In this last week zandtao has felt the encroaching inhumanity of computers and the collective participation of computer-oriented mentality that is replacing people in their jobs. This was a small encroachment that just went the daa-daaa doom of harbingery. It involved the computers at 2 corporate human-replacement services. The first was Google who have invaded everyone’s life, whose McMindfulness probably gives their pleasant computer front-ends a feeling of well-being.
Here is the event that zandtao imagines is not atypical. Zandtao pays for Google One so that there are links to books on his website. His payment method was what is called a webcard, an online Visa payment method. His old one expired, he entered his new one and Google said “The account is closed” – no other information. Zandtao took out a case and had civil communication with Google support that did not offer a solution. Now the webcard was not closed as zandtao uses it 2 or 3 times a week so he was confused. He sent a speculative email to his bank who then encouraged him to phone. When he phoned the civil support told him that the transaction with Google had been flagged as potential fraud. They facilitated the use of the card to pay Google. Ended fine.
Why has zandtao flagged this trivial interaction. In the final communication Google support, presumably as a matter of policy, said “Please ensure that your payment method remains up to date to avoid any disruptions in service”. Again this sounds perfectly reasonable until you place it in a wider context. It is up to you, zandtao, to comply with what Google computers want – it’s your fault.
This was what went daa-daaa in zandtao’s mind. The Google computer had access to the information as to what went wrong. Google’s computer had contacted zandtao’s bank’s computer, and the bank had said that the transaction could not be completed. Maybe even the bank’s computer had informed Google’s computer that the transaction was possibly fraudulent. Couldn’t this information have been given to zandtao or the Google support to give to zandtao? Informing zandtao as to the source of the problem and how to resolve it was not a priority, and the only info given was a generic uninformative “The account is closed”. Zandtao had used the webcard payment method for a number of years with Google – this was the 3rd card. He informed Google that card numbers regularly changed but no practical help was given at Google’s pleasant end.
As zandtao was regularly using his webcard he did not see why it would be an issue and had thought the problem lay with Google’s computers. However he sent a speculative email to his bank but was not expecting anything from the bank. The bank’s computer had flagged potential fraud, and stopped the Google transaction. Why hadn’t the bank informed zandtao that a potential fraudulent transaction had been flagged; he has an app that tells him whenever there is a payment made, why couldn’t he have received a notification that a transaction had been blocked. Zandtao had used two other webcards with Google so why was this one considered a possible fraud?
Zandtao feels squeezed. Google support pleasantly demands that he ensure the payment method is valid. Did they review the lack of information given to zandtao? Possibly but he was not informed. The bank’s sweeping security policy is clearly at fault especially given zandtao’s history of transaction with Google. But overall neither corporate behemoths felt the necessity to inform the individual as to what was happening but they do place the onus on the individual to resolve the problem they as behemoths have caused.
Zandtao need not have been involved in deciding how to resolve the problem. Google rejected the payment method. Their computer sees that zandtao has a history of webcard use, and could have told the bank’s computer that there was regular card use. The bank’s computer could have checked such use, or asked bank staff to question whether it was reasonable to label a continuing Google transaction as fraudulent. At least the bank’s computer could have flagged a case for the staff to contact zandtao and ask if the transaction was fraudulent. Neither computer was programmed to do this so zandtao was squeezed to resolve the situation. And then squeezed by Google support to be proactive next time.
When people lived in communities and had time to be human, such issues would have been resolved through building human relationships, but the corporate behemoths of BigTech and BigFin are trying to save money by staff only being involved in profit-making activities. Supporting people who are having difficulties with their computerisation – computers replacing humans – is not a priority, our global system accepts human replacement and now puts the onus on humans to ensure that replacement works.
Zandtao mentioned the bank app, and the bank app has favourites. He setup a favourite to pay his electricity bill, and this means that every month he just clicks this favourite button and his bill is paid. He intends to continue paying at the counter so as not to contribute to job loss but if he is not well …. the “daa-daaa doom of harbingery” - clicks and no jobs.
And we have the IMF enemy saying so many jobs are threatened by the human replacement of AI - details. Through collective participation in this human replacement we advance the demise of the job as a human right. Do we clive? Clive is a word zandtao is coining for this “CoLlectIVE participation”. We clive with computerisation, we clive with global climate crisis by accepting that we “do our bit or not” is the problem when the problem is corporate – BigCorp(orations) causing BigCat(astrophe). We clive because there is no easy solution.
Pathtivism puts an end to cliving. Pathtivism sees the patriarchy, sees the incessant inroads into human replacement, sees global destruction as BigCorp denouncing BigCorp rather than cliving, and developing autonomy to act for nature rather than cliving with patriarchy.
Cliving is a miserable approach. At best cliving means there is coping with all the problems associated with patriarchy in a state of miserable acceptance. But the suffering of these clives can bring bouts of depression. A pathtivist works with others to inform about patriarchy, and to act with nature; there is some joy in being a pathtivist despite the pain caused by patriarchy.
So far this has actually gone very little towards the reason for this update but coining clive is excellent. What this preamble is concerned with is whether there is any point to pathtivism in the extinction situations of BigCat. Here is the situation that cliving does not really understand, acting with nature is peaceful and could even be described as happy – cliving is at best just the superficially-contented side of miserable. Pathtivism brings joy whilst being mindfully active – success, observing a change, is not the objective. BigCat is happening because of cliving, we are collectively participating in humanity’s downfall because we are not active pathtivists – because we are not actively participating and enjoying with nature. This is the real benefit of the path, and why all this is worth it.
“BigCat is happening because of cliving”, this is a central pathtivist tathata; we are collectively participating in our own destruction. But the reason for cliving is that there is no easy solution – tathata. We have to see this clearly – there is no easy solution. For pathtivists it is easy to describe the solution – follow the path. If we all follow our path – that is what nature (karma) wants, and all will be hunky-dory. But that IF is HUGE. Pathtivists see this – tathata.
All follows from the path, again pathtivists see this. The tautological answer to all questions of embodiment is just path. As part of his learning bill studied Marxism with the communists, because of this he sees economics. He does not see revolution because revolution creates dictatorship and death – as does patriarchy; to be fair revolution creates less death. But revolution is not a solution because of this death. We have to learn that revolution is not a path so maybe Che (and other comrades) were on their paths to show us. Maybe nature tried revolution?
Or maybe we needed Marxist revolutions to see that patriarchy cannot lose control through revolution. And in this way we can exclude revolution and see that the path is love. Love is the enemy of patriarchy and it is the way to defeat it. But love is a long pathtivist’s journey – many lifetimes?? Love is integral to the path – 5 Dhamma comrades – 5 graces – mindfulness/sati, love/karuna, wisdom/panna, concentration/samadhi and embodiment/sampajanna. Faith brings grace to autonomy – it is the magnetism of the clear mind – a mind unrestricted by attachment (faith attaching to grace).
But we need the clear mind to see – tathata. And that can only arise through a practice that leads to autonomy. The path needs practice. The path gives seers the vision (tathata) that leads to embodiment – loving action. There is no collective ideology except for the individual need for path, and the ongoing need of those individuals to use mindfulness to ensure that they are applying loving wisdom to their path, that they are using the 5 graces of autonomy.
Integral to the path is learning, but we have to learn to see. Seeing has a wisdom that is beyond learning, and seeing is realised by mindfulness grappling with knowledge to lead it to wisdom and that wisdom being applied through love to daily life – embodiment. This is path, this is the life of a pathtivist. Maybe in zandtao’s new terminology – a Holy journey.
When you have faith in the path – embark on the Holy journey, then vision arises; and as seers our actions are clear. This does not happen with any ideology – pathtivism is no ideology. It is just nature.
|
