Aikido & Indisputable Truth

A beautiful element of Aikido is that it facilitates the resolution of conflict without compromising free will. In other words, it does not force another being—mentally, physically, or spiritually--into a position of oppression or duress. Aikido is a Martial Way that represents a philosophy that is not merely applicable to everyday life, but is the foundation of all life in the real world.
The natural world is reality. The natural world is directly created by something that has allowed processes to develop over time (evolve), establish, and give us existence. All parts of the natural world are real, because they contribute to the cycles and conditions that make it possible for all life to exist on the most fundamental level. Anything that is not found in the natural existence, does not contribute to the natural cycles and conditions, or is a detriment to natural cycles or conditions, is, therefore, not real. Even tangible things are not necessarily real. A car is tangible, but it is not real. A telephone, a book, an mp3 player, and a plastic cup . . . all tangible but not real.
Aikido channels reality in a way that neutralizes influences and anomalies to real cycles and conditions. These influences can either be positive or negative in essence, and Aikido will resolve them accordingly—in other words, positive and negative influences exist because of one another in the productive/destructive cycle, and the principle of Aikido is of being a catalyst that maintains a harmony in their co-existence. (The manmade concepts of “good” and “bad” however, are simply embraced by unconditional love and resolved to truth, not unlike crystals of salt or sugar being dissolved in a container of water.) As Aikido is governed by unconditional love, it, as all of nature, seeks an equilibrium that contributes to the welfare of all natural beings and conditions; this is the premise of natural law. There are infinite fluctuations of chaotic events, positive and negative, that create a net equilibrium of life, existence, or processes because nature seeks neutrality. Mountains erode over time by giving way to gravity and weather. Oceans crash against the shore by influences of gravity, temperature, weather, and the moon, while water seeks level and stillness. The cycles of nature perpetuate by random events, i.e.: a seed dropping, the wind blowing, rain falling; that facilitate a relative balance of biodiversity and function, which contributes to the holistic health of the entire Earth as an organism, and therefore to the Universe as part of nature. This applies to both the physical and the spiritual.
All life is conditional—if the sun shines, then plants will eat; if the water dries up, then animals will suffer--but the temperance that governs the equilibrium is unconditional, and must remain that way or there will be imbalance. In other words, nature is not biased; it simply is. The oceans, for example, are influenced by random conditions, but the results of these conditions resolve to create an opportunity for life. For instance, the ocean may crash against the rocky shore and create conflict, but the rocky shore embraces the conflict and dissolves to be the very foundation upon which the ocean exists. Aikido is everywhere, always.
To be unconditional means to be based upon indisputable truth, otherwise there exists compulsory subjectivity. Aikido is a response, whether mentally, physically, or spiritually, to any influence in a way that it strives to maintain harmony within all natural cycles based upon what benefits all of nature. If a positive influence is applied to me, as an Aikidoka, then a productive result would occur. If a negative or destructive influence is applied, then that must also be resolved to maintain a productive course that benefits the natural world. If my actions, however, were subjective or based upon beliefs that are not derived from indisputable truth, then I become a tyrant. I become a disruption.
If a person attacks an Aikidoka with words or fists because that person is angered by something, then it is the Aikidoka’s responsibility to make sure he is responding based upon a truth that benefits all life; otherwise, he is attempting to alter the free will of another with subjective influence. Likewise, if the Aikidoka attempts to change another’s actions or decisions based upon subjective emotions or beliefs, then he is again creating conflict by compromising another’s free will. Aikido neutralizes subjectivity in the real world. Our modern society, for example, exists in a way that compromises the welfare of the natural or real world. The natural world is subject to the ramifications of how our species lives, how we feel, what we believe, what we fear. As an Aikidoka—as a natural being--it is one’s responsibility to inform our species so that everyone can see the common, indisputable truth, which will allow everyone to make decisions that benefit all existence. The Aikidoka has no business spreading personal or subjective beliefs, as those beliefs cannot work for or include all of us.
If the truth that is represented by the Aikidoka is ignored or denied, however, then conflict still must be resolved based upon objective reality. In other words again, if the Aikidoka tries to sway one’s beliefs or manipulate one’s perspective with deceit or other questionable methods, then he would be attempting to control one’s actions by subjective means, thus contradicting Aikido. The principles must stand-up to the scrutiny of reality or nature as a frame of reference, not unlike a carpenter’s level.
Further, it seems to be a common belief that the philosophy of Aikido and peace is obtained through passivity or indifference. But if measured against the reality of nature, we can see that this is fallacy, and can be as dangerous as a direct aggression.
If, for example, a man throws trash on the ground, then I, as an Aikidoka, have a responsibility to the welfare of the natural world and all things to respond:
I can pick up the trash and throw it in his face, and then I can yell at the man and tell him never to litter again. However, this is an aggression that creates conflict, which will most likely escalate. This is not Aikido.
I can take what many mistakenly label as a “Zen” approach and do nothing but “embrace and accept the action as nothing more than a small ripple in a pond that will ultimately find its stillness as the universe unfolds as it should.” Meanwhile, especially if many of us adopt this approach of relative indifference, that man and many others will continue to litter because there are no ramifications applied and no spiritual resolution. Our trusting that “it all comes out in the Karmic wash,” and merely resolving to “let things be as long as we live our own lives as just and good as we can,” is dangerous and, relative to the truth of the natural world, it is irresponsible. We become enablers and deny accountability for being Caretakers not only of the physical world, but the spiritual, as well. This is not Aikido.
I could also very deliberately pick up the trash and make my disapproval blatant to the man as I throw the rubbish in a proper receptacle, in the hope that he may learn from this action and choose to take a more responsible path of etiquette in the future. However, there is no connection obtained, and it this passive-aggression is still passivity and enabling. As well, we humans tend to depend upon society to pick up the slack in many cases. Further, we tend to disregard what we do not see or feel directly unless it concerns us in a more empirical or tangible way. “Just leave it; someone will get it eventually,” right? This is not Aikido.
What I also could do, however, is represent that carpenter’s level or frame of reference by simply embracing the man, who has initiated a movement into my space as a part of nature, with all the unconditional love I give to my own child and all beings, and I can offer genuine concern, compassion, and empathy so that I may gain insight to his perspective. I can utilize this as an opportunity for both of us to grow. Then I may attempt to intimate why this action is something that disrupts the natural world. In discussing this thing, I may help to reveal a deeper trouble with this being that shares life with me, or I may open a proverbial doorway into seeing reality. First, I must see his perspective, because that is the Aiki Way. Then, I can be the central frame of reference for the real world and bring the disruption to resolution. (Keep in mind that “I” is a restrictive term that only applies to illustrating a point, as there is no separation of self from the natural world.) If, however, the man becomes aggressive, then I can also bring the physical confrontation to resolution. In any case, I must be absolutely tempered and grounded in indisputable truth, otherwise, I become unbalanced and ineffective. This would make me biased, and my actions would become subjective. Again, it is the responsibility of the Aikidoka to offer information so that others may see that there are options, after which they may make their own decisions—even with some assistance or guidance--relative to indisputable truth. It would not be fair, just, or responsible for the Aikidoka to try to change anyone. However he or she must be the center by which all actions may be resolved to the productive benefit for all life.
The Aikidoka also has a responsibility to try to preserve the safety and free will of others. In other words, a person may attack at their will, but the Aikidoka can only embrace the movement and bring it to a productive solution so that growth may be facilitated. Escalation would defeat the principle. Similar to jumping into a pool: the harder one jumps, the bigger their splash. Yet the water does not attack, it embraces. The more one thrashes, screams, or fights, the more likely one is to drown, but the water remains neutral. However, if one begins to accept that the water is a truth of the natural world, one may learn to stop attacking and become calm. Then they may float. Truth may be found through Aikido.

Neutral Center

One man's good is another man's bad. If there are many different belief systems, then there will always be many perspectives of what is just and what is not. What I have learned is that no matter what beliefs you may follow, there are indisputable truths in the universe that frame a viable foundation for justice. Universal truths apply to all of us, no matter what our layers of differences may involve over the core truth.

In other words, religions, politics, cultures, and even sports fans all have differing beliefs and loyalties based upon the ways they are conditioned and taught. Since, however, we are all natural beings, all literally of the same composition and subject to natural laws, we have a common thread of truth that runs through all of our lives, no matter what beliefs or rituals we otherwise integrate.

Justice in America is based upon several elements of religions and philosophies and laws that we choose to accept. Justice defined in other cultures we may see as inadequate or even over the top. True justice and morality cannot be subjective, otherwise the intentions between parties become swayed, and it then boils down to who is more powerful, more deceitful, and even better armed.

I, as a natural being, cannot afford to be swayed by subjectivity of my personal beliefs, desires, strengths or I become a hypocrite when I impose my intentions upon others. I must function from a center of indisputable truth, something to which we all must adhere. That truth is found in the natural world. To learn this, I spent a year living in the natural world with no tools, no equipment, no gear--only me and what the Creator provided. This taught me that I am not independent, and I am not separate, but that I have the option to temper myself and be a useful tool for the natural world. I am an extension, just as we all are.

So, I agree that it would be unjust to affect anyone's particular "brand" or perspective of what they believe justice to be. And the only true carpenter's level we have available to us is the natural world because it is the foundation of all life. Natural laws and predetermined cycles govern what the parameters of our justice really is, and it has no connection to emotional bias nor to fabricated belief systems and doctrines.

Free will, which follows here logically, is a whole other element, but it is important to recognize that it is also a gift that comes with responsibility and conditions to follow. Aikido, in any case, as it emulates the natural world in movement and philosophy, is emulating truth, using us as channels and advocates of that truth. To truly "do" Aikido, is to be the center of the universe while embodying the universe all at once. This must manifest in our actions and words, and we become the focused center of unconditional love that others can trust and lean on in order to repair a sick world.

Self

There are so many self-help workshops and self-discovery books and self-awareness exercises out there that one might reason we have developed a meme of being a self-absorbed bunch of people. Where did all of this need for self-discovery come from? Is it because we need to find purpose? Is it because we need to find place? Is it because we have lost perspective of our personal appreciation? Perhaps we have lost our spiritual connections with…something.
I honestly believe that we possess issues that involve more than any single one of these above ideas. I also believe, however, that we tend to seek guidance through this mysterious journey into the self on the bows of boats going to no particular port. In other words, our self-this and self-that courses take us so far on this journey but only create within us a sense of stability relative to the world in which we function. In other words again, we have created an existence that ties us up with so much stress, burden, and scheduling that we become unbalanced and compromised. Our immune systems suffer; our minds are battered with a fireworks display of responsibilities. We find ourselves losing track of fundamental joys, and many adopt crutches that make everyday existence bearable, such as alcohol, smoking, video games, and such.
Eventually we can see that our spirits suffer and crave something more fulfilling, so we might seek some kind of stable and firm center from which to function. Thus, we enter the self-this and self-that world, and we learn how to slow our paces down and appreciate ourselves more. But is that really finding your true self? Is it true spiritual awareness and satiation? Or is it a relaxing pastime, like model airplane building or reading?
I submit that there is something much deeper and essential required in order to explore the place in this journey that the boat does not travel. It begins with this idea: In order to truly know your fundamental self, you must know the fundamental frame of reference by which you are defined. (I’m going to attempt to put what amounts to several chapters of this concept into a “nutshell” and get to the point.)
We exist on a planet that has at least two different worlds. One world is that which has been here since the inception of Earth and has created a process of evolution and life-sustenance based upon billions of years of chaos and order working together. We can call this world: Nature. It is, for all intents and purposes here, our fundamental reality. The other world is very new; it is an infant world. This is the world by which most of us define ourselves. It is the world of dreams—creations brought to physical existence from the mind. This is the world of artificial things that are tangible, but not real. This is the world that has given rise to amazing creations but also less virtuous traits, and, within which we seek money, fame, beauty, luxury, and power. This is the world that compromises our spirits, makes us lose our footing and center. We are born of the natural, real world, but we are born into the dream world. So, again, do you define yourself by human ideas of your wealth and status, your fashion sense, your company title? If so, are you defining your true self, or are you merely defining your place in society? Defining yourself by memes and fluctuating, subjective societal ideas is only describing your relative worth and position in the manmade world. This is not a true definition of your inherent essence, however. That must come from a fundamental reality. That reality is the natural world. When we define ourselves against the frame of reference or the ‘level’ of the natural world, we can then begin to know our natural place and purpose. Then we can use that level as a foundation for temperance and awareness, based upon a very simple universal truth. Further, it becomes clear that in order to find our true selves, we must let ourselves go. In other words, all of the self-this and self-that is just the boat, but the real understanding means disembarking. It is at this place we can recognize that we are more than ourselves, more than part of a people, but that we are part of everything. I know—that statement is almost hackneyed. It’s something you hear a Zen master telling the pupil in martial arts movies. However, there is a very big difference between appreciating its entertainment value versus experiencing what it really means.
I only write this as an invitation for you and the children to go outside, to step out of the rut and change perspective. I used to operate a martial arts school in Peterboro many years ago. I tried to teach nature awareness as part of my martial arts curriculum, but most people seemed only to want to practice the self-defense portion, so I ultimately closed the doors. But it hasn’t changed the fact that I’ve been trying to disseminate this information for over twenty years now, and I believe we have a responsibility to ourselves, our world, and our children. Going outside and enjoying nature—and I’m not really talking about four-wheeling and shooting things, so much as just taking walks and observing, truly taking it all in—fosters a like for the natural world. The more we learn, the more we like it, and, eventually, we rediscover our inherent love for nature. What we understand, we come to love; what we love, we protect. It’s springtime; play with the kids outside. Ask each other questions about anything to which your hearts lead you in nature. Sometimes it’s fun to find the answers in field guides, but it’s not a requirement, and it shouldn’t be. Sometimes the answers don’t come to you for a year or more, but that’s okay. It’s when we lose the desire to discover more, that we know our spirits need to find center once again.

Living in the Dream World

My religious beliefs are not categorized in any particular doctrine aside from Pantheism and Animism, to an extent; a shade of Shinto in its earliest form. Regardless, the concept is all about Total Prosperity, or living in a manner that benefits all life, not only select species. But where many doctrine and dogma emanate from translations of stories and morals based upon interpretations of God’s word—or whatever such name one might assign to the Creator—my beliefs stem directly from the Creator’s autobiographical work itself, with no intermediate filters. It comes directly from the reality of the natural world, where the authority is natural law—something which none of us can really expect to conquer or avoid. My beliefs dictate, through the predetermined cycles of nature, that participation in a system of economics directly opposes natural law. In other words, I would be compromising my beliefs if I were to contribute to any kind of materialistic or artificial existence that does not purely preserve, or which compromises, the proper, pre-established function of the natural world. This is something that I’ve had to do for far too long, and existence has been miserable, living in hypocrisy and participating in a destruction that I unconditionally oppose.
Now, with a foreclosure, and with the extreme lull of my business (I’ve never claimed to be a good businessman—I’m about the least qualified--in spite of being quite skilled at the labor), my family is faced with the discrimination of “non-viable credit.” And we’ve heard every pitch there is to rebuild, recondition, and reintegrate, but it all severely misses the accompanying matter. This form of prejudice eliminates opportunities for living and for employment. Our foreclosure has happened as a result of many factors—none of which, by the way, are laziness, complacency, or lack of skill, in spite of the compulsory connotation associated with such labeling—but it seems the proper catalyst toward finally establishing that there is some need of reform in our society even beyond economy.
As an expert survivalist of the Aboriginal methods of living, and in consideration of my convictions, not to mention simply being a creature born on this planet, I would expect that the option to live primitively in the natural areas of the state and country would be a given. In other words, if anyone chooses not to participate in the modern system, how can there not be an option to live according to the Original Instructions of the natural world? Along with the violation of 1st Amendment rights, according to the doctrine of this government, eliminating anyone’s birthright as a natural being to live naturally is an outright injustice.
So the result is that my three children are homeless because authorities are saying that we cannot exercise our birthright of freedom to live purely with the environment while not contributing to the destruction of it. My skills only have worth in our society if I use them to oppose my beliefs, which makes existence worthless and wholly wretched, or because someone is actually trying to insist that living freely as the Aborigines who were all but eliminated and oppressed is not an option. Why is it that a vast variety of religions can be brought to this country to be observed and practiced here, but the native beliefs that support the welfare of the natural world cannot be without contradicting them? I know I’m nearly alone in this mindset, but seriously, when nobody listens or even cares, and the highest point to which one can take an injustice is the very source of the injustice itself, something needs to change. Inherent freedom can’t just be dissolved, and this concept of land being owned by everyone except for those who live the most closely with it is kind of absurd. There need to be options and tolerance.

Greed and Stability

Having children implies a necessity for stability, as this is what provides a sense of security and place for them. We all need to feel the security of a solid foundation. A sense of rooted place, especially when surrounded by family and friends, is a bolster to the wellness of spirit. However, as humans believe that owning land--as if the Earth were a commodity--is possible or even reasonable, it is increasingly difficult to obtain the natural lifestyle that was standard only a few hundred years ago.
As we feed our desires and greed with morsels of land and the fast food of rapidly-depleting natural resources, we literally sacrifice the welfare and sustainability of the future generations. We’re a society of living in the now by taking from the future. Obviously, this is unwise. This isn’t mere tree-hugging propaganda; it is proven fact.
As this destructive course is the case, my family and many others are forced to live in impoverished conditions that make life utterly miserable.
With winter approaching, and with the imminent governmental threat against taking-up primitive residency in the proximal wilderness areas--not to mention the audacity of the system’s convoluted logic of taking away my children if I bring them into the real world to exist rather than putting them through the integration process of the fabricated world--the ability to provide my family with the stability they would need in the natural world would be seriously compromised at best. Not only would we need [ideally unpolluted and uncompromised] natural resources such as water and plants, as well as game and wood and space, but we would also need the ability to implement practices that would create a mutualism between us and the environment. The government will not allow this. Somehow, our birthright has become prohibited. Again, at best, I could see setting-up a home-camp, then being routinely bumped out by “authorities” for camping on “public land.” I could foresee being fined or arrested for having fires, as well as for hunting and fishing without a license and with primitive methods. In other words, trying to follow our beliefs and living naturally is illegal, and the government would see it fit to expose my family to absurd amounts of trauma in order to impress the importance of conforming to the existence and subjective ideals of the artificial world.
After we were evicted from our home—because I actually tried, folks; I sacrificed my beliefs for a long time in order to try to “fit in” and maintain peace—we literally had nowhere to go. In spite of letters I wrote to everyone from the Governor to public radio, there was no response whatsoever to this situation, which many people face, and we have been falling conveniently through the eugenic cracks of society. Now we five humans and several pets, which make-up our family, are tucked away in a tiny box amongst tumor-like structures that are filled with disconnected inhabitants. The only signs of real life are disjointed, residual freckles of trees and plants that are used as catch-alls, like back-street alleys, for old tires, shoes, bottles, and myriad rubbish items.
Our sleeping space is little more than a compartment that further files natural beings into unnatural existence. Being here without being surrounded by the natural world, without having the space to live and breathe, subject to the practices and disturbances of others who live willingly in the fabricated world, creates a palpable sense of oppressive stress and paranoia. There is a big difference between living as an outcast in a subjective society, versus living in a communal or tribal setting of extended family. My children suffer this stress greatly, and being surrounded by this emptiness and death means seeking distractions in television or other artificial media. Even going outside to play bears negligible exposure to the natural world as nature is constantly being biologically infected and surgically altered with facelifts and implants that retain no resemblance to the healthy, pristine, former state. The wilderness shouldn’t be undermined as an “escape” or “vacation,” used as a novelty then otherwise ignored. Not only should we be allowed to return to our natural state of existence, but this modern lawnmower of society’s paradigm needs to be stopped. The children deserve to know the truth at the very least.

Reverence

Due to documented history, we are afforded a grasp of the concept of a thousand-year time period. The span of a few millennia is fathomable because we have tangible, exhumed pieces of history in museums and evidence on cave walls, and we have easily accessible documentation regarding, with impressive detail, the paradigm of life over the past several thousand years. But stop for a second and wrap your mind around billions of years. A million of something is still a sizeable concept to comprehend, but billions of something is more elusive, especially in the form of time. The Earth is estimated to be 4.6 billion years old. Think about that. For billions of years, this planet has floated through space, revolving around this sun, developing life and intricate systems of biology. Imagine the Creator painstakingly adding minute details of colors, shapes, and compositions over billions of years not only to the canvas of the landscape, but to microscopically-scaled organisms and elements—and beyond--enabling Earth to reach this point of fine-tuned, yet still-evolving, relationships and processes that we have only begun to unravel. Imagine taking that kind of time to invest yourself in a project as intricate, for your entire existence, and then opening the door to a bunch of infantile, disrespectful miscreants who throw a keg-party and devastate your work in one night. It has only taken us a relative handful of years—a few hundred—to turn billions of years of God’s work into a mocking mess.
What organism expands rapidly, consumes its host, creates tumorous growths, and makes its host utterly sick? Humans? Cancer? Both? And how does one treat cancer?
I don’t want to participate in the pathology of a cancer. In fact, it seems particularly unfair that we who don’t want to be part of the process, but who would rather go back to the Aboriginal lifestyle, are forced to contribute to the wanton violation of the Earth. Yet if we were “permitted,” to live by Natural Law once again, with no obligation to modern society, we would still have to live with the residual effects of modern impacts. Living naturally would involve listening to jets rip across the sky, smelling pollution from nearby cities, treating polluted waters for consumption, dealing with fragmented, stunted, and unhealthy ecosystems--not to mention the constant “progression” of encroachment—and so much more. Even if we reclaim our neglected inherent rights and freedoms, we are still going to face the enduring wastes and detriments of modern society. This is like suffering the effects of a housemate who smokes, leaves garbage everywhere, stinks, never flushes or cleans the seat, plays music too loudly, and throws hammers at the walls for fun. Society needs to take accountability once and for all and get a grip on the reality of Natural Law and Total Prosperity and stop making such permanent and drastic alterations to the environment. Many of us are offended at the very least, and it is wholly unfair and unrealistic to continue this romanticized idea of “progression,” at the expense of other life, our own inherent rights and beliefs, and the future generations. As admittedly impressive as modern technology is, it is not real, and it is detrimental to real life. In spite of the current fad of “sustainable living,” it is impossible for life to be sustained and healthy in a world that fears mortality, loses reverence for and connection with its foundation, and creates artificial things. Any artificial item, simply by virtue of its creation, is harmful to the environment, therefore, to ourselves. We don’t need the things we believe we do, and even though we’re too “habituated” to change lifestyles, it is crucial that we teach our children to live in the real world. We literally borrow the Earth from the future, and we are just as literally stealing it from them with this paradigm. Why are we allowing a proven destructive system to over-rule and deny the emergency of reality indicated by members of its own species? In other words, just because the masses embrace the luxury of artificial existence and the captivation of vices, it doesn’t mean they’re right; it just means that we have a serious problem. If the system doesn’t contribute to the welfare of not only humans, but of all life, then the system must be abandoned.

The Level

As a species, we have developed an unhealthy fear of mortality. We defy aging with chemicals, cosmetics, supplements, and surgeries. In fearing death, we strive to lengthen and save lives. It seems like a no-brainer, that these measures would be common-sense and beneficial; but where’s the carpenter’s level as a frame of reference for the validity of that notion? Since the only reality is nature, and since there is far more to existence at stake than the welfare of humans, we must extend the measurement of the concept beyond subjective ideas of what we consider to be important in our fabricated world. In the real world, the natural world, death is an essential counter-balance to life for many reasons, not the least of which is a reciprocation of nutrients, biomass, and space. A being that utilizes these things in life must return them for another being by dying. It’s natural law. Further, this oscillation maintains a relative balance of distribution of not only a particular species, but of biodiversity. Native biodiversity is crucial in maintaining a healthy and viable environment. You can think of biodiversity as analogous to an immune-system. A diversity of organisms keeps other organisms in check, so there is no extreme of consumption or depletion. This is why monocultures don’t do well without constant intervention. Unfortunately, the introduction of foreign species to an ecosystem is exactly the same as an introduced virus to a human.
Our modern practices mean an effective increase in our population. This, in turn, means that the more humans that exist on this planet, which has a relatively finite amount of usable biomass, the more we take away from other life-forms. (This is something I mentioned in a letter, years ago, regarding natural burials versus embalming and entombing, which exacerbate the problem of not returning necessary nutrients and elements to the environment. In fact, I said that we not only take from the earth in life, but now also in death.)
Nature is constantly seeking equilibrium through chaotic events; as a living organism, chaos and order must co-exist in order to create balance and life. Nature seeks to correct the aberrant systems. By staving off death and increasing our population, we create what are called density-dependent circumstances. However, we are also subject to density-independent circumstances simply due to making ourselves more numerically susceptible to those situations. In other words, the more humans we spread across the globe, the more will succumb to such systems such as tornadoes, hurricanes, and other “natural disasters.” There’s an interesting relativity in there.
Density-dependent circumstances, however, are created by the impact of our numbers upon the environment, which can otherwise be called anthropogenesis. Some anthropogenic impacts are direct and obvious, although we commonly subvert their severity, such as air pollution, water pollution, forest fragmentations and the like. The consequences of these impacts are logical responses to our lack of maintaining a proper balance and mutualism with nature. Ticks, for example, can carry diseases that affect humans; that makes them vectors. Deer often carry vector-ticks. Deer favor the pioneer growth of clear-cut areas that humans create. Deer are also an important revenue-generating game species. That means that humans foster a “healthy” deer population and that we create habitats and situations that bolster them—another imbalance. That means, in turn, that deer-ticks also benefit from anthropogenesis, thus, the diseases they carry further benefit from anthropogenesis. And that means that more humans will suffer the tick-bites and the diseases. (This isn’t to mention how mice are significantly involved and affected, either.) But instead of reforming our approach to living with nature, we counter with further suppression tactics that distance us, such as poisons and repellents and other things that cause increased detriment to the environment, and the problem perpetuates in a geometric fashion. We can see the same thing with fleas, mosquitoes, and particularly with viruses and infections such as Staphylococcus aureus, now better known as MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), and the new, super CA-MRSA (community-associated-MRSA). These density-dependent diseases, much like rabies, are natural responses to imbalances. In other words, these diseases exist for a reason, whether we like it or not. How can we be so selfish to strive for god-like stature and resist natural law, which perpetuates an imbalance in the very environment we need to survive? It’s not only hypocrisy, it just doesn’t make sense.

Instant Gratification

At what point does comfort become complacent, or need become greed? “Don’t we have a right to be comfortable and enjoy life?” a new acquaintance recently asked of me. I believe that we do, but we also have a responsibility to temper our desires and to consider how our actions affect all other life on this planet. We are quite equipped and capable of eliminating all life from the planet, but should we? Why not? The way I see it, it would not be a benefit to destroy the foundation of our existence. It seems counterproductive to disrupt, let alone eliminate, the source of our needs for survival. Yet we live in a manner that does adversely affect those things that we, and our progeny, all need to survive. In a very basic way, our treatment of the Earth and its resources is going to affect our physical well-being for generations to come. If you plant a garden that feeds your family, you must take up space to do so. This means that you will be compromising the welfare of anyone else that had need for that space. But if you decide eventually that you would like to install a hot-tub, which means sacrificing a portion of the garden, you will be compromising the welfare of your children in order to enjoy a “comfort.” This is how humans treat the environment right now. Why are we obsessed with creating structures and roads and altering the landscape in relatively permanent ways? What exactly gives us the right to make these alterations and assume this god-like position on this planet? How can anyone argue that the Creator has given us this authority while we categorically destroy and pollute what the Creator has created for our own comforts? We are a species that prides itself on having “higher functioning” faculties of logic and philosophy, yet we deny accountability to follow natural law, and we live in a depraved manner of materialism, money, and aesthetics, while we deplete the environment for luxuries and ignore true temperance and justice in order to cater to our infantile gratifications. Evolution is supposed to be change that facilitates a viable integration of a species and its environment in order to create a viable existence in the natural cycles. Evolution is about developing strategies genetically in order to conform to one’s environment because nature constantly seeks an equilibrium of fluctuations between chaos and order. Humans, however, do not adapt to their environment. Humans alter the environment to meet immediate preferences. In other words, we have eliminated our proper role in the natural world, and because we alter the world to meet our desires, we allow ourselves to perpetuate genetic anomalies, and we also subvert any need to make genetic changes that keep us aligned with nature. In other words again, we have created an ability to de-evolve. We deaden our senses with artificial environments and stimuli; we constantly muffle and suffocate our spiritual ties to the Creator by shielding ourselves from creation; and we compromise our spirits with distractions and unnatural practices, which we mitigate with depravity, such as drinking, drugs, and myriad variegated vices. All in the name of what? To what end? How can we call spitting in the face of God progress? It doesn’t matter what religion one follows when it comes to the reality of truth. No matter what one believes about the Creator--whether or not one even believes there is a higher power or if it can be broken down to some sort of physics—and no matter what doctrine or dogma one follows or by what name one addresses the Creator, there is a fundamental truth that all must accept and follow: Nature is real, and it is our source of life. Nature is the only reality, and by compromising it for our desires for more and more comfort, we are showing a severe lack of temperance, responsibility, and respect for the Creator who is embodied within the natural world. Even those who only believe in science must have the capability to see that the logistic equation applied to our species, coupled with the planet’s carrying capacity, not to mention affects of fragmentations, pollutions, and stresses, are leading us to a very dire place. Scientists must at least be rational enough to see outside of the box and understand that all of this technology is detrimental to nature, and it is detrimental to us on several levels, and ignoring our mortality means creating a major imbalance in biodiversity and biomass, which means we will reach a devastating breaking point. Even those who don’t believe in a Creator must appreciate the virtue of temperance and that in order to find true justice and ethics there must be an indisputable, universal truth from which they can be derived, right?
Comfort is subjective. It changes in direct proportion to the advances in technology, to depletion, and to extortion of natural resources. As well, our perception of comfort enhances complacency and self-importance that truly undermines our responsibility to follow natural laws established by the Creator. Enjoying life and being comfortable is fine, until it begins to affect others in a detrimental way. We do not have the authority to determine whether any life is valuable or not. Therefore, we do not have the right to adversely affect other life for our selfish desires for comforts and luxuries. It just doesn’t make sense. We are not as important as we think we are…but we could be if we once again became Caretakers instead of Takers. Finding the line of discretion is simple: if what we do adversely affects nature’s predetermined cycles, then it should be abandoned. If what we do contributes to the welfare of nature, it should be applied. All artificial technologies are detrimental, in spite of the compulsory propaganda that accompanies them. Think about what it takes just to make something artificial. The process at the most basic level is detrimental to the environment, no matter how “green” or “clean” anyone claims to be. Then take it to the spiritual level. Does this artificial thing or does this action compromise temperance of your spirit? In order to know that, you must first have that indisputable truth as a frame of reference for spirit: nature. In other words, you must know your true place and purpose by natural laws. That means living in the natural world with no artificial or corrupt influences. How can you define your true self by artificial parameters?

Realistic Sustainability?

I can’t seem to escape the sounds of back-hoe back-up alarms, chainsaws, and dump-trucks during the warm seasons anymore. Attempting just to listen to the birds and insects—or to the quiet times of nature, even—is futile, as there is, inevitably, a passing jet, a gunshot, tires squealing, ridiculously thundering tail-pipes, or some kind of construction or destruction around every corner, as small plots of forest are perpetually razed for the expansion of our species and our economy.
Last night, (6/24), the missus and I watched a documentary reporting of the new technologies being used to research the potential for life on other celestial bodies; Europa, one of Jupiter’s moons, was the particular point of focus in this episode.
And, as I have done regularly for a quarter of a century now, I shrug my shoulders at all of these “progressions” and “advances,” and I ask with the utmost rhetoric: “Why? To what end?”
As our technology advances, and as we reveal more of the countless layers of the natural world, we face compulsory ethical issues of our impacts, the stresses we create, the natural resources we use, and the other species we affect. This subject, of course, involves some deep philosophical exploration to the point that I would need the space of a book or a forum of large capacity and numerous hours to effectively address even the basics. Here, however, I would simply like to point out—once again—especially in light of our new, local fiascos of diggings and pavings (contributing to the reported 10 billion gallons of oil run-off into the oceans every 8 months), that it would be prudent for society to consider the reality of where we believe we are trying to go as a species on this planet.
There is so much talk of sustainable living these days and better management practices with natural resources, such as timber, crops, and game. What I find amazingly interesting is that these practices that come off as new and innovative ideas seem to resemble in the most elemental ways the practices of the aboriginal people from around the globe. In my philosophy of Total Prosperity—the allusion being the word “Total” in my local company’s name: Total Wild—which is a philosophy based upon the indisputable truths of nature, it is common to hear me utter the phrase: “The answers are in the past, not in the future,” which I typically employ as a cautionary statement to those who are so excited and tunnel-visioned with the rush of technological advancement. As impressive as our engineering may be, our species moves through life like a drill bit through soft wood, always seeking the other side of the material with diligence. Unfortunately, there is only so far we can go.
There seems to be a spreading epidemic of faith in our society—and by “society,” I refer to our modern species on a global level—that in spite of our usage of natural resources, in spite of our increasing population, and in spite of the impacts we have already made and continue to make, we are going to be able to continue to live in a material world while our numbers continue to grow, and that we will be able to have everything we need as long as we cut down on our emissions by 2050 and start implementing more sustainable practices.
I have always had an issue with the naiveté of the concept of being able to live in balance with the natural world while enjoying the amenities of technology and artificial items that we now consider necessities in our modern lives. What I mean is that no matter how green our vehicles become, no matter how many of us ride bicycles to work, no matter how sustainable our practices, we are always going to need to create a negative environmental impact because we have evolved our way of living to a dependency upon artificial items and cultural conveniences that neither fit nor facilitate the predetermined natural cycles. In other words, as a very basic example, even if all of us rode bicycles to work every day, we might be eliminating a significant amount of vehicle emissions, but the bicycles would still have to be manufactured in factories; tires would still need to be produced; and smoke stacks would still need to blow off exhaust. Even with filters on them, the filters need to be manufactured, and once they are filled to capacity, what happens to the waste then? How far can it go? There will always be an impact upon the natural world as long as we keep creating artificial things.
Then there is population. Think about the basic dynamics of organic biomass. A few thousand years ago there was a particular distribution of biomass, the physical properties or elements that make up creatures and things in the natural world. There were so many trees and so many fish and so many people, and they all existed in some sort of proportion, with some biomass being locked-up in caches within the Earth, and with negligible amounts of materials falling to our planet from space considered. But in a relatively short amount of time, we have shifted the proportions of organic biomass by clearing millions of acres of forests, by implementing hundreds of years of fishing and hunting or harvesting for a growing population, and by expanding our own species. This shift in proportions can only go on for so long before it’s simply not possible to continue. Not only must we face a particular carrying capacity, which includes, physical space to exist, food availability, and now our own dependency upon technology to provide us with potable water and to remove our wastes effectively, but we must also face a finite physical capability to transfer biomass. Think about how much biomass 6.6 billion people consume on a daily basis. Think about how much carbon dioxide and energy 6.6 billion humans at 98.6º F contribute to the atmosphere every day. Then factor in the way we entomb ourselves when we die instead of giving the biomass back to nature to be recycled.
What all of this means is that our “practices” are only buying our species, and others, some time. It means that we have some extremely sensitive philosophical issues with which to deal before we can make a significant change for the benefit of all life on this planet. It means that we need to start considering that we put far too much blind faith in agencies and authorities to attend our environment while none of the people who run them actually live closely with the environment at all, but learn to interpret natural conditions through a figurative lens with a language we’ve invented for such purpose, called science. And it’s not so much that science is faulty or invalid. It’s that science is incomplete and limited in its ability to encompass the spirit of nature. It’s that science is relatively new, and it sets risky conditions that are clinical, which keep us disconnected from the natural world with a fence of textbooks, studies, labels, and statistics—not to mention the economic and political influences. It’s that science allows us to cater to our fears of death and discomfort to an unhealthy degree.
It would pay-off to our progeny that we consider the broader impact of our actions, the reality of our future, and the simple truths of the natural world that we’ve been given by the Creator. It is our responsibility; and how proud could we be to call ourselves Caretakers once again instead of Takers?
I apologize for the clipped, abridgement of this subject. It is a topic, about which I’ve been writing and teaching for decades, and trying to put it into editorials is like packing a small suitcase. But if the article didn’t burst out onto the floor when you opened the paper, I guess we’re okay. I suppose, at least, it’s food for thought. Unfortunately, it may taste like canned spinach, but it’s very important that we eat it.

Strike Proposal

It doesn't matter if you are in or out; just pass it on to as many people as you can; whether they "care" or not is irrelevant. To those "humans" stuck inside the Matrix: here's an opportunity to begin breaking out of your cubicle where your time clock keeps you tethered.

STEP UP, AND BE REAL AGAIN!


I propose a strike. As a teacher and follower of Total Prosperity and Universal Truth, I cannot participate in the perpetuation of an artificial society based upon a system of equating money with life under a supposition of relative freedom and happiness through distractions that offset the myriad diseases manifest in what is not even evolution any longer so much as mutation of body, mind, and spirit. I cannot participate in a system that extorts the planet, treating it as a commodity in order to distort natural equilibrium in a devastating way through the raping of the environment and outright murder and disrespect of other creatures in a mechanized, cold paradigm that further caters to false idolatry, gluttony, and pseudo-independence from the spirit and predetermined cycles of the natural world. We cannot be better than that which gives us life, and I resent being automatically integrated by the default of being Homo sapiens into a system that takes as a rule and severely compromises the health of the planet, of all species, and of our future generations.

My birthright, as a being made of this planet and of this universe, is to be free and to depend solely upon my inherent connection and adaptability to the natural world I’ve been given as a gift from the Creator. It should be my right to exercise my gift of free will and choose to live as a Caretaker of my Earth and as a guardian of our children’s future. I cannot and will not willingly contribute to a society or species that opposes natural law and is guilty of heinous acts against the natural world on any level.

Our basic needs for survival should not be fenced from us if we are capable of living the natural ways with no artificial creations. Money is a fabrication, and it is the driving force of a depraved and brainwashed society created from imagination disconnected from the natural order. Food should not cost money; water should not cost money; heat and shelter should not cost money. The land cannot be owned, and it is only by violence and tyranny, motivated by power and greed, that it is horded and kept from the access of the true Children of the Earth. This is not opinion, and it is not new information; it is proven truth. (Only those in denial would debate these facts and attempt to blindly justify morals and ethics that are based upon fabricated beliefs and dogma.) The way of the Children of the Earth is to follow the pure truth of the manifestation of the Creator, and our abuse of the natural world is spitting in the face of our Creator. Our lives are therefore stolen, and our spirits are therefore snuffed. Eugenic evolution and blatant civil discrimination are blasphemous, and I propose a strike.

I propose that the Children of the Earth who resent the complacency and greed that our society fosters and upon which it thrives, remove themselves from the system wholly. By living with indifference, or passively, or even in our cloistered parcels primitively, we are not permitted to serve our true purpose, and we are not only enabling but facilitating the continuation of destruction and TERRORISM. I propose we stop paying taxes; we stop working for money to “live”; no more cars, no more phones, no more houses, no more bills and nine-to-five, and no more spiritual deprivation and artificial living; we stop participating, and we take back what was stolen from our species and all others.

I propose that we demand our inherent freedom, untainted wilderness, pollution-free waters, and no obligation to the dysfunctional demands and expectations of a society of fabricated, corrupted existence.

Who’s in?

Intent and Justice

Without intent, there is no action, therefore, a lack of accountability. That, to me, is passivity or indifference, which neither seeks to maintain nor destroy productive equilibrium or harm. Indifference, though, especially in light of a society that has attempted to change nature in order to fit its selfish wants, rather than adapting itself to what nature provides and natural law, still obligates us to culpability. For example, if I see a group of men murdering a creature, my indifference and doing nothing puts me in a moral position of being as culpable as they are. Here's where we need the carpenter's level of indisputable truth. In our culture we have given value to money. Money now equals life. Literally all of our basic necessities are designated a cost of this fabricated value system. Further, in order to protect those who may have more than others, we have created laws that apply to this situation. Because our species places value upon fabricated ideas, and because we cater to our fears of mortality, we create technologies and laws that bolster our security, laws that even strictly oppose natural law. Legal systems are subjective. In our country, stealing gets you a fine, community service, or jail time depending upon severity, and we utilize an adversarial system. In another country, one may have his hands amputated as a consequence of stealing. In the natural world, stealing implies possession, but possession is only based upon the fundamental truth of survival. A shelter, a carcass, a child--possessions of necessity and even altruistm, but not of fabricated or materialistic value. If another creature takes one of those things, it is a matter of survival that weeds the sicker and the weaker and maintains equilibrium. A big difference is that the INTENT is to survive. There is no maliciousness behind it. In our culture, revenge and malicious intent are rules. In fact, our criminal subculture exists BECAUSE of our culture's values and eugenic process. Looking at tribal, aboriginal cultures, this concept of possession and fabricated values was quite tame to nearly non-existent. In other words, I may possess a pair of really nice mocassins, but if you needed to take them, then the tribe would deal with the situation in a hollistic circular manner, in that everyone would be involved, and even family members would share culpability. The tribe would seek to mitigate the core of the problem, not simply punish one for the act. Further, if you need them, then I will give them to you; or I will help you make some. Stealing was quite uncommon in those societies. Anyway, legal systems and the like are for another thread, I think. In actions of defense, my intent must be to preserve the predetermined cycles of nature or natural laws. It's not something I apply "at the time," so to speak because living this way means always having the presence of that mind. In other words, I cannot claim to be better than that which made me, and it is part of my existence to offer thanks all day everyday in my life to all of nature because the energy and intent I put out to the universe is a reflection (both ways), and I have an obligation to represent nature as a point of unconditional love all the time. Therefore, if I am attacked with force, it must resolve to the purest result that I can apply. If it means death, then that is the outcome. We tend to have a significant moral issue with death, because we are taught for the most part to fear it and do whatever it takes to avoid it. Our natural survival instinct has been supplemented and layered with fears and preventions--we even fight aging with all sorts of artificial methods. I won't go on. What it boils down to is taking it to nature. You're correct, I believe, in saying that the legal systems wouldn't agree. Nature is to be conquered and treated as a commodity in most modern culture. If we take our actions to nature, which is our gift, which sustains us, then we see if the outcome will be productive and contribute to the perpetuation of natural cycles, or whether our actions are detrimental, which means they should be abandoned. This is where free will comes into play. And our free will causes us great confusion when trying to determine what is moral and what is not because life has become subjective and we have lost our ties to the reality of natural laws. If I use free will and decide that I want to catch a fish for supper instead of eating berries, then I must choose a place where fish live in order to increase my odds of catching one. I might use a very long stick to reach way out over the water, as well as a thin line of cordage, which increase my odds. I may choose to use a hook made of bone, and I may continue to use my free will to choose a bait of worm rather than fly to catch a particular fish. All of these things I do are designed to increase my odds and create a desired outcome based upon my free will. However, none of the things I use are synthetic. None of the things I use are detrmental in their existence to the predetermined cycles of nature. In fact, much of my outcome is going to be determined by my skills. However, the free will options I apply are restricted in nature. At some point, I must simply wait. I will either catch a fish, or I will not. I believe that there is enough room in this universe for all of the popular elements: skill, intent, prayer, luck, fate . . . why not? So intent is actually quite relative. I even ask the fish for help, and I honor them with respect and by using every part of the sacrifice they provide for me. But, still, my intent to catch a fish is driven by my primal need to eat, which means survival on a basic level. In the cycles of natural law, this is just, because I am not causing imbalance or harm to nature. I am part of the process. Further, in doing this thing, it is important that I only take what is needed and help to maintain a pristine habitat so that I give something back. I am a Caretaker, and I fulfill my natural role. If I am attacked, then I respond with the intent of finding resolution. But I am a nuetral center only seeking an equilibrium. Nature is also a nuetral center seeking equilibrium, there is no ill-intent, only the intention that all life perpetuates. If creatures choose to live in a contradictory way to natural law, then the consquence is going to ultimately be imbalance and death. It is not malicious intent on the part of nature, it just simply is the outcome that is most productive for the overall balance of natural law. I must mirror this. If the attack means that one of us dies, then that is how it shall be. But it must resolve itself, so my actions must be honed, thoughtless--oddly enough, and centered, and they must also reflect my spirit, which should happen naturally as a result of training with my spirit in this place of indisputable truth.