Archive for the ‘BigTech’ Category


I have previously described the path as going beyond conditioning, I have also described it as the path of compassion, insight and creativity. It is not narratives we need to understand, follow the path.

So far I have looked at narratives and have seen that the manipulators of the 1% can condition based on any narrative. A narrative is a set of ideas describing a situation. Finding a new narrative is not a revolutionary act because it is simply a set of ideas – khandhas. What matters is the power. For conditioning of the narrative to happen there needs to be power, and that power provides an object of desire. People desire that object, maybe money from a job, they become addicted to that desire – because of what the money can buy, and we have the conditioning that can be recognised in any description of paticcasamuppada or the 4 Noble Truths. Addiction – desire and craving – is at the basis of this Buddhist dogma, I am simply describing how this conditioning is developed in daily life. But it is the same dogma, the same description, the same process; addiction .

In this addiction blog, I have gone into detail with addiction and how it can be understood in terms of the two Buddhist dogmas paticcasamuppada and 4 Noble Truths. Overcoming addiction is not easy but it can be done, but the first step is to recognise there is a problem. In this same blog I discussed addiction to self, few would see this as a problem, but that is the nature of addiction and the first step is recognising we are addicted to self.

To reiterate here is a short description of the process of being addicted to self. I start with what I call the Buddhadasa meme:-

Now body and psyche refer to the khandas. Body – rupa, and psyche – feelings (vedana), perceptions (sanna) and mental constructs (sankhara); with consciousness (vinnana – also a khandha) these are the basis of human ontology. Events can fit into these categories. Conditioning is a natural process. An event happens and consciousness attaches to it. Babies like (desire) suckling and enjoying mother’s milk. Adults like (desire) having money to buy a house. Conditioning is not a process that is inherently evil, it is natural.

But when we are considering narratives, there is a process that is human – how the powerful give their power to the narrative. This is a function of the desire of the powerful. This power is nature’s power but it has accumulated through wealth to a few, and they decide when to give power to the narrative.

It is relatively easy to understand addiction because we know of and have seen many examples of addiction to substances. But we do not understand addiction to self. In part this is because we do not understand the formation of self. And this comes back to the khandhas again. As we like different events, that like becomes part of who we are. As a baby we like suckling, we desire suckling, we cling to the mother’s breast. At that time suckling mother’s milk has become who we are – as a baby we selfishly want mother’s milk. Then the power, mother, says enough is enough, and no more self. We don’t question this analysis of self, but we don’t recognise that this process of desire-clinging-becoming self is the natural process that applies to all events. And more importantly we don’t realise that we can be weaned off this addiction to self. Babies don’t choose to dump the breast, power decides for her/him.

When we consider the human self of the adult, where is the power that decides? Consciousness. Consciousness can decide to form self or break away from self. But that consciousness is not “on its own”. Always sunnata is with us, always the path is with us, but if our consciousness is always stuck in the body and psyche then we just continue to create self – we are addicted to self. The word for consciousness not being stuck in body and psyche is awareness. Somehow consciousness recognises that it does not have to stay attached to the body and psyche, attached to self, and it starts to follow the path. We could visualise that awareness is when consciousness becomes attached to sunnata but that visualisation is confusing if we take it literally as that sort of attachment can never exist.

It is much better to talk of this as following the path, the path of compassion, insight and creativity, and as it is a path that is not addicted to self it is a path that is beyond conditioning.

Let us consider the new narrative again. Naomi describes the situation at the moment as having a potent vacuum, as an indigenous activist I accept her judgement – with my age and where I live I cannot judge. The essential word here is potent meaning power, and power governs ideas.

I surmise that the need for a new narrative is being driven by the realisation that automation will drastically reduce employment thus ending the essential of consumerism – the consumer. The zombie idealism of the current consumerism will continue to lurch for as long as it can because the accumulators will not relinquish power. What will replace it will be some compromise that will enable their continued accumulation – they have more invested in there not being an apocalypse than most people.

Hopeful people, Naomi, want a new narrative but with narratives having no power in themselves such narratives will simply be the “same old same old” conditioning as they have been since tribal times. The powerful want a narrative that allows them to continue accumulation. They will then give power to this narrative, conditioning will follow, and “same old same old”. If a new narrative can give them the same accumulation their desire would be happy, and they would give power to the narrative. Is there such a narrative?

But remember narrative is a khandha – sankhara. We attach to a set of ideals, it becomes part of self and we become addicted to it. As an activist, of course you must engage with the process of changing the narrative in the hopes of participation enabling a better narrative. But narrative is part of the addiction, narratives create the conditions, the process is conditioned, and the conclusion will be conditioned. Because of addiction that is how we all, including the powerful fit, into the narrative.

For people the real hope lies in going beyond conditioning, following the path. Following the path does not mean the end of making better changes of the narrative, but it gives greater power, it gives resolve, it gives strength and conviction, and it avoids the attachment and disappointment of windmills.

It is pleasing to see Naomi as an indigenous activist talking of oneness, similarly with Russell, but the best thing for progression in all human movement is the path that includes recognition of oneness. Naomi you have grasped this because you describe indigenous movements as being driven by love – indigenous love of the land. This love of oneness is being sunnata, it is Gaia, and indigenous culture is much closer than the miseducated “European” culture. But love is not restricted to indigenous movements, love is the path.

Despite the potential “hippy” labelling the best way forward in terms of the narrative is not to promote a new narrative but to promote following the path. This is not some loose airy-fairy impractical naval introspection because it is the path that goes beyond conditioning. However the narrative is resolved, following the path will enable people to deal with the conditioning that results from any new narrative.

There is talk of revolution. In Marxist terms revolution means change of ruling class from bourgeoisie to proletariat, in non-Marxist terms revolution can just mean a change of government created by violence. Violence is not the answer. We live in a world that is controlled by violence. The powerful have not only accumulated money, their power also means control of violence through the military, even more so with the privatisation of security. To seek revolution through violence is now self-defeating and akin to suicide of ordinary people by the oppressive violence (cf suicide by cop). Do not seek suicide by the powerful, there is no future for anyone there. The revolutionary path is to go beyond conditioning. If you don’t accept the conditions they offer, what can they do. If they take away your house you go somewhere else you still have your path. When your path gives you strength in adversity people will see, and then they will see that the path s what they must follow. The path itself is revolution, and is not violent.

A political maxim:- detach from desire and follow the path.

<– Previous Post “Conditioning narrative” Next Post “Narrative – new or neo” –>

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Advertisements

A view of narratives

Posted: 20/03/2018 by zandtao in BigTech, Finance, Struggle, War
Tags: ,


I hear Russell calling for a new narrative, and such a call might well be what is popular now – I don’t know, Naomi thinks so and that means something. I have in a sense rejected this approach because it could be standard intellectual obfuscation that moves away from a clear class analysis. But perhaps it is a real movement, let me treat it as such.

What is the old narrative, if we want new we have to know what is old and what we want to change?

If we want to understand an old narrative we have to see historical trends. This is so important because if we do not examine trends we can end up with idealisms based on rhetoric imposed on a time-frame. To explain this let’s consider democracy.

In the UK where did democracy come from? There was tribalism, feudalism, monarchy, Cromwell and parliament. There was staggered suffrage. It is worth considering these on a timeline to understand our democracy. Under the monarchy and feudalism people were fundamentally serfs or soldiers with an existence predicated on the landowner. This started to change with money when different people became wealthy and used money to buy power. At this point parliament developed where wealth and land were supposedly two opposing interests. Cromwell was a figurehead in this as he represented wealth as parliamentarians. To develop support parliamentarians encouraged the notion that parliament was for the people, and so began the delusion of democracy. Initially suffrage was very limited but once it was seen that voting confirmed the status quo suffrage was expanded. Democracy as part of the establishment has never been in the interests of the people but has been used as a carrot to delude people into working for the establishment. This is democracy today. Similarly we could examine US history but it is not necessary to reinvent the wheel, look through the eyes of Howard Zinn.

For most people these are not accepted narratives.

Here is a forum for discussions on a new narrative (not necessarily recommended), and here is their presentation of the old narrative:-

“Within this narrative the basic trajectory of life was seen as go to college, get a job, get married, buy a house, have kids, go to church, work every day until you have saved up enough money, then retire.”

[This I will term the normal narrative].

But what can be clearly seen by those with an enquiring mind is that this version of the old narrative could fit into a view of consumer conditioning. Examine the components of this view of narrative. We get educated to get a job. Nature dictates we have kids but the narrative turns that into house, maybe church, kids getting educated. When we get too old for a job we retire, and this is enabled by the narrative through savings and pension schemes.

This “normal” narrative simply accepts the prevailing system that is based around getting money to bring up a family. That narrative simply accepts that people will consume. This narrative also assumes that society’s method for enabling this narrative is acceptable.

Politically this narrative has been supported by the capitalist system, money is accumulated to create means of production and the profits from sales of consumer items go to the owners of those means of production. Various mechanisms such as the stock market are used to create the accumulation. Intrinsic within the old narrative is the notion that this is just business, and whilst there are some minor problems business works, capitalism works.

So tied in with the old narrative is a capitalist system, and this system has been questioned. Initially this system was questioned by Karl Marx pointing out problems, along with Lenin, Trotsky, Castro, Guevara and others proposing communism as an alternative. Whilst communist alternatives have not been successful criticisms of the way capitalism has developed have increased.

These criticisms perhaps reached a crescendo globally with movements such as Horizontalidad, the Arab Spring, Indignados and Podemos in Spain, and then the Occupy movement. Perhaps most significant in these movements became the recognition of the 1%, new terminology describing Marx’s bourgeoisie and proletariat.

During and since these times has been the rise of the right wing as a response to the globalisation by the 1%. These right-wingers seek a return to the perceived wealth that nationalism had supposedly brought. This emerging right-wing is common throughout the white world (Russell Means’ European) where benefits of the capitalist system had been more pronounced. These right-wingers target liberal movements as the source of the problems. Identity politics seeks to promote non-white races, women and LBGQT communities, and for these people on the right this liberalism has become an enemy.

Automation has completely changed the workplace in the last 50 years. It is now more profitable to increase the use of machines in manufacture being both more reliable mechanically and also able to work 24/7. In the capitalist system that is only interested in profit, much work that needs to be done is not profitable such as caring and the environment. Attempts are made to commodify all these non-manufacture items, and make people pay for them through taxation. So there is some profit-making but high taxation is de-motivating. At the same time a large proportion of taxation is required for defence procurement without which many western economies would fail.

With increased roboticisation there will be less and les jobs under the capitalist model, with profit as the driving force robots will be much cheaper. With less jobs there will be less money in circulation, and without that money there can be no consumerism that maintains the capitalist system.

With all of these considerations the “normal” narrative described above is not feasible.

Before considering a new narrative it is important to consider criticisms of the old narrative. With the emphasis on profit as the means of maintaining the capitalist system and therefore the normal narrative, critics point out the consequences of this normality. Increased accumulation has led to all sorts of crimes against humanity, beginning with battles for expansion, then colonisation and neo-colonialism. We have now reached a stage in which wars-for-profits are justified as an unspoken aspect of this narrative, and our education system within its hidden curriculum is required to provide the wage-slaves that keep the capitalist system functioning. At the same time we have to recognise that the system could be considered unsustainable. We are using resources without replacing them. Spending functions only in terms of debt both on an individual and governmental level, economies function as fiat economies without public reference to this invention of money. Within the white countries governments have recently promoted austerity agendas yet whilst doing so gaps between rich and poor have widened. And the taxation system is breaking down because transnationals are dodging taxation leaving money for government services short.

With all of its gross consequences capitalism does provide for some a pleasant lifestyle as described in the normal narrative. There are “natural” components within this normal narrative, and these capitalism provides for. Having children is a human necessity – as with all life. Capitalism does ensure that people work for the community in some ways albeit those ways only exist if there is profit for the accumulators, however it has to be noted that community services do not function efficiently because they lack money and resources. This of course has to be the case because such services are not creating profits.

The emphasis on profit is exclusive. In the normal narrative the church is included yet in western countries church involvement is variable. Other than mentioning the church what might be termed values are not included in this normalcy. But of course humans do have values. In general I think it is objective to say that under this normal narrative human development is not a focus, but there is of course development. However this development is driven by profit, research and development is primarily financed by corporations with the ultimate objective of profit and accumulation.

What is not mentioned above that is part of the normal narrative is the rule of law. As with all these questions books can be written on every issue but fundamentally this law protects the normal narrative of which capitalism is integral. The forces of law, police, courts and military protect the normal narrative and at the same time the capitalist system, and there are many cases in which the individual loses out to the interests of the corporation.

When we examine a new narrative we have to understand that such a narrative will meet powerful opposition if it leads to changes in the situation of those who have the accumulation – 1% or bourgeoisie. The rule of law fundamentally protects these people, and a new narrative has no power to overcome such a rule of law. It is in the interest of the powerful to consider a new narrative as they must realise that the way of life of accumulation is under threat as time marches on. There is an immediate conflict that they need to address, that of increasing automation and roboticisation, and the impact of that on consumerism.

For most normal people this immediate conflict is creating fear and violence. With increasing automation the normal narrative doesn’t function, and whilst white people fight to retain this normalcy their fear turns to violence of racism as well as greater acceptance of war – that then enable profits.

So when we ask about a new narrative we are actually questioning our way of life, and this questioning is becoming increasingly imminent. What is needed is for the narrative to evolve, but has the accumulation gone so far that evolution is not possible? Is there any new narrative in which the 1% can actually fit in?

<– Previous Post “Indigenous activist” Next Post “conditioning narrative” –>

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Confusion

Posted: 11/02/2018 by zandtao in BigTech, Struggle, War
Tags:


Confusion

It is sick the way they are creating confusion.

There is Yuval. He is wise enough to understand the world is fabricated by stories, he uses vipassana to see through the stories, but because of his lack of right view he makes a catastrophic error. His failure to see that there is beyond the intellect – beyond the arrogance of home deus – he concludes there is nothing. He concludes organisms are algorithms.

This is all that AI wants – BigTech, an academic to latch onto for their robotic incursion. Call it humanism, say that God is outmoded as this bearded being above the clouds, but dismiss the pure essence that is humanity, creativity, insight, the muse. Who is searching for this essence? Who is looking for love?

I grew up with stories, these were stories built on fear in middle-class suburbia where all were frightened of war. These stories wanted stability because people were frightened. Now there is no fear of war in the West. Whilst the West is permanently at war that war is exported, there are only a few who are soldiers because war is fought with technology. War does not hurt the West, so the West feels no pain and is not afraid.

But deep down everyone is afraid of blowback. No matter how many intellectual constructs are put forward, deep down the West knows it is guilty of waging war with impunity. Until …. Refugees. For maybe a decade war was fought with impunity, now the implications are returning to source. And more stories are constructed. There is a return of great nations, MAGA, Brexit, ….

But all around is confusion. Stories conflict. Truth does not matter, so long as the story we are comfortable works. Liberal stories are reinforced by mainstream “reasonableness”, the mainstream mocks the ignorance of the right, and Liberals feel validated. Of course these Liberals do not condemn war because their societies are based on war.

At the same time populism drives people to their own media where they are also validated. In this case the populist ego talks of pride, chauvinism, heroism and superiority. It talks of stories of ways of life, of bygone eras, of fictions, of myths, ….

These confronting factions are starting to create a living hell of confusion. Voices in the wilderness cry for unity whatever, but for most it is unity behind their flag whether it is Liberalism or Populism.

And this confusion is a forewarning of dystopia, Trumpocalypse. More and more stories are fantasies of apocalypse, it is as if we are being prepared for it – in the same way as I grew up expecting a Cold War. Did I want the Cold War to happen? NO. Was I prepared for it to happen? YES, in some way. Ian Fleming had prepared me.

Where is the story of compassion? Where is the story that in essence people are compassionate? In havens. In places where people are forced to hide so that they can be compassionate. More and more this is apocalypse, people hiding away whilst the dominant stories drive us to apocalypse.

Why don’t we make our stories positive? Why aren’t our main stories about finding compassion? Because there are no profits for the 1% in compassion. It is so simple to see through these stories if we choose, the message is hardly hidden.

If there is a 1%-apocalypse history will only say “why were we so stupid to accept these stories?”

But remember none of these stories matter deep down to you if you choose. If you participate in the stories you become attached, and they hurt. What if you don’t participate? What if you look at the stories and say, they mean nothing. Go beyond the stories and find happiness. The stories bring sadness, participating in the stories entraps you, move away – move beyond, there is still peace. Essence is beyond stories, essence is the home of peace. Find that home.

<– Previous Post “Yuval warning” Next Post “Noel Fitzpatrick” –>

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

A very interesting talk with Yuval Noah Harari, well worth listening to. But then disaster struck, I listened to Homo Deus, and realised how dangerous Yuval’s ideas are, how much BigTech want him. So before anything there is a:-

First of all Yuval talks of “stories”. These stories are the same as the stories which are the agreements described in Toltec knowledge by Don Miguel Ruiz in “The Four Agreements”. The 4 agreements of the title of the book are as follows:-

But the process of agreeing is at the basis of this Toltec description of society. Through our upbringing and education society imparts a number of stories, these stories are accepted by all and become part of everyone’s life – some enforced by law, most just enforced by agreement.

Yuval talks a great deal about what is real, and what is a story, and telling the difference; he importantly notes that society depends on our accepting these stories. He mentions money as a story that is accepted the world over. The concept of money is at the basis of our economic system, whilst the root meaning of economics might well be “laws of life” in truth it is “laws of money”; even in root meaning there is obfuscation. Because of the stories that have been told, whether agreed or not, how we see money is leading to great instability in our societies – war.

A society is based on trading, always has been – probably always will be. What do we trade? Products and skills. Conducting trade with these “raw” items is impracticable, so an intermediary measure (conduit) was introduced – money. Somehow society reaches an agreed valuation, termed market forces – although that is a loaded term, and products and skills are traded. This is reasonable, and might well be considered the real part of trading and money, using money to facilitate trade.

However money has taken on a life of its own, and the dangers of this life lead to day-to-day suffering. Instead of money simply being a mechanism of value for products and skills, most of trading is now imaginary, where the money does not represent products or skills but invented financial mechanisms. This story sounds ludicrous, and there has to be questions as to how agreement has been reached. The answer is simple, there has been no agreement, however there is a loose tacit agreement with the 1%-system that is termed economics. The world is held together with this story, suffering is caused, and this is tacitly accepted. This “story” is just an extension of the Marxist lack of confidence in the capitalism. It is very evident that if people were given the choice to agree with this economic system they would not, so we are not given the choice.

Yuval attributes his understanding of what is real and what is a story to Vipassana. What this meant to Yuval gave me a number of questions. Vipassana is generally accepted as the method of meditation – following the breath – as described by the Buddha, and it is also described as “Insight Meditation”. I did not hear Yuval use the word “insight”, and there was an appropriate time.

Jumping out of podcast order he spoke of the “robot takeover”. His fear of the “takeover” was at the basis of his second book “Homo Deus”. He discussed the useless class, again an intellectual misnomer of the use of the word class. Consider a dystopian class structure of the 1%, useful and useless. The separation of class into useful wage-slaves and useless would enable the continuation of post-robotic exploitation. There needs to be unity to fight this. Yuval discussed the US underclass, 20% in prison, perhaps suggesting a fear that this is the future of the useless.

However if this is the future of the post-robotic useless, it also spells the death of capitalism and the 1%-system. The 1%-system thrives on consumerism. If our 99% future is to become useless we will also not be consumers, and that will end the 1%-system that depends on consumerism. It is the circulation of money that creates the consumerism, and this requires the 99% to be consumers – to be wage-slaves. If we are not wage-slaves we cannot be consumers, and the 1%-system dies.

The 1%-system has a huge dilemma to face. Firstly it is undoubtedly the case that much labour can be more productively performed by robots – 24/7 with supervision. Robots will increase profits in the interim. But this will reduce the amount of money in circulation, and this will reduce 1%-profits.

Wage-slavery has to change from mindless labour, wage-slaves will have to be “creatively-ignorant”. This is the line that people like Ken Robinson were trying to walk – educating for creativity; I believe I recall Microsoft were also pushing this. For the 1% the creativity dilemma is “how do we promote creativity whilst keeping people as wage-slaves?”; this is what I mean by creatively-ignorant. If that dilemma is solved those people will become members of the dystopian “useful wage-slaves”.

But the dilemma is that creativity is primarily revolutionary. Creativity is the path, and the path ultimately is pro-nature – and therefore against the 1%-system. But it might work. Our educators in general at present accept the delusion that they are educating whilst they are primarily actually creating wage-slaves. Maybe education can change, produce the useful “creatively-ignorant”, and the 1%-system could survive.

But our wage-slaves are at present filled with factual content, and our education system has a tacit movement away from creativity. But if wage-slaves are expected to be filled with “creativity”, that makes everything so much more volatile. Such a dilemma.

There is another way that consumerism could continue but it requires a huge shift that would also threaten the 1%-system. Wage-slaves could work on socially useful jobs that would not produce profits for the 1%. There is so much work that could be done to improve life, but this work would fall under the category of caring as opposed to profit-making. We could care for the environment and infrastructure, we could care far better for people. But all of this would require money being taken from the 1% who only make profits based on finance and production. This they would resist.

Either way robots threaten the 1%-system, however the second way is a better way for humanity as a whole.

Yuval said the way forward for education is unknown. This is not the case. Promoting insight and creativity is a positive way forward for education in the time of AI, but this is not a way forward for the 1%-system.

But for me what is most interesting in the talk is the discussion of true essence. Yuval talks of discerning “what is” from stories, seeing through conditioning, seeing through delusion. “What is” is emptiness but there is emptiness that is the intellectual emptiness that is nothing or there is the Tao “the emptiness that is full” Tao te Ching (Ch11 and throughout). For me the understanding comes from Buddhadasa’s use of the word “voidness” and explanation.

This voidness is beyond understanding, it can be seen for what is, but it is not for understanding. But it is so important for people to see its function. For this I see voidness as sunnata, and created this meme based on my interpretation of Buddhadasa’s teaching:-

Using Yuval’s approach this meme can be understood as removing the stories around the attachment to the 5 khandas, removing the stories that “create” I and mine, and what is left is sunnata – true essence, the Tao, voidness, the emptiness that is full. Intellectually this emptiness gets reduced to nothing, but it is not nothing, it is voidness.

Through vipassana, insight meditation, we remove attachment to stories and then there can be insight. I could interpret Nibbana as the permanent removal of all stories, but I haven’t “attained Nibbana” to be certain of what I am saying. But I do feel that we can be fortunate to experience “Nibbana-glimpses” (nibbana-dhatu) along the way, Buddhadasa has said similar here. I consider this nibbana-dhatu can come to us through insight – to use Yuval vernacular – if we have removed all stories.

Whilst there is no doubt in my mind that Russell is not talking about this sunnata when he describes true essence, to me sunnata, voidness, is true essence. But this true essence has no characteristics of me (or the 5 khandas). From what I have heard Russell is searching for some Hindu Self, a kind of Wisdom-based essence or soul, that would transmigrate. To me there is no Russellness, no Self (anatta), only voidness. To begin with I searched for Self, a vague Russell-type notion. Once I came to Buddhism and then to Buddhadasa, that search for Self ended, and it became detachment – removal of attachment to I and mine, removal of attachment to the 5 khandas.

I dismissed Anne Phillips for her failure to consider true essence. Yuval dismisses true essence but it could just be he was rejecting Russell’s version. If not the Buddhist thought police need to work on him , after all he is practicing vipassana. [Later:- I initially wrote this with humour before I issued the Yuval warning.]

Russell discusses love, this is wonderful. Love is something to be discussed and revered. For me love is metta, one of the 4 Brahma-Viharas, highest vehicles, one of the purest forms humans can aspire to. To me these 4 Brahma-Vaharas are states to aspire to, being “near voidness”. When all the stories of love have been removed, often originating in Hollywood, then there is metta. This is worth seeking. When Russell discussed love, Yuval dismissed it because he looked historically at what had been done erroneously in the name of love. But Yuval was attaching to the stories and not helping Russell search for love. It sounds as if Russell at present is in a very good position with regards to love because of his partner and daughter. Whilst that love is still a story, even though it probably doesn’t feel so, that love is never forgotten, and will be with him all his life – with or without partner and daughter.

I am only discussing Yuval in terms of what I took from this Russell talk. I haven’t read either of his books, perhaps I should. This is how I originally ended this blog – before I issued the Yuval warning, but I downloaded “Homo Deus”. The title should have given it away “Man is God”. As can be seen above I gave Yuval the benefit of the doubt because he practised Vipassana – as I try to do, but that benefit was a mistake. Russell questioned about love, and was dismissed for historical reasons. That however need not have been a dismissal of essence, but listening to Homo Deus it was clear to me that Yuval was dismissing essence.

His “Homo Deus” talk began with examination of humanism in practice, and whilst each aspect of humanism he described had some truth his descriptions were incomplete – all seemed lacking. And then it completely knocked me aside when he put up a slide “Organisms are algorithms”, I switched off I couldn’t listen. It was all so clear then. For Yuval there is no essence, no sunnata. Without that we might as well be algorithms.

Another word for algorithms could be conditioning, cause and effect, this is fundamental Buddhism; conditionality – paticcasammupada. EXCEPT we can move beyond conditioning, and that is the essence of what the Buddha taught, of what Buddhadasa taught. We can move beyond conditioning, 4 Noble Truths – we can move beyond desire [desire – the cornerstone of conditioning – the driving force of conditionality, of cause and effect]. As far as Russell went Yuval had stuff to offer but Russell pointed to Yuval’s lack of understanding of essence. Yuval claims Vipassana but there is no genuine Vipassana without Right View and Yuval’s intellectual attachment to sankhara shows he has no right view.

Yuval has no insight. NO, there is no insight and he is dangerous. Hence the warning.

<– Previous Post “Anne Phillips” Next Post “Confusion” –>

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.