to the Freudian School, and yet it is more than a reaction.

So, instead of writing my thesis, I am creating a School of Thought. The Jinharian School.

I understand that one is not supposed to introduce a School of Thought by naming it after oneself, but rather one is meant to propose new ideas with humility and the job of naming Schools of Thought is left to adherents or opponents in posterity, or at least after some considerable work has been done so that the School is constructed first by the founder(s) and named later by others. I also get that MA students do not create Schools of Thoughts, but finish their theses.

This subversion of the normal pattern is however, consistent with the style of the Jinharian School.

I (Jinha), have also read Godel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter, which is excellent work indeed. Godel, Escher and Bach all did artistic and intellectual work which was 'self-referential', in maths, visual arts and music. Openness through the digital medium permits the possibility the establishment of a School of Thought in this way, or at the very least it permits the argument. At the very, very least it creates the possibility of arguing about it. But only if I continue in the future to explain further what I mean by this. So the School is at once established and not established in the same way my blog/book DuniaSutra (http://duniasutra.blogspot.com is always finished and unfinished, until perhaps one day it is no longer unfinished (but that future that does not exist). It is a bit like the poor old cat which has no name but is referred to as Schrodinger's. Fortunately for cats, Schrodinger was engaged in a thought experiment. This is not just a thought experiment, and fortunately there is no need to harm cats in the process. I love cats.

The Jinharian School is characterized by playfulness and barrierless erudition, something that is lacking in the academic world, but not necessarily lacking in the intellectual world. The Jinharian School loves academia when it respects the intellectual world and other realities with humility, but resists the dominance of academia.

The Jinharian School so far is concerned with more than the Openness paradigm, naturally, and the work cuts across traditional disciplines. Non-disciplinarity is preferred over mixed/prefixed disciplinarity (trans, inter, multi), and treats disciplinarity and mixed/prefixed disciplinarity neutrally in general, and evaluates on a case by case basis. Jinharians stake claims, they assume the responsibility of adult humans with capacity to be the seat of consciousness with regard to the world they observe. All sentient beings are the seat of consciousness and different sentient beings have different sets of experiences. Surprisingly, many involved in the intellectual and academic worlds give up that responsibility. Jinharians reject the notion that academic freedom can be granted externally. Like all freedoms, no one can grant it to you and reasonable restrictions should be applied equally to all based on the merits of the restrictions and the circumstance. Academic freedom is assumed within the ethical framework rooted in 'do no harm' and 'beneficience'. It is a freedom that requires understanding, so it is earned by understanding academic freedom, not by it being granted.

As the seat of consciouness, a Jinharian assumes that though they know little as compared to what can be known, there are conditions where distinctions can be made between true and not true, real and not real, and therefore knowledge is possible. A Jinharian understands that all claims are limited, but without stating claims there is no possibility for refining our understanding. All claims can be challenged but not all challenges have equal merit.

As the seat of consciousness, a Jinharian is very careful and rigorous with claims when the stakes are high with regard to the claim being applied. A Jinharian understands that as the seat of consciousness it would be foolish make false claims that lead to harm, such as 'I can fly' leading to falling to one's death. It's rather foolish for most people under most circumstances to take psychedelic substances that compromise one's judgment of reality. It can be foolish for some people to believe they are taking pscyhedelic substances under improved circumstances, when in fact they are not sufficient. It may be wise for some people to avoid them completely. All of this is to leave open the possibility that under certain circumstances, the substance-provoked altered states could be beneficial to one as the seat of consciousness. Most people reading this would be fooling themselves to think of themselves in this category, including me. It's a bit of a sidetrack, so back to School.

However, in exploration, too much care and rigour stifles thought, and playfulness is important. The stakes may be high, and so is the cost of the stifling. In the end, the process of change balances rigour and playfulness. A Jinharian may go through a process to establish the claim and make the claim first, with the knowledge that the claim will provoke sufficient dialogue to take a dialectical path to the truth. The Jinharian often sees it as necessary to leave the doors and windows open and shout to invite the street in.

A poetic style is common to Jinharians. Humour is central.

Here are the topics.

Jinharian School of Thought

Topics
1.The Openness Paradigm (Communication, technology, intellectual property, human development, reciprocal game theory)
2.New theory of money (Right to capital, human endowment, money creation, monetary policy, money and ideology, currency, barter, reciprocal game theory)
3.Encompassing realism (truth (epistemology), reality (ontology), time, God, the human condtion)
4.Time

There is no god but...

2010-03-22T21:55:00.000-07:00

The first part of the Shahada, the Islamic creed, reads 'there is no god but God'. Contained within the Shahada is the creed of atheism, there is no God. Atheism is the first pillar of enlightenment, the second pillar is faith. This is grossly misunderstood by nearly everyone, especially believers and atheists.

Faith has no purpose where there isn't truth, truth implies a possibility of the real as opposed to the illusory. The purpose of skepticism is to eradicate illusions with the same ascendance of a reality.

One of these illusions is god. However, the truth and what is real as opposed to what is illusory is also known as God. The difference in god and God is the level of humility and honesty of the person who mouths the word. Humility arises in knowing one's imperfections and limits when it comes to understanding truth and reality, in understanding God. Honesty arises in the courage to stay with truth and reality and to speak of it.

When it comes to religious belief, there are many erroneous notions about what god is. It is that way now, and it was that way at the time the Shahada was revealed or discovered. What is different now, is that there are less erroneous notions about the physical world and indeed about our social and mental worlds. There is less need for gods, and just as much desire for God. The desire for God remains because we die. We don't know and can't know what happens to us after we die. If we think about that honestly, it means we can't exactly pin down who and what it is we are as we live; are we mind, body, soul, spirit, consciousness, individuated, connected, alone in the universe and what for? Therefore, with all that science can tell us, we are still and always will be, on an existential cliff with no one to catch us.

So, this relationship between individual and God remains important. But it does not help us on the path to enlightenment if we are just concerned with 'what happens to me' and 'who am I' and 'I need to find myself'. That only leads to comforting words we want to hear, a kind of spiritual pampering.

Truth requires negation. Truth requires discovery. It is one of those yin-yang things. The Tao Te Ching says 'know the yang, but stick to the yin'. So above all, truth requires a belief that it is possible and responsible to exercise discernment, discretion and humility with regard to finding out what is not true (negation) and what is true (discovery). It is not expected either that one can judge an axiom or a fact if it is presented without rationale or evidence, that one can discover or negate as simply as that. This is why one is foolish to look at 'God exists' as an article of faith that is opposed to 'God does not exist'. One simply can't start with either statement.

Instead, tradition has always dealt with such questions with subtlety, or rather we would regard it as subtle because we are in such a fog. The Shahada is part of that tradition. Some people might actually believe that the Shahada gives Muslims the real God over other religions, making Islam the true religion above others. This is the kind of nonsense that belongs in the negation side of the Shahada, it is a god.

In the end it's quite direct and obvious what is going on. The first part offers the possibility of negation in the search for truth, reality, god or gods, faith etc. It offers the possibility of being mistaken, and thus becoming humbled, emptying oneself of illusion. Then it offers the possibility of discovery, if all of these illusions are not god, then what? ....there is no god but.... Maybe the Shahada should have left it to a dot,dot,dot, a wide open space, but emptiness and the Dharmakaya was already a wind blowing from the Far East. Again, it's yin and yang. Nothing and something. From zero to universe in a singularity. Monotheism gives us the fullness of the universe, that which is arising in emptiness as real. As God.

This may seem highly esoteric, arrogant and opinionated. But it is an important discussion.

The problem with theism is that is doesn't practise enough negation. That gives power to religious authorities and ordinary people alike to abuse the power of our ignorance and the power of the possibility of discovery to harm, create suffering and even genocide. Theists need to practise atheism in order to navigate manipulations both coming from others and coming from within themselves. Manipulations that seduce one towards power, be it for control over what is feared, or to acquire what is desired. These seductions displace truth, the connection with reality, for illusions that are more useful than truth in the pursuit of power.

The problem with atheism is that it stops with negation. If we have discovered the means to discover everything, then there is nothing really and truly to discover, it is just a matter of waiting for other people to collect the truth. The problem with atheism is that in all its rationality it cannot bootstrap itself onto reality. It appears to have not been responsible for any of the bad things that have happened in humanity. That also turns out to be a cop-out, for in negation one copes with the question of existential responsibility in the same way the religious cope through duty to God.

Atheism is ultimately a reactionary system, retreating on the difficulties of navigating the tension between discovery and mystery when they go beyond what the atheist fairly arbitrarily decides is a line. The theist also has an unfortunate line, and that stops the theist from asking the questions needed to arrive at truth. The atheist's line prevents them from going further in discovering who they are in relation to the universe, it is undiscovereable. The theists line prevents them from unearthing religious or other comforting delusions they have about themselves in relation to the universe. The tragedy is that in time, their chances pass, and only because people continuously seek comfort and power in gods.

Ultimately that is what the Shahada represents, the tension between discovery and mystery, the struggle to negate illusion, and open space to discover reality. It saddens me that in this day and age when we have discovered so much, many Muslims will negate discovery on the basis of something they were taught by religious authorities. That is not the idea, it is exactly what Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)was fighting against at the time. The tension between mystery and discovery helps us remove the illusions that result in oppression, it allows us to discover dignity in being human.

The best thing that can happen to a theist is for them to embrace atheism without losing faith in God. The best thing that can happen to an atheist is to surrender atheism without embracing illusions. Contradiction in words is a reflection of its opposite in reality.

When we have no last leg to stand on, we can walk together in the reality of a cool spring day. There is no god, but God.

The Truth About Enlightenment

2009-11-22T06:40:00.000-08:00

I was feeling desperately lonely, having made a hard, hard decision. I thought of posting at Cafe Molo in Wakefield a blank piece of paper except for a title. The title would say 'I'm lost, looking for real happiness, can you give me directions.' Then people can write something from their wisdom. Maybe I still will do that.

But don't say 'be true to yourself', I did that, it was hard and I am lonely.

Don't say 'start from where you are', that's what I'm doing.

Don't say 'have faith', that's all this is.

I don't know if you can give advice to a lover.

The health food store will sell you down the river.

You go to a guru because they have power, but power is what you claim and you can claim it for yourself. Power, like money, its a lot of headaches.

Whatever happened to that book you bought with money that could have gone to the poor.

The truth about the ritual, the mystery, the incense, the scripture, the priest and imam, the stories and those conversations about God is that these are things to get you in the mood. Like decorations at a birthday party. And when you're looking up at the prayer flag, you trip and fall down the well. If you can let go, that is surrender. If you wanted to be with God, you only have to wake up in the morning.

It is make-believe to think that enlightenment takes pain away and makes your life easy, if anything it makes life more difficult because it is real. The objective of the spiritual path is not to rise above others, the objective is to keep rising yourself each day.

Now, the enlightened get lonely when the people turn away from the rich joy of reality, when they are preoccupied with petty things, when they are cruel, when they miss the point and crawl down a hole instead of stretching out towards the empty sky, when they are miserable and make excuses for giving up their dreams, when they see far more tragedy than there is, when they see far more romance than there is. Wind, rain, fire, dirt, sea, billions of species of life around us, instincts, intellect, governments, lovers, people. We walk within and among, lightly. Meet us in the heart of the spirit's dream.

Maybe in Wakefield.

Everyday People

2007-07-28T21:31:00.001-07:00

Enlightenment is becoming on ordinary person.

Doing your best, caring for your loved ones and the world, being kind, compassionate, balanced and fair and honest, having good judgment, accepting your imperfections, loving God and surrendering.

Peace is through faith that living each day as an ordinary person is living with reality and the results are in the hands of the divine. It is not that first you must find inner peace before helping others, you cannot work through the whole harvest before you feed your family.

Peace is deeper than feeling relaxed and satisfied. You have to stand in the fire of life and learn not flinch. Working steadily, day after day, to feed yourself and your family, to learn and grow, knowing that a simple and true good heart is what is asked for you by God. Simply to respond to the world as a true ordinary human being.

This blog is about peace and enlightenment, linked through that surrender to the divine and faith, nothing special.

Breaking News, December 1st, 2006

2007-07-28T21:30:00.001-07:00

Today, as the earth rotated in orbit around the sun, the interaction ofthe sun’s energy and the earth’s ecosystem and atmosphere provided lifefor 6 billion people, and countless numbers of members of other species.Millions of people told other people that they loved them, andinterestingly, the same number of people was told that they were loved.Large numbers of people became new parents or grandparents, and committedto loving and raising children.

Many thousands of people fell in love.Hundreds of thousands of people made love. Many people died a peacefuldeath surrounded by loved ones. A lot of people in virtually everycountry in the world today started new jobs and businesses, kept or foundshelter, gained access to clean water, took medicines that made themhealthier, exercised, cooked meals for each other, prayed, meditated,attended school or university, recovered from illness, made a healthylifestyle choice, quit an addiction, used a condom, helped theircommunity, were helped by someone and a great deal of people laughed untiltheir sides hurt.Millions of people had mutually beneficial relationships with animals suchas cats and dogs and both wild and farm animals. Hundreds of thousands ofpeople appreciated nature, many others did something to protect it.Scientists all over the world made discoveries that enhanced ourknowledge, and if used wisely, these will improve many people’s lives.

The nearly unnoticeable phenomenon of people, and other organisms, finding delight in a small or big thing occurred with a frequency that is hard totrace. These include but are not limited to enjoying a morning coffee, asunset, singing in the shower or elsewhere, noticing a squirrel preparefor the winter, the genius of nature, an uplift from an animal, watchingthe water, skipping stones, watching children discover something, fixingsomething, random acts of kindness (especially anonymous ones) etc. Manycountries passed laws today that protected their citizens. Hundreds ofthousands of crimes were solved. Useful things were invented or designed,projects and events were planned, and a great deal of groups of peoplecollaborated to make something good happen. A surprising number ofconflicts were resolved, both within and between people, families, nationsand even between nations. Vast numbers of people engaged in interestingconversations and the reports coming in today of people coming up withcreative ideas have overwhelmed this journalist. There are even reports ofpeople attaining enlightenment or finding God. Millions of people todaymentored someone. Close to a billion people met someone they had never metbefore. Hundreds of thousands of people made a friend. 12,002 peoplecalled an old friend they hadn’t seen in years.

Today, the temperature fell below zero at cloud level, this createdbillions of dazzlingy beautiful crystals, each entirely unique, which thenfell from the sky coating the ground in soft, white, feather-like cover.It is the first time this season this has happened, meteorologists aresaying that it will occur frequently over the next few months. This causedsome to worry that we would have too much of a good thing, but experts advise us to be cheerful throughout, as it is known to prevent disease and extend life.

These fascinating events were downplayed by a local politician who isquoted as saying “It’s an average day, we feel that this government hastaken the right steps and these are the results.” An unimpressed citizencommented, “I don’t know what all the fuss is about.” But, the mostrevealing comments on today’s events came from a six-year old who woke upearly today, looked out his window and, jumping on his parent’s bed said“It’s snowing! Come on, get up, let’s go make a snowman!”Precise statistics were difficult to obtain on today’s events, some citingthat statisticians, on average, spend less than .0002% of their timestudying good things that happen (except one renegade statistician whocame up with the stat about calling old friends). In researching thisarticle, this journalist attempted to search “Google” for number ofmarriages per day, but this sophisticated search engine must havemalfunctioned because it’s first result was “Divorce Rates - DivorceStatistics Collection”.

Many bad things did happen today. These are covered at length in othernews articles. So please, protect the planet, love each other, and finddelight every day – so this story gets more of the balance.

The Great Invisible Big Toe

2007-07-28T21:28:00.001-07:00

Working in a large University, as an agent of change at the lower end of the pole, I made the following observation: the Law of the Giant Invisible Toe.

Those at the upper end of the pole can have enormous toes, the larger they are the more invisible they are so you don't know if you will step on one.

Those at the bottom working for change cannot see the toes, and since they are large they step on them.

Stepping on these toes causes a reaction. The reaction is usually overstated given that these are small toes that are stepping on big ones.

Those with small toes at the bottom end of pole rarely get stepped on, when they do they are not allowed to do anything about it.

Thus the Law is that the small toes are not permitted to step on the big ones, which are invisible. But it is hardly noticed when the big ones step on the small ones.

The good news is that toes are only a small part of the body, and when minds reach great things are possible.

Be good.

Changing Our Nation

2007-07-28T21:26:00.000-07:00

International development is not a place where I can help people.

People generally do not need my help. And I cannot help them. I am better at changing structures. I cannot change their structure, unless this is their implication of me in such change, or if we are together and there is no they. I can change the structure that allows me to belong to it.

The structures that I can change must allow me to belong to them, must be the ones I'm immediately apart of, those of my community, my country, my cultures. I can change these structures in a way that reduces their interference in the emancipation of other communities, countries and cultures.In this way, I have helped myself, my community, my country and my culture because it lessens its interference with others, and therefore achieves greater harmony, equality and justice. Equality and justice exist in relationships between those who have more and those who have less, those who have power and those who don't. Injustice and inequality bind both sides, and the opposites liberate the two poles when equality and justice become the foundation for societies, and create relatively just inequalities.

In such societies, the quality of life of the most disadvantaged is the first concern. International development is really about changing our nation.