|
For posterity the Parchment and Practice of Sciendtao (Part 1)
Sciendtao had begun this parchment as an investigation into a possible path - the path of scientific enquiry. Enquiry is always a part of path as recognised in the 7 core components of practice :-
With the Sciendtao path there had been a hope that exposing the inconsistencies of science would lead to a path as the intellectual inconsistencies battled themselves in a koan fashion. But Sciendtao realised that ego had got too strong, the ego was so strong it was on course to destroy humanity. This is the nature of ego, it is self-destructive – the spiritual laws of Source tell us that. But we know this as history also tells us. A “civilisation” becomes so powerful that eventually its civilisation-ego destroys itself – and the civilisation is no more. But as human beings we take succour in this because humanity has survived these self-destructive egos in the past.
Sciendtao looks at humanity, where is this ego now? How strong is this ego? Quite simply, Sciendtao thinks it is too strong. But ego has transformed. We need to consider failed civilisations to understand this transformation. The egos of individuals collectivised into a “civilisation ego”, and that “civilisation ego” self-destructed. What do we have now? Globalisation? Is there a globalised ego that is going to destroy itself?
For Sciendtao there very clearly was a globalised ego and that was patriarchy - it could also have been called 1%-satrapy and many such terms. It mattered not what it was called because it was known, the faults were known but was there sufficient desire for change? And the answer to that lies in ego, because ego needs to survive. Individual egos have a survival instinct, “civilisation egos” have a survival instinct and “globalised egos” have a survival instinct. But all egos eventually self-destruct. Sciendtao awoke to his vision – to develop awareness that this “globalised ego” will self-destruct. And what will be left? What can be done about it?
What was this “globalised ego” that went under many names including patriarchy? Some laugh at Sciendtao for accepting the name for it as patriarchy, did it mean men in charge and women as secondary? What about racism? What about trans, disability and all the identities that were made "secondary"? Was patriarchy the fundament? No, they were all consequences of an economic system that used its power and influence to accumulate for the 1%. This egoic system of the 1% had all the consequences described by capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy, etc. It was imperialist, white-supremacist, capitalist patriarchy because it was not one but all. And it was known.
It started with the individual, collectivised, and then transferred generation to generation through conditioning. It was the upbringing we all received although by the end of upbringing we were impacted differently. Sciendtao had undergone this conditioning the same as everyone else. So why didn't it affect Sciendtao?
It did. But he was fortunate to find his path. Fortunate in that conditioning did not build up his self-esteem so when the system knocked him back he had a breakdown at 23. Source pushed its way through at this upheaval and he had some form of awakening - some awareness of Source. He did not use this awareness well although it was always there in his life. He continued his addiction to alcohol, an addiction that started at uni and continued with breaks until he was 35. Even when he stopped with the alcohol he did not connect again with Source until a mid-life review pulled him towards Buddhism. Gradually a greater focussed dedication to Buddhist practice over the next 20 years led to his autonomy and quest into reconnecting to Source - spiritual liberation.
And with autonomy came Sciendtao's deep conviction concerning the extinction dangers of the globalised ego of patriarchy. Social response to patriarchy was diffuse and disorganised - and mostly reactive ego. Spiritual leaders avoided questions of patriarchy having an uneasy alliance with these globalist forces; in many cases institutional leaders of religions gained power within the patriarchy as a way of promoting their religion. Politically opportunists used reaction to patriarchy to gain political power - for the most part this was primarily opportunist ego. On the ground there was some meaningful organised response but the egos within this response were easily manipulated and it was easy to turn faction against faction. There was simply a diffused disorganised response. Within this grassroots organisation there were some successful campaigning, but because it was mostly egoic reaction to upbringing and conditioning there was only limited long-term commitment and that commitment had little power. Often a new generation would rise up with their particular action, and whilst this action would be directed against patriarchy it would also be directed against the older generation; there was no tradition of learning within the struggle thus making successful organisation against patriarchy less and less likely.
Spiritual awareness and embodiment of that awareness was a constant throughout, but it was not strong - at least not strong enough to contribute to the struggle. Because institutions accepted compromise with patriarchy, spiritual liberation became concerned with individual freedom from conditioning only; path education was mostly focussed on that individual freedom. This was understandable because patriarchal conditioning created such trauma, and the first priority was to survive that trauma and cope with living in the patriarchy. But whilst spiritual liberation was concerned with the individual, the globalised ego of patriarchy was strengthening and becoming an extinction danger.
These dangers were manifold and grew from the fundamental economic position of the patriarchy - the accumulation by the 1%. Historically these few had owned the land and accumulated wealth based on this land. Ownership of land and therefore wealth was increased through war, and these landowners as countries over time began to colonise to increase their accumulation. During this time of increasing accumulation there developed the use of money. Maybe initially introduced as a convenient means of bartering, this introduction of money meant that accumulation was not based on invading and defending huge areas of land. Accumulation continued for individuals but protection of that wealth fell to the state. Governments engaged in war to increase the accumulation of the individuals or dynastic families, and working people were forced into roles within this accumulation - including unemployed within the institution as a warning/reserve. Soldiers were essential for the wars that increased profits, but the number of required soldiers decreased as the governments invested in technology to provide more powerful weapons.
At some point it became acceptable to enable machines to kill people without soldiers being put at risk. Whilst war was never acceptable, when lands were appropriated soldier fought soldier – it was human death that occurred and the consequence of that death was a controlling factor within the waging of war. This changed with Vietnam. It was a war that occurred far away from America, and the further away the war was the less meaning it had to Americans. In terms of accumulation the war in Vietnam was no different to any other war – it was a war for profits resources and control of markets, but it was so far away and the people had to trust their government that it was a worthwhile war. When the body bags came home that trust became sorely tested, and when the Americans finally ended that invasion there was never going to be another war that involved conscription and a generation of soldiers.
To fight wars for accumulation in future the government only needed a few soldiers, they only needed to condition a few soldiers to enable drone strikes. Wars were still fought for accumulation but there was no conscription. Even though people joined the military it was perceived as a choice, a choice to join the government military, a choice to join the mercenary armies that sprouted up to do the work of war that might embarrass government. Patriarchal conditioning was strong enough that wars were fought with sufficient volunteers that the majority of Americans did not have to be concerned that their own families were killed. And if someone in a family were killed, it had been as a consequence of the choice to join the military.
Most people, in America and elsewhere, accepted the use of drones – machines – to kill. Many NATO countries would be involved in fighting wars but only one side had high numbers of casualties. And the deep injustice of this deeply affected the target nations.
Whilst war for accumulation was a constant throughout history, it changed visage from times to times. When it was land war was hand-to-hand. Even colonial expansion was initially through armies, although colonial survival usually required some manipulation of divide-and-rule. Colonial oppression survived the exit of armies through this manipulation where a minority government would be maintained through ties with the hegemony.
As a consequence of the destructive nature of ego wars occurred between colonial hegemonies. The egos of the wars within Europe allowed the participating hegemonies to call them world wars, the first of which was concerned with colonial division of African resources. Some colonial powers gained through this war but many issues remained unresolved; with the rise of Hitler a second of these world wars broke out. By the end of that war colonial power had shifted mostly to the US with opposition from the USSR. Through the divide-and-rule manipulation economic control mostly fell to the US and global wealth accumulated with their dynasties.
By this time there was a horrible by-product of war that soon became central – the Military-Industrial-Complex (MIC). War economy became central to the prosperity and accumulation of some of the dynasties. In war some corporations prospered as they profited from the need for weapons of war. With weaponisation and accumulation being connected it became necessary for America to be permanently at war for the MIC to flourish so they developed the notion of aggressive war in other countries as defence of the nation. Following the 2nd world war this war started between the US and USSR, and for the 2nd half of the 20th century this cold war fed the MIC. Towards the end of the 20th century this cold war had expanded and included incursion into other countries, for some it became known as the Third World War.
But towards the end of the century, the cold war ended, and there was a vacuum for the MIC. A new war scenario was developed, and it was a war that surrounded the resource of oil. At the same time many of the oil-rich countries were also Islamic, so to enable the accumulation of profits from oil propaganda and conditioning developed anti-Islamic sentiment. It began with Saddam in Iraq, and spread throughout the Middle East. These countries were fundamentally dictatorships and the wealth from the oil did not always reach the people. Throughout the 2nd half of the 20th century and then into the 21st century different dictatorships were targetted by the US through war by propaganda, drones and mercenaries.
Meanwhile whilst the USSR had mostly dissolved the cold war had not fully completed. The US after the 2nd world war developed a war bloc they called NATO – NATO was fundamentally a US-backed alliance against the USSR. For the most part NATO was not active in fighting, but it did fulfil its role within the MIC. As NATO expanded so did the presence of NATO bases, US soldiers and armaments, NATO soldiers from other countries, all of which ticked over the MIC. The USSR was a union of supposedly socialist republics but by the end of the 20th century many of these republics became their own countries. Slowly but surely these countries were pressurised to connect to NATO rather than Russia; this was a slow but continuous NATO expansion that was perceived by Russia as a threat. However the Ukraine had wealth that Russia wanted and would not allow that wealth to ally with the US through NATO without a fight, so for many years there was a proxy war fought in Ukraine that both disabled Russia and fed the MIC.
This conflict historically was an extinction danger where many good people stood up "campaigning for nuclear disarmament" fearing a repeat of Hiroshima. It is horrific to know that so many people in NATO countries do not accept what Gore Vidal is saying here. In my youth nuclear extinction was considered a real possibility, and governments prepared for it whilst bolstering the MIC.
A 2nd extinction danger has now reached the consciousness of ordinary people this century – climate extinction. This arose from the same source as the dangers caused in the Middle East – climate destruction because of oil. Over time it became clear that BigOil knew of this problem but rather than address the problem for the sake of humanity and survival, they developed tactics to maintain their accumulation. They paid scientists to deny that there was a climate crisis. There was no science behind these denials but that was not their purpose. Once they had created the doubts of the possibility of climate denial in the minds of some ordinary people, they paid their political puppets to enact laws and to continue practices that enabled the profits from oil to continue. Quite simply accumulation for the powerful individuals outweighed the interests of survival for humanity. It is not clear what is in the minds of these powerful people long-term, is it that they think they can buy protection from climate disaster? Sciendtao doesn’t know, but he suspects these 1% also don't know being confused by their own addictions and conditioning.
When you consider the dangers of these extinction events you have to recognise that for humanity to survive humanity has to be protected from the power and influence of these people. Consider the Oppenheimer scenario. As a scientist he and his team created the atomic bomb but made assumptions, tacit or otherwise, as to how it would be used. He did not expect that power and influence would make a decision that showed the world that the US was prepared to create the retribution of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the US was attacked. Do not mess with the US because their response can be so extreme. Just to be clear. There was strong evidence available at the time that Japan was preparing to surrender prior to the nuclear bombs, it was not as a consequence of the bombs that Japan surrendered.
Is the problem with the American people themselves? The power and influence of the 1% historically thus far has created 3 extinction dangers – nuclear warfare, drone warfare and climate destruction. Is it the people that create the patriarchy? No, it is the desire for accumulation that creates the patriarchy. Unfortunately those accumulators are so powerful they are able to create a barrier of receptionists, people who intercede so that we don’t know what is happening. Whether these are politicians who create policy, politicians who create delusion, other people who prevent access, this barrier of receptionists means that the 1% and their families are protected. And yet if they choose to act they can – and individual people who know better cannot do anything about them.
But the greatest protection these people have is the propaganda and conditioning that the American people undergo. The conditioning does not directly protect individuals but it does protect the economic system that creates their accumulation. The conditioning blames others for global problems, and by this way of blaming America does not address its own ego. The conditioning that supports patriarchy and the global economic system is the same conditioning throughout the world but in different parts of the world it is received differently. Upbringings affect the way this conditioning is imparted so even in America the worst aspects of the conditioning can be alleviated to some extent. What appears to be different conditioning for different countries, gender, races and class is in fact just the one conditioning we all receive but upbringing and society makes it appear different.
There is one globalised conditioning that we need to go beyond. For some people the impact of this conditioning appears far less, the egos that are built up appear far less substantive, but the reality is that these people have not developed themselves to withstand the conditioning it is just that the conditioning does not affect them as much. This globalised conditioning needs to affect people in certain countries far more than in others so there appears to be less conditioning. But there is only one globalised conditioning. In the centre of patriarchy there appears to be greater conditioning than on its periphery, where conditioning is needed most to protect the economic system there the conditioning has a stronger impact.
And humanity needs to go beyond this conditioning before the extinction dangers will disappear.
Climate extinction was also a reality. The patriarchy created, designed and marketed all the consumer goods that were part of the economic system; most consumers did not have the financial independence to be able to choose how they spent their money. Whilst the patriarchy decided what they sold, they blamed the consumers for decisions they made as consumers. Corporations could reduce their use of plastics – of oil products, they could choose sustainable alternatives, but to maintain their accumulation prices would rise and consumers did not have the money to pay. So the corporations blamed the consumers for decisions that were beyond consumer control. Throughout this extinction crisis different efforts were made to be more sustainable eg recycling. Much propaganda was used to blame the consumer, and consumers made an effort to cooperate with recycling. But the accumulation had to increase, and recycling offered no such increase. With all the efforts that consumers made there was no change to the extinction crisis because the consumers actually had no power - consumers were not the problem.
Because of climate extinction people began to change the nature of the struggle, and historically it was often seen that this speech by Russell Means was the starting point – For America to live Europe Must Die. In the 19th and 20th century the struggle was characterised by Marxism. As young people became aware of the inadequacies of patriarchy, throughout that 150 years they had turned to Marxism. Marx’s analysis very clearly pointed to the patriarchy as the problem – as to how society was fashioned by the greed of 1% of the people, it did not give sufficient consideration to how the patriarchy could end. There was an acceptance of the violence of revolution, and that the 99% or proletariat would rise up and throw off the patriarchy. Various revolutions happened but global patriarchy prevented these revolutions from flourishing – in fact they ensured that those countries had hardship. There was one human flaw that Marx and his followers could never overcome – how could you unite 99% of the people intellectually? Uniting 99% to have the same ideas could never work, people could always be bought off.
What Marx gave history was an understanding of the economic aspect of patriarchy but it failed to give an understanding of how to struggle. But as Russell pointed out it was the very economic system “of the Europeans” that was the problem. Whilst the patriarchy focussed on their own wealth and divided the people, grass-roots activists following Russell and others began a movement that through climate extinction became what we might retrospectively call the Nature movement. Whilst the patriarchy induced people to a consumer world as a reward for the wage-slavery that gave the 1% wealth, the Nature movement promoted indigenation – a process of making people independent of patriarchy’s economic system.
The benefits of indigenation will only become clear when climate extinction starts to be seen as a reality when Nature’s extinction develops catastrophes. These catastrophes have already started - mildly with Covid but instead of Covid being seen as a warning from Nature, it was manipulated as a means for the patriarchy to profit, and following Covid some emergency measures that Covid had required started to become central to the government policies of the patriarchy. Throughout the growing awareness of climate extinction Nature gave rise to people who understood that the source of human problems was patriarchy but for so many people their vested interest lay with the economy of patriarchy, and their lives became more and more indentured to these 1% owners.
Within the historic movement of indigenation Nature divided the world into the patriarchal cities and indigenate movements of people who refused indenture and left the cities. Few are leaving but in terms of species survival these few are significant. Throughout Earth’s catastrophes patriarchy’s response remained focussed on its accumulation even though over time the value of this accumulation meant less and less. It was extinction by replacement, and replacement happened because it increased patriarchy’s accumulation. In the cold light of day – detachment or equanimity – replacement by machines made no sense. If people are replaced, what are people going to do? How do people survive? What provisions will society make when those people cannot contribute to society? These are not philosophical questions, they are survival questions. It is Nature for people to contribute to society but the question is how does society enable those people to contribute. The survival principle is putting people first but patriarchy put profits before people. If you put people first then labour that is freed from drudgery by machines can be used for humanitarian purpose. It is quite reasonable to replace drudgery by automation, computers are designed to repeat a process without mistake unless there are design or machine faults. But replacement was not introduced for humanitarian purpose it was introduced to enable 1%-accumulation. Replacement without humanitarianism was an extinction strategy that was as senseless as the resource-based climate extinction, drone extinction and nuclear extinction, and all extinctions came from patriarchy starting with ego.
But once replacement was started patriarchy used propaganda and conditioning to maintain their replacement extinction. When people complained that they could not get jobs they were described as lazy. When the 1% of patriarchy were accused of greed, conditioning convinced people that the money of the rich was needed. And the rich thrived with catastrophes. During catastrophe patriarchy’s money as investment was used to cover the shortfall in produced goods – some even presented these grand-egos as saviours.
Meanwhile these 1% of patriarchy invested in more and more technology – factory automation, computerisation and robotics. Where do humans fit in with this replacement? How can patriarchy have their accumulation from their production and yet there not be any humanitarianism? Increasingly with this technology humans become “obsolete”. As the 1% simply accumulated and demanded that they keep control of their accumulation, what could possibly fund the needed humanity? Replacement was a built-in extinction model.
Yet replacement continues without consideration of these survival realities. Fewer people are able to earn so they identified with the 1%-satrapy for personal survival. What begins as a small percentage of people replaced from labour by automation will become the majority when replaced by robots.
With automation factories were closed and these people were replaced. In the 20th century these factory-labourers looked after their families, but by the end of the 20th century they were unable to do so because their jobs had been replaced by automation. To cover this up patriarchy favoured different ethnic groups or women by changing the nature of fewer jobs to service. These labourers, primarily white men, were encouraged to vent their anger on women and non-whites thus destabilising society. This delusion was maintained by the patriarchy so that they could continue with their accumulation. Meanwhile because of replacement fewer and fewer people had work and those that did were grateful. Late 20th and early 21st century was the beginning of Nature movement and indigenation as more and more replaced people recognised the way patriarchy was taking society.
As with Covid catastrophes usually affected the way patriarchy profited. To maintain profits they needed the means of profit-making to continue throughout the catastrophe. By this time the economy had become so distorted by the gambling of the finance sector that it was not simply means of production that had to be inured from catastrophe. The computers that stored financial data became central. Well they called it financial data but in reality they were simply financial mechanisms that enabled the gambling that increased the 1%-accumulation. Trade started with barter, it was tangible and you knew what were assets. Money replaced this barter enabling quicker trade but initially this trading was tangible and sustainable. Banks loaned money for houses and starting businesses, and this was beneficial as people got houses and small businesses were started with success; banks used due diligence in the way they decided on loans.
But there was not enough accumulation for these 1% so they lost their due diligence making loans that could not possibly be repaid. With the repossession they could make further loans. But it was not these loans that created economic instability it was the various gambling mechanisms such as derivatives futures and so on that introduced instability. Then so-called finance experts began computer investment trading in huge “figures” – amounts of money, thus increasing patriarchy’s profits but having no care for the impacts of such high impact trading. It was a financial system with built-in crashes that impoverished people, but as with all of patriarchy there was no caring. What mattered was only the accumulation of the 1%.
Roboticisation is the ultimate replacement, and we will see how roboticisation contributed to the extinction events in part 2. But the signs of how this would develop were present in the early 21st century. People with work supported the status quo, they could not allow their compassion to extend beyond family, government enabled 1%-accumulation and ignored the democratic requirement of humanitarianism. With each catastrophe replacement strategies increased in terms of production whilst investment in robotics would lead to future accumulation. One industry that increases is security as more and more replaced people try to eke out an existence. In cities crime is escalating as the only means of survival is crime as jobs are replaced by machines. More working people are living in gated communities or security-protected communities as the only means of protection from this crime. Gangs became a way of life for more people without work. Eventually with security esp security robots there is a likelihood that people who still have the few jobs will be forced into gated communities leaving crime to exist outside. Such inhumanity is the only consequence if the patriarchy continues to invest in replacement strategies for accumulation.
Or the choice is indigenation.
Robots are machines and are only as good as the patriarchy and tekkies could design them. Now we have scares revolved around scenarios similar to the fiction of Asimov. If they had the choice why wouldn’t robots kill people because robots were more efficient? This again was the blame game. Inventing the term AI meant that robots could be blamed for what they did when the blame as always lay with humans – the human ego. If humans don’t give the robots the ability to kill then robots cannot kill.
The problem with robotics is that patriarchy has already designed machines to kill with the nuclear and drone extinctions. This is just part of the situation where patriarchy puts profits before people, this ego is the real AI danger. Excuses for patriarchy now say tekkies will build in protections but can we rely on this? If the accumulation decreases what will the patriarchy do to maintain the inhumanity that their accumulation matters more than people?
What will happen when the 1% are forced to turn on each other to increase accumulation? Would they then insist on Asimov's laws to protect humanity when that conflicts with their accumulation? For humanity to survive patriarchy, this economic system with all its implications, has to end; somehow we have to find a way of taking power away from these few who put their accumulation before humanity.
At best there will be indigenation as more and more people forego the technological benefits of our current "civilisation" - globalised ego, and return to harmonious living with Nature. If we want to maintain those benefits we need to take power away from the patriarchy, and use our government to live in harmony with Nature and hope there will still be some of those technological benefits. Profits before people is just extinction.
All of these extinction events arise from ego, and none of us needs ego. Choosing ego limits our lives, reduces our joy and creates misery for ourselves and others. We create delusions such as wealth so that we can compare and say if only I were wealthy, yet the love and wisdom that lives in harmony has far greater joy – a joy that does not compare through ego.
Posterity, Sciendtao cries from deep in his soul, posterity focus on releasing ego, not clinging to wealth and ideas, create the joy that comes from harmony and forget the false pleasures that come from ego’s stimulation. Live not for egoic desire but develop the vision that seeks the harmony of living in and with Nature.
May posterity hear this cry from the soul born out of the extinctions of ego. May this parchment survive to show the way, and in the practice of Sciendtao may you develop the daily actions that keep ego at bay.
To part 2:- Part 1 describes the background that shows how egoic clinging in science and elsewhere has led to a disharmony with Nature. It shows how this clinging could lead to extinction events. Given these causes Part 2 will describe how events that led to the destruction of the globalised ego started to happen .... or at least that is the intention.
[Footnote - Sadly the Magda libraries never found part 2, was it ever written?]
|
Public Domain Science Fiction Writer 
