Thoughts on the unique association between the White Male and the modern world, as well as some of its effects

Here are some thoughts I had based on some observations I have made recently.  Some of these thoughts I have mentioned before in articles such as “Thoughts on the “male panic”” and “Thoughts on the ‘WAM envy’ – a success story turned bad“.

I have always felt that the white male is in a very unique position, primarily as a result of the fact that he created the modern world (I shall speak of the “white male” as WM in this article).  It has had both good and bad reactions and effects not only for him but for society and the world.

Oddly enough, much of the white males contribution, role, and influence in the modern world seems to be downplayed and, oftentimes, trivialized, if its noticed at all.  In fact, his contribution is generally not acknowledged or noticed from my experience.  If it is acknowledged it is primarily only an individual person, not the WM-as-a-group.  My observation, though, is that the WM-as-a-group is critical and plays a major role in all this.  But, since the modern world has now become so massive and powerful it has, in some respects, eclipsed the WM-as-a-group.  In this way, the massive size of the modern world has hidden not only the contributions of the WM-as-a-group but the problems it has caused them.  Because it has become so hidden a person must stand back and take another look.  I’ve found that the more I do this the more I can see that that there is a lot more to it than it, at first, appears.

Here are some of my impressions:


The white male appears to consist of Western European or Western European-descended males.  When I first observed this phenomena I originally thought it was directed toward the White American Males or WAM, as I called them.  Now I know that it goes beyond that to Europe.  More specifically, it refers to the white male originating from the Norse people (Germanic-Scandinavian) which make up Western Europe.  There is special emphasis with the English or English-descended male. This fact, I feel, shows that the condition that created this phenomena is primarily developed by the English and is, therefore, centered upon them and their descendants (and, sometimes, anyone who has a physical resemblance!).  From them it has spread to the British colonies of America.  As a result, it is the American white male, in particular, who has continued and developed this phenomena even further.  This fact shows that this phenomena largely reflects a cultural manifestation originating from the Western European male, specifically the English and English-descended male.  As a result of them, it tends to center upon them as a group.  This shows a tendency of what can be described as a ‘group centered tendency’.  That is to say, this whole phenomena tends to center on the acts of a specific group of people who, accordingly, creates it and controls it.  In addition, since it centers on them, as a group, this has been their main orientation, on themselves as a group, of their interests, of their concerns, and their world perception.  This is because it is a manifestation of their culture, primarily, which causes them to exclude other people as a result.  This tendency would be used to villanize and ridicule the white male, particularly in recent times, often making this group out as tyrants and oppressors for example.  In actuality, the ‘group centered tendency’ is a normal process that happens in human society.   What makes this group different is that they have created something that has had far-reaching and influential effects, and which ended up affecting much of the world (the modern world).  As a result, much of their behavior, and attitudes, tended to have greater impact.  Normally, the creations of any ‘group centered tendency’ does not have such impact nor develop such power and, as a result, the behavior and attitudes of the group tend to have minimal influence.

The cultural element tends to focus much of this phenomena on the Western European or Western European descended male, but it is not necessarily exclusive to them.  It can appear in other groups and nationalities but generally on a lesser level.  Not only that, they typically have to be in a social environment created by the WM.  It often appears in these other groups not because they are part of the phenomena itself but because they are somehow associated with the phenomena created by the WM.  For example, they may be living in the same country or went to schools created by the WM where they develop qualities such as these:

In this way it can entail other groups of people such as the Celts (such as the Irish or Scottish), the Spanish, Italians, Greeks, Slavs, and Jews.

Interestingly, these all tend to physically resemble the white male to some extent.  It seems a little harder for people who do not resemble the white male physically to be part of this group (the non-WM’s, such as oriental people, black people, and females).  This shows that the physical appearance of the white male plays a critical role in all this showing a strong ‘group centered tendency’.  This seems to have two origins:

  1. From the WM themselves.  Because the creations of the WM were created by their culture they naturally tend to focus it upon themselves and exclude other people not in the group.  It shows that this whole thing is related, and based, in a group mentality.
  2. From non-WM’s.  Not being part of the WM culture they view themselves as “off to the side” and watch the WM at a distance.  Because of this, they are not a part of it and removed.  This often creates a strong “them versus us” mentality as well as envy (see below).

My observation, over the years, seems to show that this tendency is actually strongest with non-WM’s.  In other words, it is the non-WM’s who display the greatest ‘group centered tendency’ primarily because they are not part of the group (because they are not a part of it).  In this way, the non-WM’s have actually contributed a lot in the creation of a “WM group” by segregating themselves as not being part of the group.  In other words, they feel “left out”, so to speak, which made them single out the “WM” as a separate group that is separate from them (the “us versus them”).  The WM did not segregate themselves out as a group that much, it seems to me.  Their stance would be more of a “they’re living in their own world”.  Because of this, the WM tends to view themselves as only participating in his own “WM culture”, oblivious of other people and its effects on other people.  This, I tend to feel, became one of the problems with the WM, as he became engrossed in his own “WM culture” as if it was a world unto itself, removed from the rest of the world.


Over the years, the WM created his own culture – the “WM culture”.  This culture was the net result of hundreds of years of development in Western Europe.  During this time many qualities have contributed to its makeup, such as:

  • Christianity.
  • Neoclassicism (the revival of Greek and Roman classics which led to things like democracy and science).
  • Royalty.
  • Norse mentality and traditions.
  • Exploration (of the world and ideas).

It has basically developed traits similar to any “culture”, such as:

  • A tendency where the “culture” becomes its own world independent of everything else.  As a result, there is a tendency to as if live in their “own world” oblivious of everyone else.
  • The “culture” is a manifestation of a group mentality.  In other words, it is based in a bond between a particular group of people.
  • The “culture” tends to be centered upon them, their concerns, and their world viewThey tend to not take into consideration other points of view and realities.
  • There is a tendency where they do not want other people, ways, or things, intruding upon their “culture”.  In many cases in history, an intrusion by some foreign quality can incite a violent reaction in some cultures.  This has happened within the “WM culture”, from time to time, as well.

These qualities would become particularly pronounced in the Western European male.  In fact, it is these qualities that made the “culture” quite strong and powerful and, eventually, very powerful.  Because the “culture” centered upon the WM, who is only a part of society, one could say that the “WM culture” became a subculture within the greater culture of Western society. 

I would even go on to say that the “WM culture” was “tribal” in many ways.  That is to say, it has qualities of a “tribe” much as we see in primitive tribes.  This “tribal” quality made the qualities above more intense and important.  This helped create qualities such as:

  • There became a stronger bond between the WM’s.
  • There was greater emphasis on their “culture” and ways.
  • There was a stronger sense that they “belonged” to their “culture”, ways, and creations, or that it was “theirs”, something that they “possessed”.
  • There was more of an exclusion of people not part of the “tribe” (non WM’s).

These are common qualities seen in many forms of “tribes”.

Being a type of a subculture, or “tribe”, the “WM culture” was not a generalized culture reflecting the greater culture of society and definitely not of the world.  It is primarily a reflection of a specific group of people, a subgroup in the society.  This fact reflects a number of things:

  • That it is an association or bond of a specific group of people.   People who do not have this association or bond tend to not reflect it that well.
  • That the association or bond of this group has a unique quality that creates it.  In other words, this unique quality can’t really be replicated completely by people who are not a part of this group.  It is a quality that is inherent in the subgroup.
  • That once this group disappears the association or bond disappears, the unique quality disappears, and what they created disappears with them.  In other words, what the “WM culture” created will probably fall when they fall.  In this way, it is really no different than any other “culture”, that when it falls, its “spirit”, so to speak, falls with it.  What remains are only remnants of what this “spirit” created.

I should also point out that “WM culture” does not reflect all WM’s but, in actuality, only a minority of them.  Many WM’s, in fact, have nothing to do with the “WM culture” at all.  In this way,”WM culture” is sort of misleading.  It really refers to a part of the WM that became particularly powerful and influential.  But it, by no means, reflects all WM’s.

In addition, with the varying qualities, traits, ideals, and such that have contributed to the “WM culture” there has developed many forms of it.  It seems that most varieties of “WM culture” lie within and remain within the WM himself and tends to not affect anyone else.  That is to say, it entails qualities that are only a concern to the WM himself and, accordingly, has very little, if any, influence on others.  In this way, it becomes a culture only they know.  Most WM’s live within this form of “culture”.  The “WM culture” that has affected the world is a form of “WM culture”.  It is not reflective, really, of all forms of it.  This form of the “WM culture” is very unique in that it has gone way beyond the WM himself and has had great impact and influence, not only for other people but the world.  This aspect of the “WM culture” is what created the modern world with all its organization, machines, inventions, etc.  It is this aspect of the “WM culture” that I speak of here.  This aspect of the “WM culture” has had so much influence, and wielded so much power, that many feelings, good and bad, have begun to revolve around it.


The creation of the modern world has created a great dilemma for the world, what can be called the ‘modern dilemma’.   This dilemma has origin in a number of sources:

  1. It has been too successful.
  2. It has had too much impact.
  3. It primarily reflects the Western European male character or WM.
  4. Because of the ‘group centered tendency’ they tended to emphasize only on themselves as a group, tending to disregard or leave out everyone else in its creation.

The effects of these can range from incredibly good to incredibly bad, things that are amazingly beneficial and things that are horrifyingly bad.  In this way, its often hard to say if the modern world is “good” or “bad”:  its a mixture of both.  In addition, to that, it has had tremendous influence and power.  In this way, the ‘modern dilemma’ is looking at something which has become so powerful and impactful, and with so many good and bad qualities, that it has become hard to determine if its good or bad.  Its almost as if there is no consensus as to how to view it exactly.  Typically, if its good or bad depends on where you stand and how you are affected by it.  This makes it so that there are no clear views on it, many of which are contradictory.  In addition, the impact and power of the modern world on peoples lives incites many deep feelings.  It can almost be religious, for some people, heralded as a savior.  Other people see it with horror and a threat.  So we see that the ‘modern dilemma’ describes a reaction to a condition placed upon peoples lives which appears in as many ways as there are differences in people.  Some of these same feelings, of the ‘modern dilemma’, are often placed upon the WM as well.

The influence of success

I’ve often said that the problem with the WM is that they have become too successful.  In actuality, the WM has created the most successful systems in history:  the modern world.  Never, in the history of the world, has any one single group of people created so many successful elements and on so many different levels.  Because of this I describe this as the “WM miracle”.  I say this because one could very well say that the success of the modern world has been miraculous.  The creation of massive ships, skyscrapers, jets, landing on the moon, etc. have an almost miraculous quality about them.  This is stuff that has never been seen before.  As a result, it has incited many feelings and reactions such as:

  • Fear.
  • Envy/jealousy.
  • Hatred.

These are feelings that are often directed toward the WM as he is associated with the creation of the modern world.  I, myself, have found this out from personal experience.  I’ve often been stunned at how intense these feelings can be in some people and how they can be directed toward us as a group, regardless of what we’ve done or our involvement.  Overall, its appearance has the quality of an apprehension, and seems directed to the WM as a group.  This is why I call it ‘WM apprehension’.  In this way, the success of the “WM miracle” (the modern world) has caused a tendency for people to become apprehensive toward it and the people who created it (the WM).  This will make many people grow to fear and hate the WM as well as become enviousIts a particular quality of attitude.   

The influence of being too impactful

This success of the “WM miracle” (the modern world), is seen on a multitude of levels:

  • Ideals.
  • Knowledge.
  • Government.
  • Society.
  • Inventions.
  • Discoveries.
  • Explorations.

These have made it so that the modern world has affected society as a whole, not just a small aspect of society.  In this way, the success has affected many people in society and in the whole world as well.  In other words, it has been very impactful on many people, many of which are not WM’s.

Unfortunately, for this miracle to happen there had to be great changes and effects, as a result.  Some of these were good, some were not.  Some were beneficial, some were tragic.  Some helped, some harmed.  This has caused a multitude of reactions, good and bad, much like this:

  • Destructiveness.  The modern world has done great destruction and damage and in many different way.  One could describe an aspect of the modern world as tragic.
  • Interference.  The modern world has intruded and disrupted many things.  In many cases, these have become damaging.
  • Helping.  The modern world has often help people even in small amounts.
  • Benefitting.  The modern world can often change things for the better.  Many peoples lives has been improved, and even saved, by the modern world.

Since the WM is associated with the modern world the attitudes about the WM tends to follow this pattern as well.  My experience is that the WM is typically viewed in a negative light, as a group and as a person, and is blamed for many of the problems helping to create the ‘WM apprehension’.

Interestingly, I’ve heard very few people praise the WM-as-a-group for what they have created (though they are generally willing to condemn and criticize them).  I’m often appalled by how we have all these special recognitions for other people (black history month, women’s history month, etc.) but there is absolutely nothing for the WM.  He doesn’t even get an acknowledgement!  I tend to believe that the tendency to exclude the WM is one of the manifestations of the ‘WM apprehension’ phenomena.   Everyone else is acknowledged for their contribution, however minor, except for him.  The WM is treated as a non-entity by society even though society has gained so much from the WM.  In many cases, society owes practically everything to the WM and what he has done and created.  I’ve often jokingly said that “I refuse to honor something like black history month or women’s history month until they have a white male history month.  But, if they get a month for what they’ve done, we should get a white male history decade for our contribution!”

The influence of the European  and Male character

The modern dilemma reflects aspects of what I call the “male creation”.  This refers to the things that the male character created (see my article “Thoughts on the “male creation”“).   In other words, the modern world is a “male creation”.  As a result of this, it is inherently associated with the male and reflecting male character traits.  In addition, being that it is created by the Western European male it reflects the character traits of Western European culture.  One of the effects of this is that it has naturally left out the character traits of many people such as:

These exclusions would become a part of the ‘modern dilemma’ and intensify the ‘WM apprehension’ even more.  The reason for this is that it created a problem where the modern world did not reflect most of the people it had power over.  As a result, many people found themselves influenced by an “alien” power, so to speak, in which many people could not, in some cases, even relate to.

Because it is a “male creation” the modern world reflects many “male characteristics” such as:

  • Great organization.
  • A tendency to comradery for the males (which can create an attitude of exclusiveness).
  • An orientation of confronting and dealing with the world.
  • A tendency to control things.
  • A tendency to emphasize the protection of ones self, family, and country, which often means a willingness to violence.
  • Creativity and innovation.

These qualities, of course, has had good and bad aspects with them and have had great impact on the perception of the modern world and the WM.  In this way, one could say that the ‘modern dilemma’ is really a dilemma created by the “male creation”.  To be more precise, the ‘modern dilemma’ is really the dilemma of the creation of the WM. 

The emphasis of the WM as a group

The ‘group centered tendency’, as I said above, has made the modern world exclusively a WM-made thing.  As a result, the tendency was for these things to happen:

  • They tended to play a part in it.
  • They primarily benefitted from it.

In this way, there was a tendency that it was exclusive to the WM alone.  Though a lot has been made out of this tendency, its really no different than a lot of other things in the world that people create, where they see it as “theirs” and do not want other people to possess it.  In fact, I’d say that the general stance of the WM is that it was created for themselves, not everyone else.  In normal situations, this would of been the case.  But their creation proved, as I said above, to be too powerful and influential.  Many WM’s, I think, never had any notion that it would become as powerful as it was.  To be frank, I think the WM was caught off guard by it all and still does not know how to react to his creation and the power it containsBecause of this, the general WM, in my opinion, tends to maintain a ‘group centered tendency’ orientation and views what they created as “theirs”. 


I’ve noticed the peculiar quality of “MW apprehension” for decades.  It appears in such a unique and odd way that I could never quite put my finger on it for years.  Being a part of the WM group I was often stunned at the weird suppositions and opinions people had about me (and eventually us).  I have seen many people look at me in ways such as:

  • As a threat.  I’m looked at as someone who it trying to undermine them, enslave them, degrade them, and even destroy them.  Oftentimes, I have no idea why or where they got this idea from.  I don’t believe I have ever provoked these feelings in these people.
  • As someone to hate.  I was often stunned how I was viewed with hatred, often for no apparent reason.  Its particularly strong with foreign or foreign-like people, including black people and Mexicans.
  • As someone who has all these benefits they don’t have.  That is to say, I’m treated as if I am ‘upper class’ even though I don’t make that much money (nor am I in a family that does).  Accordingly, they view themselves as ‘lower class’, in comparison, or as impoverished.  Apparently, the WM is supposed to have all this “stuff” that they don’t have.  I guess we “deprived” them of it, huh?
  • As someone to try to outdo and to compete against.  I was often stunned how people seemed to compete and try to outdo me for no apparent reason.  I’ve jokingly said that being a WM reminds me of the story where the best gunfighter in the Old West is always being challenged by people trying to be better than he is.  After awhile, he got sick of it quit being a gunfighter.  There are times I feel like that.
  • As someone who is supposed to know everything.  Some people seemed to think that I had all the answers and was supposed to know everything.  I remember a kid I knew in High School and Trade School (who was from Mexico) who always seemed to think I had these answers.  He also was competing with me all the time, always trying to know more than me.

Here we can see a whole range of effects from a threat to someone who knows everything.  That’s quite a range, from bad to good.  This is common with the ‘WM apprehension’, as I’ll mention below.  Even though it had a range from a threat to emulation, it generally has a quality of an apprehension in it somewhere I’ve found (the first two reflect a reaction to being threatened . . . the last three reflect an envy).  In this way, it often has a love/hate quality.  This gives it a very unique quality, consisting of mixed feelings that are often contradictory (of a feeling of being threatened mixed with a desire to imitate, for example).  This could be described as an ‘apprehensive contradiction’, which seems very unique to this phenomena.

This contradiction pervades opinions and attitudes about the modern world and the WM.  It is primarily reflective of the traits of the ‘modern dilemma’ described above.  In other words, the ‘apprehensive contradiction’ is really a reaction to the dilemma:  of a powerful system that has both good and bad in its effects making it difficult to determine to view it as good or bad.  As a result, feelings are often mixed and contradictory.  Since the WM has created the modern world the WM is often looked at in this contradictory way as well.  In this way, the ‘apprehensive contradiction’ tends to permeate the ‘WM apprehension’.  There develops both good and bad viewpoints about the WM as a result.  Often, you’ll see people state contradictory statements about the WM or reacting to him in contradictory ways.  One minute they may be try to emulate or imitate you and the next they are condemning you as an ‘oppressor’ or something.  One effect of this is that it has put the general attitude about the WM in a stance of uncertainty, no one is certain how to view the WM.  This often turns, it seems to me, into an indifference about the WM over the years.  That is to say, the WM is basically turned into a “nobody”, ignored and “pushed to the side”.  I’ve often been stunned how often we are treated like nobodies and ignored.  Often, no one even cares about our opinions (but they’ll listen to everyone else!).  Its really bizarre, one minute they are trying to be like you and the next they treat you like a nobody or condemning you.  So we see that the ‘apprehensive contradiction’ has more of a range, much like this:

  • Envy (causes things like emulation and imitation).
  • Hatred.
  • Indifference (ignoring and treating the WM like a nobody).

When several of these are directed toward the same person they all contradict each other, regardless of which one is used.  What this shows is that there are a multitude of ways the ‘apprehensive contradiction’ can appear.

Other Reactions

Some common reactions to the “WM miracle” include:

  • The success of the modern world has created an envy toward the WM.
  • The problems of the modern world has created a fear of the WM.

Envy can create:

  • Hatred and dislike.
  • Jealousy.
  • Feelings of being left out.
  • A desire to imitate.
  • A desire to outdo.

Fear can create:

  • Hatred and dislike.
  • A blind fear.
  • A desire to destroy.

Much of which stance you take tends to depend on where you stand and your situation.  What I mostly see are forms of envy.

Other aspects of the reaction include:

  1. If one is benefitted by it then one generally looks at the “WM miracle” as a system (that is, as technology, government, etc. . . . it is generally devoid of a human face).
  2. If one is adversely affected by it then the “WM miracle” is viewed as the act of a person, the WM himself.  Because of this, the WM is attacked personally as tyrants, oppressors, and such . . . the “WM miracle” is now viewed as having a human face.

The ‘WM apprehension’ can be directed in a number of ways:

  • Directed toward the person of the WM.  This could be the King, President, Official, or just a WM in general.
  • Directed toward the institutions created by the WM.  This could be the government, business, military, and such.
  • Directed toward the creations created by the WM.  This could be the machines, knowledge, weaponry, and such.

This shows this phenomena is not necessarily based around the person of the WM but everything the WM has created or is a part of.  In other words, the dilemma is about the modern world as a complex of different things (its creators, the inventions, the institutions, etc.) and not just one thing (such as the WM).  In this way, we see that the ‘WM apprehension’ is a reaction, in actuality, to a condition.  More specifically, its a reaction to power . . .

Aspects of Power

It appears, to me, that the ‘WM apprehension’ primarily revolves around not being part of the “power” of the “WM miracle” or modern world.  Being so impactful, and influential, the “WM miracle” created a lot of power inherent in its makeup.  Because of this, one could really say that everything revolves around the power that the “WM miracle” created, more than anything else, and that this is what is actually causing all the conflict.  In this way, its really just another “power game” or “King of the mountain” game, where people without power want to have the power:  they see the people with “power” and want it.  This is why the example I gave above, of the Old West gunfighter, is so appropriate:  they are trying to knock the person “on top” off and take his place.  To me, in its simplist form, the ‘WM apprehension’ appears to be nothing but a “King of the mountain” game.  The WM created the power (of the modern world) . . . now everyone else wants it.  The “apprehension” is a result of qualities created by the “King of the mountain” game.  One could then say that the “apprehension” is actually a mixture of these things:

  1. Feeling intimidated by the power.
  2. Not having the power.
  3. Wanting the power.

In this way, we see that the issue does, in fact, revolve around “power”.  Looking at it this way we can see the effects of power:

  • The fear of what power can do.
  • Of not having power.
  • Of feeling threatened by those in power.
  • Of not trusting those with the power.

Overall, this creates a sense of “apprehension”.  In other words, ‘WM apprehension’ is an apprehension caused by the existence of a new form of power that has appeared.

Many WM’s, in my opinion, are not fully aware of the power that the “WM miracle” has created nor the problems its created.  Most, from my experience, tend to look at things casually, such as seeing something as “only something new”, a “new idea”, a “new invention”, a “new business venture”, etc.  In other words, they do not fully realize the effects their creations has created.  In this way, the WM is often the one who least see’s its effects and they often don’t see the effects of the power problems it creates.

But the power of the “WM miracle” (the modern world) is very impactful and influential.  Never, in the history of the world, has any one single thing been so impactful in the world.  In some respect, the WM bit off more than he can chew.  The power of the “WM miracle” turned out to be far more influential than he ever thought or knows how to deal with.  He was unprepared for it (everyone was, I think).  But now “the genie has been let out of the bottle”.

Interestingly, the general attitude of the WM, in my opinion, was in creating not in controlling power . . . he created the modern world.  The effects of it, though, he did not know how to handle.  In this way, the WM found himself at a loss.  The “WM miracle” went so beyond the WM’s capabilities that many WM’s began to condemn his own creations and see it in a bad light (see below).  So, we see, that the “WM miracle” put the WM in a precarious position.  He created something with so much power that not even he knew how to control it. 

But, for the non-WM’s, it created whole other conflicts.  They basically saw a power rise up above them that had these effects:

  • They were affected by.
  • They were not a part of it.
  • That it had great power and influence.

The most significant factor was how they were affected by it:  if they benefitted from it then they generally accepted it . . . if they did not benefit from it then they condemned it.  If they condemned it then they generally made issues out of “not being a part of it”.

Eventually, though, the modern world began to wield so much power and influence that everyone felt that they were not a part of it.  This caused things like this:

  • A feeling of being left out that hit deep.  This was often draped in political/legal jargon.  For example, they were “discriminated against”, it was “racist”, etc.
  • A tendency of imitation the WM by non-WM’s (see below).  This, interestingly, would cause a tendency for people to destroy their own identity.

In effect, everyone wanted to be a part of the new “power” of the “WM miracle” to the point that they would use (or, rather, warp) law to get it or they would deny who they are to “appear” to be a part of it.  This shows the power the “WM miracle” has.  It would also start a process of the undermining of social institutions (such as law) and the degradation of the individual person (such as destroying their identity) . . . see below.  In other words, the scramble for power would scramble society and the person.

We can go on to say that the modern world wielded so much power and influence that the WM, its creators, also began to feel they were not a part of it.  In this way, the WM would be undermined by the very thing he created (see below).


The feeling of being adversely affected by the “WM miracle” became particularly strong after the cold war where the great power of the modern world was being demonstrated.  This was particularly as a result of the threat of nuclear annihilation and of complete destruction at the hands of weapons of destruction that was created by the WM.  As a result of this, ‘WM apprehension’ is often related to cold war themes and would be deeply bound up with themes originating there, such as:

  • Anti-war sentiment.  The WM would be viewed as a ‘war-monger’ and threat.
  • The destructiveness of war.  The WM would be associated with war, the weapons of war, and destruction in general.
  • The idea of oppression.  This originates from the political side which surrounded the cold war (freedom, oppression, etc.).  The WM would be molded into the oppressors, of people who controlled other people.
  • The idea of democracy and people rule.  The cold war caused a glorification of American ideals, of democracy and people rule.  The idea of democracy and people rule also catered to the feeling that non-WM’s were “not a part” of the “WM miracle”.  In this way, the idea of democracy and people rule gave a way for non-WM’s to either be a part of the “WM miracle” or it would be used as a defence against its effects.  This appears to be one reason that gave the idea, for example, that non-WM’s should “rule”, which was often glorified as a great cause, or that they were “oppressed”.

In effect, the anti-war attitudes turned into anti-WM attitudes during the cold war.  The cold war, then, is very much related to the development of an anti-WM attitude that continues down to this day.  In some respects, the cold war turned the WM into a “bad guy” to many people and gave them the excuses as to way.  Not only that, the cold war gave this idea that the WM was a person who couldn’t be trusted, that the WM are war-mongers and oppressors, for example.

In many ways, the cold war gave an outlet for the feelings of being adversely affected or “not a part of” the “WM miracle”.  It gave means, and themes, to vent these feelings.  It also created a false image of the WM that continues to this day.  In fact, it would have tremendous effect on the male in general (see below).

In addition, the cold war associated anti-WM feelings with politics and law.  This is because there was a tendency to use politics and law as a justification for the anti-war feelings during the cold war.  Since the WM is associated with the cold war this same tendency would be directed toward the WM.  The effect of using politics and law for anti-war and anti-WM causes ended up distorting and warping politics and law.  This is because, during the cold war, there became a great cold war paranoia and panic that developed.  One could say it was a mania, being very prevalent in the early 1970’s.  This mania used politics and law to justify its cause.  But, being a mania, they began to distort and warp politics and law for their cause and purpose.  The distortion and warpage of politics and law still exists today.


Because of the success and power of the “WM miracle”, with its success and problems, there has developed a tendency to suppress the WM and in many different ways.  This is because the WM is equated with the problems of the ‘modern dilemma’.  Its almost as if they think that by suppressing the WM they will suppress the problems of the modern world.  Often this suppression, is associated with ‘the minority and female versus the WM’ myth (see below).

The success of the weapons of war, as a result of the cold war in particular, has seemed to cause great apprehension of the WM.  It has made these associations:

  • WM = war
  • WM = destruction

These associations has been very prevalent since the Vietnam War in the late 1960’s-early 1970’s.  In fact, it seems to of caused an “organized effort” to suppress the WM as I, myself, have seen.  Because of this, there has been great effort to “suppress” the male as a person, as well as male associated things.

This suppression has gone to many aspects of the male character, such as:

  • Not allowing any weapons, even toy weapons.
  • Not allowing an form of anger or anything violent.
  • Not allowing any form of social hierarchy.
  • Not allowing any form of control.

The effect of this is to basically turn the male is turned into a vegetable who must “sit there”.  In addition, he is taught attitudes that are the opposite of these male character traits, such as learning peacefulness at all costs, not being angry, being “democratic” to destroy a supposed desire to control, teaching that to shoot a gun is bad, etc.

Other ways of male suppression include:

  • The WM is degraded in some way.  Often this entails trying to portray them as bad or tyrants or something similar.
  • Trying to replace the WM.  They often will try to replace him by becoming the WM, emulating what he does and how he does it, what I often call being the “new WM” (see below).
  • They try to put the WM in a “non-existence” stance.  The WM is treated as if he does not exist and is, in a way, forgotten.  This is often what happens with ‘righteous imitation’ (see below).
  • They try to accuse and blame the WM for everything.  All the problems of the world are the WM’s fault.  I was often appalled how the WM was blamed for everything in the world, as if the WM is responsible for it all.  This includes war, overpopulation, poverty, disease, etc.  In many ways, the WM has become the scapegoat for the worlds problems for many people.  Whatever the problem, its the WM’s fault.  Its become a joke for me, even, to always say “blame it on the white male . . . he’s at fault for everything”.
  • They turn the WM into a tyrant, oppressor, or villain.  He becomes the “bad guy”.  This is often assumed by people, often automatically.  In actuality, this is usually just a form of stereotyping the WM (see below).
  • They favor non-WM’s, even though the WM is more qualified or better.  I’ve seen this many times and, myself, have been the victim of it.  They’ve even made laws to guarantee the favoring of non-WM’s, whether qualified or not!  To be frank, watching this has destroyed my belief in this society.

Overall, then, what we see is a great attempt at trying to “take the WM out of society” or in  “demasculanizing” society.  This is often done under the guise of democracy and freedom.  That is to say, under the guise of self-righteous cause.  I’ve even seen references by people (such as liberals and feminists) that the suppression of the male will bring peace and harmony in the world.  In other words, the apprehension of the WM, as a result of the conditions caused by the “WM miracle”, has created points of view that the suppression, and even elimination, of half the world (the male) would end much of the worlds problems and bring world peace! 

These points of view would become particularly prevalent after the end of the cold war in about 1990.  The younger generation of males (even to this day) would particularly be demasculanized (I often speak of them as “the castrated generations”).  This shows how the suppression of the WM has turned into a suppression of the male in general by society.  In other words, the success of what the “WM miracle” created has caused a movement to the destruction of the male!  In this way, something like a male crisis has been created, of a society that has become pitted itself against the male.  So we see a pattern like this:

  1. The WM creates the modern world (the “WM miracle”).
  2. Non-WM’s feel adversely affected by the modern world.
  3. The weapons of war, caused by the Cold War in particular, creates particularly harsh feelings against the modern world.
  4. This is then associated with the WM.
  5. The villanizing, condemning, and suppression of the WM is begun.
  6. These feelings spread to the male in general.
  7. The male, overall, is suppressed.

This more or less says that the power of the modern world, a creation of the WM, has been so strong that it has caused a reaction against the male in general.

This suppression has gone on to a general shunning of the WM, in general, in ways such as:

  • The problems the WM have are not acknowledged or dealt with (they are neglected).
  • The WM are ignored.
  • The WM is treated as a non-entity.
  • The WM is not helped in any way.
  • The WM is not inspired or given confidence by society.
  • The WM are treated as if they have no value.

It seems that this shunning has turned into a generalized neglect.  Some of this neglect has become almost unreal to me.  I am particularly bothered to see little boys, nowadays, neglected and shunned in these ways.  I’ve seen quite a number of boys, in some families, so neglected that they are treated as if they don’t even exist!  In fact, I’ve found that the lives of many young boys have become a life of neglect.  I see this wherever I go.  Many boys, I have found, have sought a refuge in things, such as computer games or the fantasy land of books or movies, as a means to have “some value” in life, where something they do matters and where they are a somebody.  Many boys are starting to develop mental problems as a result of this.  In fact, I do believe I’m seeing many mental problems in boys, nowadays, that appear to be a direct result of this neglect.  I have been utterly appaled how this crisis in the lives of young boys is so neglected and treated as if it does not exist . . . all a part of the shunning and neglect the WM has received.

Many adult WM’s will confront this shunning and neglect as well (many have been brought up with it).  Many WM’s will find themselves in a society that often doesn’t seem all that supportive of him or seems to want him (such as see my article “Thoughts on being a “surplus human” – the importance of self-deception“).  Some of the things this has caused are:

From my observation, these are common attitudes in the male today.  In short, we see that the WM becomes a degraded person as a result.  Often, this is blamed on various things or he’s just called an “ass” or something.  There is a tendency to not see that it has a deeper origin.  Too often it is discounted as “no big thing” or treated as if doesn’t exist.

So what we see is that the shunning and neglect of the WM has had great and tragic effects on the WM.


With the dilemma of the cold war many of the non-WM’s (minorities or females) often viewed themselves as being victimized by the WM (which is really the modern world with all its weapons and such).  One of the weird effects of this is that it has caused a tendency for them to think that they are the ‘saviors’ of the world in some way.  By this is usually meant that they will reverse the effects of the “WM miracle”.  In other words, they will “save the world” from the adverse effects of the modern world.  As a result, there has developed a stance that it is the minority and female versus the WM.    Because of this, I call it ‘the minority and female versus the WM’ mythThis condition, of course, does not exist and is a myth that non-WM’s have created, particularly as a reaction to the cold war mania and paranoia during the Vietnam War.  If anything, its another example of the power the “WM miracle” had.  In other words, its a manifestation of the power issues caused by the “WM miracle” (see above).

This myth has gone so far that it has been put into law.  In some cases, employers and government must employ so many minorities and females, for example, regardless of their qualifications.  I, myself (as well as many friends), was told that I was excluded from the U.S. Army because I was not minority or female (see my article “Some thoughts on why I consider the U.S. a fallen country – denying its own people“).  This scenario, as I’d find out, is far more prevalent than I realized.  It had created a condition where minorities and females are given ‘special privilege’ because they are NOT WM’s.  In this way, something like a ‘reverse discrimination’ is created (though professing to be against discrimination) or a favoritism.   This often appears in a number of ways, such as:

  • Non-WM’s are accepted into things (such as jobs).
  • Non-WM’s opinions are listened to.  I’ve sat and watched how many WM’s are ignored and their opinions disregarded.
  • Non-WM’s are looked at as being “automatically better” then the WM, generally without cause to believe it.  This is a weird phenomena that has appeared.  Its created a myth that minorities and females are better or superior than the WM, even though the WM created everything they’re using.  In most cases, all they are doing is imitating the WM and, in so doing, they seem to think that they are better than the WM.  In other words, they think they are better than the people they are imitating!  It sort of has a quality of an actor thinking that they are better than the person they are portraying because they think they can imitate him better.  This has always made me chuckle . . . it also seems hypocritical.  This tendency to think they are better than the people they are imitating I often call the ‘righteous imitation’.  It is common with non-WM’s.  This tendency to ‘righteous imitation’ is a good example of the contradictory qualities of the ‘apprehensive contradiction’:  It shows an envy mixed with an indifference.  They are envious of the WM, and so imitate him, but then “push him to the side” and are indifferent to him, because they think they are “better” than him.  It is the fact that the non-WM’s continually displayed this type of behavior that most convinced me that this was a phenomena revolving around the WM.  Originally, I viewed the “WM miracle” as just a system, the modern world.  The continual observation of the ‘righteous imitation’ convinced me that the attitudes about the modern world was actually about two groups of people – the WM group and everyone else – and this is why everyone else was trying to imitate the WM.  If it was not for this I would not of thought that much about the WM and his role in all this.


The success of the “WM miracle” has caused a tendency to try to imitate the WM, a-try-and-become-a-WM stance.  In fact, I would be inclined to say that society has become what I call an ‘WM imitative society’.  That is to say, much of what is done is to have or do what the WM has or does.

This tendency to imitation seems to show a number of things in the people who demonstrate it:

  • It shows a sense of not being part of the group.
  • It shows an envy.
  • It  shows a sense of powerlessness.
  • It shows a sense of being threatened.

This makes non-WM’s very aware that they are not part of the group.  Because of this, they feel ‘left out’, ‘neglected’, and such.  This can go so far that they claim that they turn it into a political/legal issue, such as that it is ‘discrimination’ or ‘oppression’, etc.  It also creates a great effort to try to imitate or, rather, replicate the WM.  In other words, they are reacting to the WM and what he created.  Again, this shows the power of the “WM miracle”.

In my opinion, the imitation of the WM by people is actually degrading them, regardless of how successful they appear to be at doing the same thing as the WM.  In other words, one of the great things that is undermining people, nowadays, is the imitation of the WM.  This fact, I don’t feel, is fully acknowledged or noticed by people.  There is a reason for this:  many people have turned the imitation of the WM into a “status symbol”.  In this way, a “successful imitation” is viewed highly and as an achievement.  Because of this it is, of course, not looked down upon but with praise and esteem.  I see this a lot with females and some foreigners.  I should also point out that by “imitating the WM” I also mean to have what he has.

I’m under the impression, at this time, that a lot of the destruction of belief, culture, and religion in people is not because the modern world destroyed it, on its own, but because the people destroyed it themselves in by imitating the WM, in some way, so they can be part of the modern world.  In other words, imitation of the WM, by people, has been very destructive to them.

Here are some interesting points I’ve noticed about imitation:

  • Interestingly, people who imitate the WM never seem to develop his qualities and traits, though they may be able to “do” what he does.  Typically, they only repeat what he does, like playing back a video.  This more or less shows that imitation is not the means to power.  As a result, the technique of imitation really doesn’t work.
  • Another aspect of imitation is trying to “get into” the club.  That is to say, they try to get into the modern world and be a part of it and, thereby, gain its power.  This, it seems to me, works much better and is how most non-WM’s have gained “power”.


I, myself, have noticed that there is a particular “bond” between WM’s that is not seen with non-WM’s.  When this “bond” is made it seems as if a ‘magic’ can sometimes happen.  I tend to feel that this is a result of a cultural bond.  In other words, I have often felt that the “WM miracle” is a result of a cultural bond between WM’s.  If this is the case, then it shows that a lot of the “WM miracle” is a result of a cultural manifestation.  Normally, the “modern world” is viewed as a separate entity, an abstract system, independent of a culture or any social bond.  Its often looked at as a result of a scientific truth, which usually is viewed as being devoid of any cultural or social bond.  My observation, though, is that the modern world is very culturally based and is reflective of a culture.  This means that it is not some abstract point of view, independent of any culture or society.  In other words, its not based on a “generic culture” that is applicable to all the world.

 The culture of the modern world, really, is the “WM culture”, which created it.  This culture is based in a bond between the WM’s, which is often unseen, even by WM’s.  I would even go on to say that this “bond” is very “tribal” in quality and has strong tribal-like qualities.  In this way, the bond between WM’s is a “tribal” bond, which is no doubt why its so powerful.  There are variations in this, of course, particularly in intensity and who is “part of the tribe” but, overall, it has a tribal-like quality.  In fact, the more I look at it the more “tribal” it becomes.  In other words, the “bond” is “tribal” in origin and manifestation.

This tribal-like quality is probably why there is often an attempt at ‘safeguarding the WM bond’ by the WM which can, at times, be very strict and severe.  In fact, if one looks at the life of the WM, in the past 150 years or so (which happens to coincide with the modern world, interestingly enough, which is probably no mistake), one will see that there has been many manifestations of this strictness, such as:

  • The ridiculing people who do not meet their ideals.
  • The exclusion of people who are not a part of the “tribe”.
  • A strict social structure.
  • Great demands on behavior, ideals, and actions.
  • Having to “prove their worth”.

These things (which all reflect a tribal quality) have caused great and tremendous stress and strain on the WM over the years, a side of the life of the WM that is seldom mentioned.  In some cases, it has turned life into a hell for some WM’s, often by things like bullying, ostracizing, and the like.  Its also put great demand on the WM because it forces him to have to behave a certain way.  So we see that the WM’s tended to be very strict with themselves, as a group, which reflects its tribal-like nature.

In a “tribal” mentality, there tends to develop a strict social code between people “in the tribe” and people “without the tribe” which usually entails great etiquette and manners.  Usually, great respect is given when these strict codes are maintained.  This is seen in the association with females, children, and some foreigners who are treated with great respect and etiquette.  When the strict codes are violated or altered in some way, a number of reactions can take place, such as:

  •  Anyone who is not an WM, or part of the “tribe”, is perceived as destructive to the “tribe” causing a despising-like reaction.  There have been times where this can incite violent reactions.  I’ve seen this many times and have felt it.
  • There is a marked demarcation of those in the “tribe” and those who are not in the “tribe”.  Anyone who “crosses the line”, so to speak, is despised and it can even incite violence.
  • There is often a tendency to look down on people who are not a part of the “tribe”.  This is usually demonstrated by WM’s who have a lot of pride and arrogance.
  • Anyone trying to emulate an WM is often despised or looked down upon.  I know this from personal experience.

These all reflect common tribal-like reactions and are, frankly, common in the world in any “tribal” condition.

Looking at these qualities we can see that a “tribe” is really a special “bond” between a certain group of people in a society making it something like a subgroup.  This “bond” is so valued that there are great attempts to maintain its existence and quality within the “tribe”.  In many ways, the maintaining of this “bond” is the purpose of the “tribe”.  In addition, it creates a strong sense of those “within the tribe” and those “without the tribe”.  This distinction creates a strong social code in the association with people who are “without the tribe” that must be maintained.  Any breaking, altering, or corruption of this social code can incite bad, and even violent, reactions.  One could say that this is the “tribal condition”.  It is a worldwide phenomena.  History also shows that it is a force that must be respected as it can cause a lot of hatred, violence, and discontent.


The WM, being the creator of the modern world, has a position of authority.  As a result, he has the problems of authority.  As is often said “the position of power is the loneliness position of all”.  This is because authority has particular qualities:

  • No one helps.
  • He’s blamed for everything bad.
  • He is viewed as unreachable.
  • He is given no sympathy or support.  This has created an attitude of “indifference” toward the WM, which is one of the reasons why no one notices this problem.  This sense is no doubt the origin of a statement I often hear from WM’s:  “We help them but no one will help us”.  He is given no sympathy or support in the same way parents and the government are not given sympathy or support by the children or people.

This is particularly a problem because the WM is given the same attitudes of one who is in authority but he, in reality, is not in authority.  In fact, no one is in authority over the modern world.  The modern world is really a beast with a life all its own.  In other words, the WM is treated as if he is in authority, with the same attitudes, when he actually has no authority.

These attitudes show that the WM is associated with an image of authority.  But, as I said, its an authority he does not have.  This shows that the image of the WM-as-authority tends to be a false image.  It does not reflect the actual condition.  In this way, the authority of the WM is something like an illusion.


Oddly, the WM have found themselves alienated in the very world they created.  Many WM’s are finding themselves detached from it and unable to adapt so much that they are having difficulty dealing with it.  In fact, I tend to believe that there has developed a sickness, a ‘WM alienation’, that is slowly beginning to define the modern WM.  In many ways, a modern WM has now become an alienated WM.  He has found himself lost, detached, and uprooted in a society that he has created.

One aspect of this alienation is the orientation the WM has had toward it all.  In general, the WM creates and establishes.  The non-WM’s utilize.  Because of this, the WM’s have a hard time “fitting into” the very world they created.  They often have a hard time utilizing what they created.  Its not uncommon that the non-WM’s do better here.  As a result, many WM’s find themselves creating stuff only to have it taken from them as I, myself, have observed.

But the WM has also been alienated because of the “WM apprehension” which has begun to shun, suppress, and neglect him (as described above).  In this way, the society has begun to alienate the male, often turning him into a nobody or non-entity.  I’ve often been stunned by this and how it is completely bypassed and looked over as if nothing happened.


Oftentimes, the modern world is not viewed as a “thing” or “system” but as something being identical to its creators, the WM, as if they are the same thing.  In other words, the modern world is perceived as having a human face:  the WM.  As a result, he tends to be blamed for everything and is the image to villanize.  I’ve seen many cases where a white male is automatically viewed as corrupt or oppressive (such as in politics) even though there is no reason to think that.  I’ve even heard people say things like “he’s part of the people who caused all the problems”, meaning the WM.  So the solution is to put non-WM’s in these positions because they are not “part of the people who caused all the problems”.  I think this scenario is far more prevalent than people think.  Of course, no one notices this as bias and discrimination.  If it happened to anyone else it would surely be made a big deal out of.

This tendency of needing a human face to blame things on no doubt has origin the phenomena of Kingship (see my article “Thoughts on the stages of kingship“).  Kings were often viewed as the source of the societies problems (beginning with causing “bad crops” in the early years).  In English society Kingship is very strong and much of this tendency continued in England.  As a result, the problems of society were often viewed as being the Kings fault, as if he had done it himself on his own accord.  A good example would be King Charles I who was beheaded during the English Civil War after being blamed for all the problems.

Since the WM is largely English, reflecting English culture, much of these attitudes of Kingship would be continued with him.  In short, the WM would be equated with a King and, accordingly, blamed for all the frustrations, angers, and feelings that the modern world created whether he was responsible or not.  So we see that the royal tradition of England would be continued with the modern world and the WM.  To go even further, it seems that the WM has received a similar sentence as King Charles I after being blamed for the countries problems.  One could say that the WM was also “beheaded”, in a sense, because of the problems the modern world created.


A big element of the degradation of the WM has been initiated by the WM himself!  My observation is that they are contributing to a lot of their own fall as well as the fall of the “WM miracle”.  This is done by things like:

  • Christian attitudes.  These tend to create an attitude of self-undermining and self-degradation which also would entail a belief in their own suppression and degradation (“we’re all sinners!”).
  • Democracy and freedom.  As mentioned above, these themes were often used to degrade the authority of the WM.
  • The self-defeating male.  Recently, the male has created many self-defeating attitudes that only undermine him (see my article “Thoughts on the self-defeating quality in the post-WWII American male – the coming of the ‘nothing male’“).
  • The pussy whipped attitude.  This reflects a general attitude of the male that is self-undermining (see my article “Thoughts on the American pussy whipped coward male . . .“).
  • Their attack and rebellion against the older generation, which became particularly prevalent after about 1970.  By attacking the older generation they as if undermined themselves by taking away their foundation.
  • The abandonment of traditions, morality, values, and beliefs.
  • The lack of organized cohesion.  That is to say, they ceased working together.  This caused a failure of the “bond” and “tribe”.
  • Since everyone is competing with them they get tired of it and don’t want to do anything (see the story of the gunfighter above).  I feel this is far more prevalent than it may seem.

Much of these attitudes are a direct response to the cold war and the 1970’s and became prevalent during that time.  In other words, as a result of the cold war and 1970’s many WM’s joined the non-WM’s in condemning the “WM miracle” and, in so doing, undermined themselves in the process.  The net result of all this is that the WM undermined his dignity as a result of the success of the “WM miracle”.


The American female, in particular, has developed both a strong envy and fear/apprehension of the WM.  Generally, though, a female will lean toward one or the other.  This has became particularly strong after the cold war and the 1970’s.

The envy of the WM is now so strong that the American female is now going through a great “campaign” of trying to make the female the same as the WM.   In other words, they’re trying to be like men (see my article, “Thoughts on the female and Victorian society – “being Victorian green” – the females envy of the male and the ‘female envy culture’“).  A common thing for me to say, nowadays, is:

“It won’t be too long before the female is going to be nothing but a pathetic caricature of the male”. 

For many American females this is already true.  This tendency is also helped by the problem with the female identity in this country (see my article “Thoughts on the ‘failed sex’ – how many female traits have failed – a hidden crisis of the American female“).  What has basically happened, as a result of this, is that WM envy is now a significant element in the destruction of the female identity.  In trying to be like a WM they are only destroying themselves and their identity.  So we see that one effect of the “WM miracle” is the slow destruction of the female identity.

In addition, with the suppression of the WM that has taken place, many females have tried to jump in to fill the gap by trying to be the “new WM’s”.  This has created a whole group of females who do things like this:

  • They “ape” the male (making the American female look utterly pathetic).  They dress, act, and try to do things like the WM and are associated with him.
  • Many of them are doing everything they can to try to “outdo” or “outperform” the WM.  I’ve seen many females who go through great effort to do this.
  • Some are trying to actually replace him.  That is to say, to make the male redundant and meaningless.  I was stunned to see this.
  • Many females are spending a life where all they do is try to have the same “glory” the WM has (or what they think he has).

Many females have made it a political and legal issue to the point that its some sort of a cause.  Think of it . . . trying to be like a man as a great political and righteous cause.  Unbelievable!

As  stated above, part of the “WM miracle” is fear and apprehension.  Many females have particularly demonstrated quite an extensive fear and apprehension of the male.  Its appeared a number of ways, such as:

  • For some females the fear has created an obsessive concern over being “victims” by portraying themselves as abused, oppressed, enslaved, and such.  This has made many females falsely accuse and villanize the WM as a result, claiming things that has not happened.
  • Some females fear and apprehension of the WM is so strong that they have become a significant force in trying to suppress the WM and in trying to demasculanize him.  So another effect of the “WM miracle” is that is has made some females try to “castrate” the male.  Unbelievable!
  • Some females equate the male with war and destruction (see above) which only reveals a fear of the male.  Their solution to this fear, interestingly enough, is to make themselves the ‘savior’ and answer to the male threat of war and destruction:  they turn themselves into the symbols of peace and harmony!

Many of the reactions of the female toward the “WM miracle” have been almost unreal to me and seem rather ridiculous and overplayed.  In fact, I’d say that the females have taken the ‘WM apprehension’ to the most ridiculous and absurd extent, more than anyone else.


Because of the success of the “WM miracle” there has been extensive attempts at taking advantage of it by non-WM’s.  These include people like females, minorities, immigrants, etc.  Many (like the females, as stated above) are actively trying to be the “new WM’s”.  That is to say, they are deliberately trying to imitate the WM to have what he has, to gain power from the “WM miracle” (modern world), and to become him in some cases.

One could say that there has been an extensive “campaign” to create the “new WM’s” in this society and much of the world.   I would even go so far to say that there are many non-WM’s trying to push the WM out of the way so that they could gain their power.  In other words, the “WM miracle” has created a tendency for some non-WM’s to start a power struggle with the WM, primarily to gain the power of the “WM miracle” (modern world).  In order to do this, though, they must make themselves like the WM’s . . . by becoming the “new WM’s”.  In this way, the “new WM” is nothing but a way to try to “fit in” to the modern world.  In some ways, its like the saying goes, “when in Rome do what the Romans do”.

Unfortunately, though, the creation of the “new WM’ has caused a deteriation, in my opinion, in the “WM miracle”.  It seems, to me, that the “new WM’s” will eventually destroy the “WM miracle”.  This is primarily because they do not reflect the WM character which created it.  Everyone’s motive is only in trying to get in on its power and influence.  They are only “playing the game”, so to speak.  They do not reflect its “spirit” . . . at least, it doesn’t seem that way to me.  This creates a “want-to-be” attitude in the non-WM’s.  In actuality, the “new WM” is nothing but a “want-to-be”, really.  This is one of the things that I noticed that was quite prevalent.  In addition, the “new WM” seem like they are turning the “WM miracle” into something more like an assembly line.  I’d compare it to, say, turning an art form into a mass produced item.  It may look like it, and may serve a function, but it still lacks something and, after all, its only a “copy”.

In this way, we could say that we are in a “post WM miracle” era.   Its seems, to me, that everyone is riding on the system the “WM miracle” created (which is strong at the moment) but the originality and creativity that created it is fading. This may largely be caused by non-WM’s or WM’s who have undermined themselves or lost the “spirit”.  As a result, it will probably slowly fall over time.  Because of this, I tend to see the “post WM miracle” era as a slow fall of the “WM miracle”.  Everything, now, is standing on the shoulders of what the “WM miracle” created as it now stands.  That is to say, its a continuation of what’s already there by people trying to imitate it for themselves.  In this way, the original “spirit” is fading.


I tend to believe that ‘WM apprehension’ has had an undermining effect on society.  This is basically because of things like this:

  • The WM has built the society.
  • The WM has created its ideals.
  • The WM has been its authority and guided all this.
  • It falsely attacks people.
  • It causes unnecessary divisions in society.
  • It creates myths.
  • It undermines the male and male traits, which are needed in society.
  • It creates a want-to-be attitude in non-WM’s.

In some sense, the attack on the WM has a quality of attacking society.  After years of observation, I believe this to be true in Western society.  One could compare it to the attack on the older generation in the 1970’s and the effect it had.  Basically, when you attack and condemn your predecessors, existing authority, existing tradition, etc. you literally pull the carpet from under your feet.  This is basically what ‘WM apprehension’ did.


There has been a lot of stereotyping of the WM as a result of this apprehension.  That is to say, much of the apprehension is directed toward viewing the WM a certain way as a whole.  In other words, we are all equated the same, as if we are all the same type of person.

This, of course, is not true.

In actuality, very few WM’s has had any great involvement in the modern world.  Most WM’s are not the great creators of the modern world people seem to think they are and most have actually played no, or little part, in the “WM miracle”.  Most WM’s are just working people, just like everyone else in the world, doing nothing special.  Just to give some examples . . . if I look at some of the people I know I see several truck drivers, a miner, a sheepherder, indoor painters, a chef, a farmer . . . nothing particularly dramatic, nor is it a great involvment in the “WM miracle”.  None of these jobs are high paying or prestigious or give us great power.  In other words, there is no “favoritism” displayed there.  Despite this, people still stereotype the WM a specific way, as if we have all have special privelage, high paying glamorous jobs, great benefits, and so on.  I’ve not seen a lot of evidence of that.  I often wish I had what a lot of people think we have.

Regardless its almost unreal what people do.  One person may try to imitate us (such as females).  Another person may turn us into “bad people” (such as minorities).  We also always tend to be accused of things none of us have anything to do with (such as slavery or some form of oppression).  I’ve often been stunned by stuff like this.  I’ve been particularly appalled how we are accused of stereotyping people but it is THEY, in actuality, that are stereotyping us by assuming we’re all the same!

But everyone sees us as a group, as a whole, as if we are all the same . . . if one person has it we all do!


In many ways, this whole thing is nothing but a “have-have not” issue.  I personally think that this whole situation is similar to the storyline that is seen in the 1980 show called “The gods must be crazy”.  In this movie a bushman in the Kalahari Desert finds a Coke bottle.  He takes it back to his tribe and soon everyone is fighting to have it.  The bottle causes anger, envy, hatred, and violence in the tribe that never had these problems before.  Because of the problems it has caused they decide to have one of the bushman travel to the edge of the world and throw the bottle off.

We see a similar theme to the movie.  The WM created a world that proved very successful and, accordingly, they are the “possessors” of it.  Everyone else looked on at it all, and all it contained, and felt lacking or deprived.  This created envy and jealousy which made everyone upset.  As a result, they are doing whatever they can to “have” it.  But, in so doing, they are destroying themselves with it.  Its too bad we can’t have someone throw all this off the edge of the world like in the movie.

Really, we are seeing the problems of envy and jealousy of the “have-have not” dilemma.  Several issues of this dilemma include:

  • What do the people who “have” do?  Should they give to the “have not’s”?
  • How envy and jealousy in the people who “have not” cause bad feelings in people.  The hatred, dislike, desire to be like, want, etc. that they feel.

This is on of the great unanswered dilemma’s in life.  This dilemma is seen in every society, at least in some form.  Attempts have been made to try to prevent its problems but nothing, really, has worked that well (charity, Communism/socialism, laws, etc.).  What, then, is the answer?

In some respects, the nature of the dilemma is what causes the problems.  It creates tensions and conflicts in people and society.  Does giving to the “have not’s” really solve anything after all these tensions and conflicts have appeared?  I don’t think so.  This dilemma seems inherent in human society.  Once its solved, another one comes in to take its place.  The problems created by the “WM miracle” is one in a long list.  Its unique, so far, in that it has been rather extensive, dramatic, and worldwide.

There seems to be several ways at dealing with the “have-have not” problem:

  • Dealing with the actual “have-have not” problem.
  • Dealing with the bad feelings its caused.

The reaction to the “WM miracle”, it seems to me, is primarily dealing with the bad feelings it has caused not in dealing with the problem it caused.  This, I my opinion, is what made it so damaging.  But bad feelings are just bad feelings and generally only caused discontent, which is exactly what happened.  It seems, to me, that bad feelings dominate the “WM miracle”, particularly by the non-WM’s, and is primarily how this problem is dealt with.  Accordingly, this is why it never works and has turned it into a bigger problem.


The success of the “WM miracle”, and all its reactions, has caused a deterioration, and even fall, of the “WM culture”.  Since the “WM culture” created the modern world, and all it contains, its fall will probably have great impact on the modern world, which is exactly what its starting to look like to me.  This is for a number of reasons:

  • The fall of the “WM culture” is the fall of the modern world as they are intimately connected.
  • The non-WM’s attempt at trying to imitate the “WM culture” isn’t that effective.  They do not have the quality, mentality, and such, that makes up the “WM culture”.

What this would suggest is that we are in a transition phase moving us into a “post modern world”.  This transition phase reflects these qualities:

  • The “WM culture” falls.
  • People will try to imitate the “WM miracle”, sometimes with success, but never completely imitating it.
  • Being that the modern world is still active its effects will still be felt.  In a way, we will be”riding on the back of what earlier generations created”.
  • The ingenuity and originality of the modern world will slowly fade.  Anything “new” will primarily be nothing but a continuation, development, or elaboration of things already existing.  These will be probably still be called “progress” but nothing new or original will really be created.  This, it seems to me, is a defining trait, already, of this century.  People think all this technology is new and original but its really not.  Its primarily elaboration and development of things already existing.  I am also seeing less and less original and new ideas in many areas and fields.  Many things, such as “new theories”, is nothing but a restating of existing ideas.  In fact, I often jokingly say that we are in the “era of restatement”. 

After this transition phase a “post modern world” would appear.  This would mean a number of things:

  • The ingenuity, and original thinking, of the modern world will be over.
  • That people will live in the “effects” of the modern world that are still existing.  In other words, the modern world will just be something that is now “existing conditions”.

In this phase the modern world will really be over.  People will be living it in its aftermath.

I would not be surprised if the modern world inspires another culture into a specific direction.  It will be totally different than the “WM culture” and the modern world it created, though.  In this case, the creation of the “WM culture” will serve as something like a base or guide for their culture to develop, which will be totally different in orientation and outlook.  This will not be the “modern world” as we know it . . . who knows what it will be like . . .


It seems as if a cycle is being demonstrated, of a rise and fall of an era (see my article “Thoughts on the phases of Victorian society – defining what an “era” is“).

  • There develops a “WM culture”.
  • They create a way of doing things.
  • It is implemented and turned into a form.
  • The modern world is created.
  • This proves to have great power and influence.
  • It causes great social and world tensions.
  • It becomes a power.
  • There develops power struggles (“everyone wants a piece of the pie”).
  • This causes a deterioration of the “WM culture” and WM in general.
  • This impacts society and the modern world.
  • The modern world deteriorates and fades.

In some respects, its a lesson in one of the effects of power, that when there is a power everyone wants a piece of it, which causes a mad scramble for that power, and this ends up undermining the power in the end.

As I was brought up, in the “WM culture”, there is the belief that there was an “inherent truth” in science, inventions, the modern world, etc.  It was this “truth” that mattered and was made it so great.  This is what we sought.  Looking back on it now, I can see that this is not true.  This point of view, really, is a remnant of Christianity and its preaching of its “inherent truth of Christ” which carried over into science.  What made the creation of the “WM culture” great was not an “inherent truth”, as we thought, but the POWER of its effects which, I don’t think, any of us really considered.  In the end, it was power, not truth, that determined things.

The idea of “power” was something that I never really saw mentioned in the “WM culture”, at least the form I was brought up with.  Since the “WM culture” was created on the tail end of Christianity, with its emphasis on “true religion”, everything revolved about the idea of truth.  This eventually became “de-religionified” and turned into science, at least as I saw it.  This shows that the “WM culture” is really a “Christianity without Christ”Because of this, the general attitude was that the “WM culture” sought a truth that would “save” us . . . this is what we are seeking, the great “truth of science”.  Power, and its effects, were the furthest from our mindsThis is why many WM’s, I believe, still cannot conceive of the idea of the power of their creation or its effects.  As a result, many WM’s are oblivious about what their creations have done which is why they are so naïve about it.  In this way, the non-WM’s are the ones most familiar with the power of the creations of the “WM culture”.  It was so powerful that it created a great apprehension of the WM (the ‘WM apprehension’).  As a result, it was in them that the power struggles took place, of their desperate attempts and scramblings to have what the WM has.


Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Britain and British things, Culture, cultural loneliness, etc., Dehumanization and alienation, Historical stuff, Modern life and society, Psychology and psychoanalysis, The male and female, The U.S. and American society | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on the effects of stuttering on King Charles I and the English Civil War

King Charles I

I have always speculated on the effect stuttering had for King Charles I.  Personally, I’m sure that it did have great impact on his character and on him as a person.  But an aspect of this, which I think is seldom referred to, is its effect not only on England, as a country, but English history.  In fact, it seems to me that the English Civil War was very much influenced by the effects stuttering had on King Charles I.  In some respects, it might even be possible to say that had it not been for his stuttering, the English Civil War might not have happened at all.

Oddly enough, I can find very little references to the effects stuttering had on King Charles I, not only for himself but on other people (which I’m sure it did).  There are hardly any references to it by anyone who had an audience with him or knew him.  The main references only state that he did stutter.  The extent, and severity, of the problem is not specified.  This could mean a number of things:

  • It was not that bad Perhaps it was a mild affliction?  If it was then most of what I say here is incorrect.  I’m going on the assumption, in this article, that it was a problem for King Charles I.  I tend to take this viewpoint because of his character which  suggests that it may of had great impact on him (see below).
  • It happened sporadically.  Perhaps it was worst in stressful situations (such as in confronting Parliament)?  Perhaps it was worst in his youth and improved as he got older?
  • It was not mentioned out of “respect”.  That is to say, it was “looked over” in the accounts of other people as it would be viewed as “impolite” and, perhaps, “rude” to speak about it openly.
  • The society, then, did not view it as severely as it did later.  To me, this seems very possible.  As far as I know, he was not criticized for it, condemned, or ridiculed as many people with stuttering often are today.  Its possible that it was only viewed as an “inconvenience” by the people around him.  But I tend to feel, though, that it had great impact on King Charles I himself to the point that it affected his character and behavior.  If this is true then it would mean that it was not a “social problem” but a “private battle” fought by King Charles I

Something like stuttering could easily create a dilemma for King Charles I for, as King, he was in a very social position in which speech was critical.  As a result, a problem like this would place great burden and stress on King Charles I.  Since the duties of the King is social in nature it would mean that it would have great impact on his acts and behavior as a King.  Because of the influence of the King’s acts on the government it means that it would have great impact on the government.  Its because of this that I feel that it may have had a major influence in the problems that were common in his reign, particularly with Parliament, which would have effected his association with them.  In this way, it would of helped to cause the English Civil War and, incidentally, his eventual execution.  This is a side of things I have never heard before as most debate on the English Civil War only emphasize the political or religious aspects as if that’s all that was important.

The effects of stuttering on a person varies, of course, to minimal to a major impact.  This, of course, would vary with the person, society, culture, and severity of the ailment.  Considering the position that King Charles I was in, as Heir to the Throne and later King, one could suppose that it was no minor problem and, more than likely, could easily have tremendous effect.  So far, as I mentioned above, it does not seem to of had great impact on him from the people around him.  The effects, it seems to me, were primarily personal.  Because of this, he had to behave in a way that “accommodated” the awkward effects that stuttering had on him.  In this way, it would have great impact on his character.  Some of the character traits it may of caused include:

  • It made him shy or reluctant to associate with people
  • It made him tend to be quiet and silent.
  • It made him use as little words as possible.
  • It made him passive and not forward in his manner.
  • It made him avoid confrontation and arguments with people.  This was probably one of the reasons why he did not want to argue with Parliament and kept dissolving them whenever there was a dispute.  We must also keep in mind that this may very well hint at a possible phobia that he may of had toward “official” disputes involving many people.  It may of also been the cause of why he tended to neglect problems as it would require confrontations.
  • It made him “seek approval” from people.  It appears that this tendency had great impact on his association with Parliament.  The power of this want of approval was probably seen in things such as his approval of the execution of the Earl of Strafford (which doesn’t make any sense) which haunted him all his life.  It may also account for the many unusual concessions he granted Parliament as well (which also tended to not make any sense).  In many ways, he may very well of been seeking their “approval” by blindly approving their requests.
  • It made him rely on other people.  The best example of this was his reliance on the Duke of Buckingham in his early years.
  • It made him “polite”.   This politeness probably  may as if overcompensated the social problems his stuttering caused him.
  • It made him rely on the “Divine Right of Kings”.   This gave him a means to “explain away” conflicts and issues that appeared and thereby avoiding confrontation and arguments with people.  I also tend to think that it made him “not have to make decisions”, so to speak, as Divine Right will make the decision for him.  This way, it would mean that he would not have to make “official” proclamations and arguments with people.

Many of these traits are described in the accounts of people who knew him.  In short, it appears that stuttering may of had a great impact on him by making him a reserved, unassuming, and agreeable person who avoided confrontation with people.  Its possible, even, that he may of developed a form of a social phobia in certain social relations as a result.

This type of character, of course, would have great impact on his behavior and actions as a King.  I’ve always felt that the main problem of King Charles I, in his political actions, was one of neglect.  Looking at the character of King Charles I makes me think that this neglect was not a result of things like these:

  • It was not deliberate on his part.  That is to say, he didn’t just neglect things because he wanted to, for whatever reason.
  • It was not a result of carelessness.  That is to say, he wasn’t just being negligent.
  • It was not a result of malicious intent.  That is to say, he did not have sinister motives.

From how it appears to me, it seems more likely to have other deeper origins.  What I mean by this is that it probably has psychological origins.  Its possible that this neglect may possibly have origins, or at least is affected, by his stuttering (perhaps associated with other psychological issues as well).  If this is the case then it would mean that his stuttering may of had far greater an effect than it seems.  In other words, this would mean that a simple case a stuttering changed British history.  I tend to feel that may very well be the case.

But people, and especially Historians, tend to only look at Kingship and the English Civil War from a purely political or religious point of view.  From these angles it is very easy to see King Charles I in these ways:

  • As a “tyrant”.  That he was someone who “wants to control”.
  • As a “fool”.  That he did things without thought and consideration.
  • As a “dimwit.  That he was stupid and dumb.

What tends to be forgotten, a lot of times, is the psychology of the people involved.  In history, especially when it involves politics and religion, there is a tendency to stand too far distant from things and look at things from an overall abstract and grand conceptual viewpoint of politics and religion.  In this way, there is a tendency to overlook small little things that have great impact, such as the individual psychology of individual people.  Typically, the psychology of individual people are looked at only from the political and religious point of view which, oftentimes, devalues their human qualities if they are acknowledged at all.  It seems, to me, that this situation may of happened with King Charles I and the English Civil War.

(also see my article “Thoughts on the character of King Charles I“.)


Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Britain and British things, Government and politics, Historical stuff, King Charles I and the English Civil War, The military and war | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on ‘life irritation’ – aspects on the burden of living

Recently, I found myself irritated.  There was “something” that was irritating me.  I asked myself, “what irritates me?” and got an interesting reply.  I said:

“Life irritates me” 

In other words, the fact of being alive has an irritating quality.  There are many things that make up this irritation, such as:

  • Being aware and conscious.
  • The effort required in being alive.
  • The culmination of experience.
  • The burden of memory and remembering.
  • The strain of emotion and feelings.
  • The weight of a self and a personality.
  • The strain of having to do something, such as work, or living a certain way, such as a morality.

All these, really, contribute to create what can be described, perhaps, as a ‘life irritation’.  This can be described as a general irritation or unsettlement in ones self that is not a result of a specific conflict or issue but only in the fact of living.

I tend to view it like a baby being irritated by things.  I have always felt that one of the conflicts newborns and infants have is the “burden of being aware”.  In fact, I have often felt that this is what mostly “bothers” them, making them cry and such.  One must remember that a baby is literally “woken” up to sensations, feelings, impulses, etc. that come upon it like a storm.  This is something like a shock on the newborn.  In some respects, one could say that we will be dealing with this shock the rest of our lives.  Perhaps we could call it the ‘awareness shock’?

Most certainly, there is a natural transition phase that most people go through, of getting used to the ‘awareness shock’.  We basically go through a phase of being an “irritable infant” which may even carry on into toddler years.

The ‘awareness shock’ forces the person to develop a self.  In other words, a self appears to as if manage the awareness that is forced upon a person.  So we see, then, that the self is associated with managing awareness and alleviating the shock from the very beginning.  This would become very critical later on (see below).

But I feel that, for some people, the ‘awareness shock’ becomes overwhelming and “too much”.  We could even call this the ‘awareness shock sickness’.  This can cause a number of reactions:

  • A natural tendency to always feel “uneasy” or “irritated” in life which probably ends up lasting all their life
  • A predisposition to “irritation”, “uneasiness”, being “upset”, and other feelings.
  • A predisposition to definable problems, such as neurosis.  In other words, it makes one more likely to have mental problems.

My guess is that these would be blamed on something most of the time.  Not only that, one problem will probably follow another problem in succession.  More than likely, it tends to make one predisposed to various problems and feelings.

‘Life irritation’, in its normal form, causes things such as:

  • A sense of an uneasiness.  For example, this could create things like unhappiness, boredom, etc.
  • A sense of conflict.  For example, this can make us look at life in a sinister and negative way.
  • A want of rest.  For example, this can make us want to become rich or retire.
  • A want of some image, or answer, to comfort us.  For example, this can make us religious or make us want to believe in “something greater”.

One could say that ‘life irritation’ creates a generalized “upsetting feeling” about life.  And, more importantly, this “upsetting feeling” is never satisfied.  It never goes away or is solved but hangs over us like a cloud.

Oftentimes, though, we tend to make a “big deal” out of this “upsetting feeling”, making it out far more than it is.  In fact, there is a tendency to try to “find something” to blame it on.  But, in so doing, we say that this or that bothers us and miss the whole point as we now have something to blame it on.  As a result of this, we tend to create blame things that is not the problem and end up creating problems that don’t really exist.  We do this for a number of reasons:

  • We tend to lack of a generalized “life sense”.  That is to say, we tend to not look at life “as a whole” but as events or in pieces.  Because of this, we are impaired in seeing its overall generalized life-origin nature.
  • ‘Life irritation’ is a generalized sense . . . it is not caused by a specific cause.  But when we have an irritation, or something that bothers us, we try to give it a specific cause, something to “blame” it on.

We see here a basic problem of generalized versus specific.  Basically, its easier to see things from a specific viewpoint than a generalized viewpoint.  But, in so doing, we literally fabricate sources of conflicts that don’t really exist.  As a result, much of our problems do not, in actuality, exist . . . we just think it does.  Its because of this that I tend to feel that ‘life irritation’ is probably the base of many conflicts we have in life in which we blame things on.

Some ways at dealing with ‘life irritation’ include:

  • Generally, we find something to “blame” for all these “unsettled feelings” on.  As a result of this, one of the first things to do in dealing with ‘life irritation’ is to quit blaming things.
  • The development of a more generalized attitude.
  • Begin to see the “unsettled feelings” as coming from life itself.
  • Seeing the “unsettled feelings” as “just the way it is”.  In actuality, there really is no answer.  It is just the nature of life.
  • Trying to decrease the things that seem to aggravate the “unsettled feeling”.  That is to say, if work is too much of a burden try to change it.

What this shows is that there is a degree of control we can have over ‘life irritation’.  More specifically, this control is usually done in a number of ways:

  • Avoiding things that aggravate it.
  • Decreasing the influence of things that aggravate it.

I would say that much of life is doing these things.  Most people, I think, do this naturally and unaware, at least to some extent.

But one must be careful not to become “numb-in-life”.  That is to say, to become non-feeling, or numb, as a way to deal with the irritation of life.

The solution to ‘life irritation’ is not in complete avoidance and ignoring.  In actuality, it seems that the best way to deal with ‘life irritation’ is in accepting according to ones means and ability.  In other words, one does these things:

  • One avoids or decreases things that aggravate it, as stated above . . . this way, it stays within acceptable levels.
  • One “embraces” it and accepts its “uneasiness” . . . this is because it is, in actuality, the source of “living”.

As I said above, the irritation of life creates an “unsettlement”.  This same “unsettlement” is the source of life”, in actuality.  This more or less says that to “live” means to be “irritated” and “unsettled”.  When a person removes these away (such as in becoming “numb-in-life”) then one ceases to live, in my opinion.  A person will develop a vegetable-like quality and attitude in life.

It seems that one needs to move from “irritation” to what I call “passion”.  The difference between the two is:

  • “Irritation” – when the “irritation” is upon a person it is perceived as a separate overbearing entity.
  • “Passion” – when the “irritation” actually inspires a person.

In other words, the “irritation” needs to be turned into “passion”.  When this happens the “irritation” ceases to be “irritating” and becomes a source of living.  One could very well say that living is a dynamic word describing a dynamic situation which means an in-balance, which is being unsettled, which is irritating.  “Irritation”, then, is a natural part of the condition of living.

There seems to be a process to the movement from “irritation” to “passion.  Much of this entails the self.

  1. The “irritation”.  It appears and as if “shocks” the person into awareness.
  2. The “irritation” creates the formation of the self.  The “awareness shock” forces a self to appear to as if manage the awareness (see my article “Thoughts on the pre-self, primal self, world self, post-self, and the greater self“).
  3. The self embraces the “irritation”.  As I said above, the self is there to as if manage awareness.  In order to do this, the self requires a “maturity” to deal with the “irritation”.  This can be described as a well-rounded practical way at dealing with awareness.  In order to develop “maturity” the self requires various forms of support, growth, experience, direction, acceptance, coming to terms with “irritation”, etc.  In other words, the self needs more than a self to develop and grow.  It must be a healthy and mature self.
  4. The “irritation” and self grows as one.
  5. The “passion” appears.

One could then say that “passion” is when ‘life irritation’ and the self become one.  In this way, they become as if united and work in concert.  One could say that it is in these conditions that life is at its best.  In this way, it would say that ‘life irritation’ is when the self is not participating that well.  In some respects, ‘life irritation’ is a “sign” that some growth of the self is required.

Interestingly, when ‘life irritation’ begins to appear after “passion” has been established it can create problems.  Typically, “passion” is the growing of a specific aspect of the self in relation to the “irritation”.  In this way, it is very specific.  When a new form of “irritation” appears the already established “irritation”/self/”passion” orientation does not work anymore.  What this shows is that the “irritation”/self/”passion” association is very specific and, just because it has been established, it does not mean it works for all situations.  In other words, different forms of “irritation” requires a different forms of orientation to work and this requires a different aspect of the self.  This means that the creation of “passion” is an ongoing never-ending process.  It also means that there must be a continuing discovery of self.  In short, then, “passion” requires a continual ongoing revealing of ones self.  When this stops then ‘life irritation’ begins to appear.  This often happens in old age where people tend to seek discovery of their self (as its associated with the activity of youth).  As a result, its not uncommon that older people often tend to become “irritable”, ornery, grumpy, and bitter.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Existence, Awareness, Beingness, Consciousness, Conceptionism, and such, Life in general, Philosophy, Psychology and psychoanalysis | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on the unique quality of the American ‘perpetual power vacuum’ – the fear of a person in power, its origins with Moses, and the tug-of-war between a system and humanity

Here’s a thought I had:

It seems, to me, that the U.S. has a unique power vacuum problem.  It is largely a result of its political system.  It creates a condition that leads to a power vacuum that can never be filled.  In this way, it creates what can be described as a ‘perpetual power vacuum’.  This power vacuum has gone on even down to everyday life.  In this way, it has had great impact on the society and people as a whole.

To begin with, the political system of the U.S. has a quality where it tends to “force” conditions in a certain direction as its main motive.  That is to say, it is not a system that “goes along with the situation” nor is it all that reactive to situations (this, of course, is not what it professes).  Instead, it is oriented at forcing things in a usually predetermined direction with the idea that a predetermined result will happen.  This “forcing” is often called “change” and they seem to automatically assume that it is always the right path (regardless if it is or not).  This shows some conditions about this political system:

  • They base everything from an already established interpretation of things.  In other words, its point of view is not based in actual existing conditions, necessarily, but on a way of interpreting things that already exists.  In this way, this political system tends does not react to actual existing realities.  Instead, any current realities are compared to the already established interpretation, which is used as a basis for their actions.  This is one reason why the U.S. is so notorious at misinterpreting things, world situations, and other cultures.  Its also one reason why the U.S. always interprets, and reacts, the same way over and over again and again (such as that all the worlds problems are caused by “oppressive governments”).
  • The already established interpretation is rooted and based in a fear or apprehension.  These have become the attitudes that lie behind this political system.  They often determine its points of view and motivates what it does.  Its the reason why they are always forcing things to happen . . . to avoid or prevent something they fear.  These attitudes are also one of the reasons why the U.S. becomes paranoid so easily.
  • The fear or apprehension makes it so that they tend to “force” things in a certain direction to prevent what they fear.  Often, the solution is based in the already established interpretation and is “forced” over and over again (such as that the solution to the worlds problems is “freedom and democracy” and nations must be “forced” to practice it).
  • It often entails an idea of a already established solution.  This is a reflection of the already established interpretation and is often the same solution over and over again (such as that “voting” will solve everything).  In this way, the solution this political system offers is very limited and not very reactive to actual existing conditions.

One of the things we see is a political system that is based in fear and ideas more than in actual existing conditions.  This makes them “force” an already established solution to avoid this fear or apprehension.  As a result, its not uncommon that this political system becomes somewhat “detached” from the real-world reality and actual existing conditions (of course, that’s not what they say).  This is one reason why many of the solutions this political system offers don’t work.

What is the base of their fear and apprehension?

This is primarily to prevent any one person from having complete political power.  This is the basic idea of democracy where the people are supposed to have power.

Anyone who knows history knows that, though there are examples of this in the past, it has been made out far larger than it really is.  The fact of the matter is that a single person in power is not a major source of the worlds problems.  There are many other factors and elements that create problems in countries than that.  To focus primarily on that as a cause is like saying that good health is rooted in not eating a lot of fatty foods.  In the U.S., this line of thought has been made out so big that one could say that it has taken an almost obsessive and one-sided point of view.  I know people, for example, where it is the ONLY point of view and it explains ALL the problems of the world.  I, myself, have even said that its been made out so big that it its “almost like a religion” and that, I tend to feel, is its origin . . .

I tend to think that the “religious” obsessive fear of one person in control does, in fact, originate from religion.  That is to say, its origins do not really originate from actual experience and events but in a pattern of religious belief.  We must remember that religious belief is very powerful.  The beliefs in religion tend to establish a tendency of interpretation of the world.  As a result, religious belief tends to do things such as:

  • They are used as a base of all interpretations.
  • The interpretation they offer tend to be favored over all others.
  • They tend to neglect other interpretations.
  • They are viewed as the “ultimate interpretation” and so are given great importance, sanctity, and value.

The religious beliefs I speak of originate from Christianity and, through it, Judaism.  In some respects, Judaism sets the stage or, more properly, Moses sets the stage for this whole situation.

A significant part of the drama of Moses is a fight against a single man in power:  the Egyptian Pharaoh.  To make things even worse, the Pharaoh was viewed as a god.  Moses was then fighting not only against a man in power but a god.  Moses ended up breaking away from the Pharaoh and eventually led the Hebrews through the desert for 40 years.  During this time he set up the laws, sacrifices, and general attitudes that have made up Judaism ever since (though with modifications, of course).  In this way, I often jokingly refer to Judaism as “Mosesism”, as it really has a lot of origin from Moses.

In breaking from Pharaoh there developed an attitude of a fear or apprehension of people in power.  In the Jewish people, it seems to me, this appears more as a fear of people in power that are not Jewish.  This created a strong sense of a “Jewish people” as opposed to other people, a “me versus you” attitude.  I have often wondered if this is an origin of anti-Semitism (see my article “Some thoughts on the possible nature and origin of anti-Semitism???“).  Overall, it seemed to create a sense of distrust toward other people and a valuation of ones people.  In other words, it created something like a religious or ethnic favoritism.  This created something like a wall around the Jewish people separating them from everyone else.

With Christianity we see another fight against a man in power:  the Roman Emperor.  In some respects, Jesus Christ became another Moses, following his lead, showing the power and influence of Moses in Judaism.  He imitated Moses in many ways:

  • He was the savior of the people as Moses saved the Hebrews.
  • He was sacrificed reflecting the many forms of sacrifice that Moses set up.
  • He created a new “law” (of love) as Moses had created new laws.

With Christianity, many Jewish attitudes would naturally be extended to anyone who followed him.  Since many non-Jews would end up following Jesus they would end up adopting many Jewish attitudes coming from Moses.

One thing that did not seem to pass into Christianity was the “me versus you” wall that the Jewish people developed.  This gave Christianity more of an open, secular, or generalized attitude making it accepting, and appealing, to many non-Jew’s.  A remnant of this attitude, though, probably turned into the idea that the world has to convert to Christianity.  You were either Christian or not Christian (“me versus you”).  But instead of the wall that Judaism created something else appeared:  non-Christians must convert to Christianity.  Instead of a wall, an “everyone must be like us” was created.  In many ways, this is just the “me versus you” attitude in a modified form.  This attitude of “everyone must be like us” is one of the many attitudes coming from religion that would persist into the U.S.  Instead of “everyone must be Christian” it now becomes “everyone must live in a democracy”.  The U.S. trying to make the world a democracy is just a continuation of the attitude behind the Christian conversion of the world.

Jesus Christ’s conflict with the Romans only reinforced the fear of people in power in Christianity.  Since Christianity was prosecuted in its early years, it probably helped this fear and apprehension grow and become more firmly implanted in Christian attitudes.

As Christianity spread the fear and apprehension of a single person in power was often applied to whatever political/social situation that appeared.  It became the “easy explanation” for any problems they may have.  This is because of things like these:

  • It gave the explanation a “religious sanctification” and, accordingly, an authority to justify the blame.
  • It created a “scapegoat” to blame things on.  Oftentimes, governments, Kings, ministers, and anyone in government were automatically assumed to be “corrupt”, “evil”, “greedy”, “power hungry”, “self-serving”, and such (which tended to reflect, oddly enough, Christian vices).

When the tribal monarchies of Northern Europe started to have problems the King would naturally be associated with this Judeo/Christian fear of a person in power attitude.  This became particularly pronounced, interestingly, after the Protestant Reformation in the 1500’s which caused great religious crisis and fervor.  The great Monarch of Northern Europe would become easy targets.  He would become the “new Pharaoh” that we must free ourselves from, just as Moses did.  In some respects, a “great reenactment of Moses” took place in the political theorizing of the 1700’s, with the King as Pharaoh and the people as the Jews.  Democracy would become the new law of Moses.

The political system of the U.S. was created in the late 1700’s, during this time, and is greatly associated with this mentality and the “great reenactment of Moses”.  As a result, the political system of the U.S. was based in this “religious” fear of a person in power.  Because of this, its whole perspective is geared to prevent this from happening.  It does this by things such as:

  • Voting by the people.
  • Limiting the power of those in power.

The idea of these is to prevent the rise of a person in power.  As I said above, this isn’t necessarily because of a historic pattern of abuse by people in power (which isn’t as great as is supposed) but more from “religious” attitudes that have become ingrained in the thinking of the culture and which caused them to interpret things in a certain way.  This “religious” origin is why its look at so seriously and critically, as if the whole fate of the world depended on it.  And so we can see that the political system of the U.S. is primarily to prevent the rise of any one person being in power or any one gaining power.  In this way, it creates a system where no one, really, is in control or has control.

The effect of this is that the political system of the U.S. creates conditions like this:

  • There is an inability for anyone to do anything.
  • There develops forms of “underground power”.  That is, power that “goes around” the political system.  In many cases, this is the only way to get things done.  Because it is “underground” it also leads to a lot of corruption.
  • Since no one is in control nothing gets done or, if it does, it takes forever and is often ineffective.
  • There develops a “government apathy”.
  • This apathy tends to create a “social apathy”.
  • It creates an atmosphere of continuous bickering and complaining.
  • Since there’s no one in charge people manipulate the system for their own ends.
  • It ends up creating a condition where there is a continual undermining of power in society as a whole.
  • It tends to create an overall stagnating quality.

Initially, this was only directed to political power but, over time, it has permeated to everyday life.  One effect of this is that it has made everyone powerless down to even parents who, in some places, can’t even spank their own kids!  Not only that, nothing changes nor can you do anything about anything.  In other words, preventing the rise of a person in power has, over time, made everyone powerless. 

But human society is based in power.  This undermining of power goes against the natural conditions of human society.  In this way, the American political system actually undermines human society over all and conflicts with human nature (see my articles “Thoughts on how the U.S. is undermining itself with its own ideals – the ‘God-ordained democracy’ thats frightened of authority” and “Thoughts on how “freedom and democracy” undermines human society“).  The effect of this is that it has an impairing effect on human society.  In some ways, it “bottlenecks” human society not allowing it to function properly.  There are times, I must admit, when I wonder how anything gets done at all.

This undermining of power causes a power vacuum that’s never resolved:  the ‘perpetual power vacuum’.  In other words, the undermining of power creates a power vacuum.  But the natural tendency of human society is to have power.  As a result, humanity tries to fill the vacuum but it can’t because the system won’t allow it.  This causes great tension in the society.  One can also look at it this way:

  1. The American political system undermines power in politics and society (I always jokingly say “. . . its a crime for anyone to be in control in this country”).
  2. A power vacuum is created because no one is in power.
  3. There are attempts to try to try and fill the vacuum because human society needs power.
  4. None of these attempts works because the American political system makes it so that power by anyone does not work.
  5. A tension is created by the continuous power vacuum which remains.

It creates things like these:

  • A continual political and social stress.
  • Continual battles between different points of view.
  • The use of underhanded techniques (“underground power”).
  • Many things are never solved.
  • A sense of disappointment, frustration, and anger.
  • Illusions of power or people thinking that they have power when they really do not (you see this in a lot of “educated” people or people in the government).
  • A quality of hypocrisy, of people thinking that they are greater than they really are.
  • The creation of “pseudo-powers” or things that appear to be power but isn’t (such as making a lot of money).
  • A tendency of “pointless scrambling”, of continually fighting for something that isn’t there.
  • A sense of helplessness which can turn into a hopeless attitude.
  • An apathy.

The fact is that human society needs power to function properly.  This is one reason why “real democracies” don’t work and fail after awhile.

This power in human society creates things like:

  • The “origin of influence”.  This refers to the source of the source or the impetus of power.  It is the thing that power originates from (such as a leader).
  • A “rallying point”.  This refers to having something to stand behind and follow.  One could say that this is what the leader represents.
  • A “following”.  This refers to the people who follow the source of power.  Without the people who follow there is no power.

Taking away power destroys the “origin of influence” which no longer supplies a “rallying point” making the “following” redundant.  As a result, everything comes to a halt or is impaired in functioning.  Society (which is really the “following”) will tend to become haphazard and disorganized as a result.

Since the political system undermines human power systems something has come in to replace it:  a “system”.   What this shows is that a lot of the “functioning” in this society, it seems to me, is no longer human-based.  It is based in the ultra organized system that the U.S. has created.  It is this system that keeps the U.S. going and functioning.  This is true with much of the modern world.

We must then make a distinction:

  • Human-based society.  This is society that is based on the naturally appearing human tendencies and qualities.  It is based in social power.
  • A “system”.  This is a society based more in regulations, rules, laws, organizations, etc.  If the “system” is organized enough then it can be run purely as a “system”.   When it becomes particularly strong I call it “systemism” (I’ve written a number of article on this in this blog).

The fact is that the undermining of power in human society has only led to the growth of a “system”.  In fact, its made it a necessity.  Without the “system” the U.S. may of deteriorated long ago.

What we are seeing, then, is a replacing of power with the “system”.  In that way, the system becomes the new “power”, so to speak.  The “system” makes power redundant and useless.  But, as I said above, humanity still fights for power, even though there is no power to gain.  This turns the fight for power as something like an empty cause, a useless struggle.  This is the ‘perpetual power vacuum’ I speak of.

I have often speculated that one of the reasons for the “apathy” in white males (as many white males have little drive to do anything) is because of the futility of “fighting for power”.  Its not surprising that this “apathy” would first affect the white males, who are part of the group that created the “system”.  Being on the front lines of it all, they are the first ones to feel its effects.  Many white males, I think, are looking out into the world where they have no power, hence the apathy (though they are unaware of it).  Its almost as if many white males has had the carpet pulled from under their feet.  Other people, such as females and minorities, are “trailing behind” and this fact has not hit them yet.  They still think that there is power there.  The “apathy” will probably soon catch up with them as well.

Interestingly, I often feel that a lot of the anger against politics and society is caused by the conditions this power vacuum causes.  What’s odd, though, is that the solution that they offer to solve it – the political system of the U.S. – is what’s causing it!  In other words, the solution to the problem is the cause of the problem.  In this way, something like a vicious circle has been created.

Because the “system” uses laws, organization, etc. on such a large scale it seems possible that the tendency to create a “system”, in Judeo/Christian-based societies, may have origin in the laws of Moses, though I cannot say for sure.  Moses created a multitude of laws and sacrifices that must be performed and which could be very complex.  This, over time, would create in Jewish people an attitude of laws and organization as part of “how the world works”.  This, of course, would be transferred to Christianity and would, no doubt, make up much of the attitude of Christian-based societies.  Its no wonder, then, that European society, which is Christian-based, would naturally turn to a “system” as part of “how things work”.  Because of this, we might be able to say that “systemism” has origin with Moses.

Overall, the undermining of power gives the U.S. a quality as if everyone is trying to climb a mountain that isn’t there or a people trying to grasp smoke.  It has given the U.S. a reputation, at least to me, as a place with qualities such as these:

  • That there is a “void” in society.
  • A sense of “something missing”.
  • A sense of having no direction.
  • A sense of “having nothing to belong to”.

In a way, it gives society a quality much like a “lost society” or a “bankrupt culture”.  This is quite significant as it shows that there is an inherent need for power in society.  That is to say, not only does humanity require power for society to function but it needs it interiorly.  Power affects a society on a deep level.  Here it affects each person individually.  In this way, society is not just something you are a part of but something that is a part of you.  One could say that this can become spiritual-like in some ways.

More specifically, there is a need for a “power image”.   This “image” is a something to “rally” around, so to speak.  It could be things like this:

  • A person, such as a leader.
  • A belief.
  • A way of life.
  • A “familiarity” (that is, something common between people that make people “connect”, such as race, family, occupation, etc.).

This “power image” is very important as it creates:

  • Something to look up to.
  • Something to belong to.
  • Something to give meaning and purpose.
  • Security and well being.

In this way, we see that human society is, in some sense, created by the “power image”.  It becomes the bonding agent and guide of the society.  The degradation of power, and its “power image”, then tends to degrade human society as a result.

In many ways, this situation describes a “system versus human institutions” problem.  Basically, the American political system has created a condition where the “system” is above human institutions and tends to undermine them.  Despite this, the “human” keeps wanting to play a part in things.  This makes something like a tug-of-war between the “system” and human tendencies (the ‘perpetual power vacuum’).  Since the “system” has so much influence, and is now a necessity, this tug-of-war will probably go on indefinitely . . . or as long as humanity can hold out.  In this way, we are seeing a conflict between a system and humanity.  This means that we are now fighting the very thing we have created.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Christianity, Christian conversion, Post-Christianity, and Christian influence, Culture, cultural loneliness, etc., Government and politics, Historical stuff, Modern life and society, Society, The 'system' and 'systemism', The U.S. and American society | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on the phases of Victorian society – defining what an “era” is

Here’s a thought I had:

It seems to me that we are still in the “Victorian” era.  That is to say, we are still under its sway and influence.  Perhaps, we could say that we are in a “post-Victorian phase” of the Victorian era.  Some things that show this include:

  • Though we are not “Victorian”, in the popular society sense (we don’t necessarily wear their clothes, uphold their moral standards, etc.), we are under its influence, of its ideas and ideals as well as what it created.
  • We are still pursuing the “ideal society” that was begun in the Victorian era, namely a “modern world”.  The “modern world”, really, is a Victorian idea.  All of our modern gadgets, toys, and gismo’s have a base in the ideas and ideals of the Victorian era.  Many of them were even initially created during that era as well.  In some sense, all the technology, gadgets, gismo’s, and such of the “modern world” are nothing but continuations of what was created in the Victorian era and reflect its ideals.
  • A lot of society is still based in “rebelling” against the strong Victorian codes, ethics, and morality.  Interestingly, many of these no longer exist anymore as they’ve been destroyed by the “rebelling”.  Despite this, the “rebellion” continues.  One could even say that a “blind rebellion” exists, rebelling against things that aren’t there.  This shows how the “Victorian sense” is still very strong.

In this sense, we live under the shadow of the “Victorian” era and, as a result, are really still in it.  If we look at things in this way we could then say that there are, so far, various phases in the Victorian era:

  1. 1800’s – ideals and ideas are created.
  2. 1900’s – these ideals and ideas come to fruition and are created.
  3. 2000’s – the problems of these ideals and ideas become apparent.

Actually, there is an overlap or, rather, one phase blends into the next phase.  I put them in centuries for simplicity. It seems, to me, that the latter phase began to be seen a lot in the late 1900’s and is being seen increasingly.  Many of the problems we have been seeing in the late 1900’s to today appear to be a result of the ideas originating in the Victorian era as well as conditions begun in the Victorian era.  These include things such as:

In effect, these have all created serious problems.  To put it another way, the “creations” and “solutions” of the Victorian era are now starting to create problems. The important point about this is that what we create, and think’s great, ends up creating problems later.  In this sense, the last phase of the Victorian era will be the problems its “creations” and “solutions” cause.  But since the Victorian era created the modern world we could say that the fall of the Victorian era will be the fall of the modern world.  Once that happens then we could say that it has truly fallen.

This, it seems to me, reveals an aspect about what an “era” is.  In some sense, an “era” can perhaps be defined with these three phases:

  1. The creation of the “idea” of the era.  This “idea”, then, defines the era as a whole.
  2. Making the “idea” a reality.
  3. The reality of the “idea” undermines and eventually destroys the era.

An “era” can be described as a historical circumstance where an idea is created and dominates the period of time.  Eventually, though, the very idea that defines the “era” ends up destroying it in some way.  In other words, an “era” is defined by an idea that ends up killing itself. 

If this is the case, then it shows that there is an inherent self-destructiveness to “ideas”.  This is not surprising as any “idea” is too specific and narrow to encompass the greater reality of life.  An “idea” may work under specific conditions but life consists of many more conditions than any “idea” can encompass thereby making any “idea” fail after awhile.  To put it another way, an “idea” has a life span.  This life span is the “era”.  And, as with all life spans, it has a birth, a life, and a death.

The “idea” of an “era” can refer to a number of things:

  • An actual idea, principle, or thought.
  • An organized system (such as a government or religion).
  • A condition.
  • A belief.
  • An attitude.
  • A stance or point of view.

Basically, an “idea” is the bonding element that holds everything together during this time.  It is something that affects everyone and as if “harnesses” the society.  Its this “harnessing” power that helps bonds things together and this bonding, in a sense, creates the “era”.

This bond continues to work while the conditions support the “idea”.  Inevitably, though, the conditions change and the “idea” becomes irrelevant.  Despite this, the “idea” tends to be continued.  Being irrelevant, the “idea” becomes alienated from the conditions and, accordingly, it ends up undermining itself.  In fact, the “idea” is often what is responsible for bringing the “era” down.

When the “idea” and conditions no longer correlate a number of conditions can bring the “era” down:

  • The “ideas” destroy itself.  This is particularly so when the “idea” has created specific rigid “creations”, such as systems, governments, organization, inventions, machines, etc.  Since the Victorian era, and the modern world, have these “rigid” things its probably more likely the “idea” of this era will end up destroying itself.
  • The “idea” fizzes out.  Basically, changing conditions cause the “idea” to become irrelevant and useless.
  • The “idea” is overtaken by another.  When the conditions change the “idea” loses power and a new “idea” takes over with more power.
  • There is a conflict with another “idea”.  Sometimes, new conditions cause the rise of other “ideas” which may have to “fight it out” to determine which one will be dominant.

During the era the “idea” is often viewed as a truth.  This shows that truth is often determined not by actual truth by because it reflects the “idea” of the era.  Once the era ends, the “idea” fails and the era’s truth dies.  What this shows is that the bonding element (the “idea”) of an era creates its own truth in things.  We could, perhaps, speak of this as the “truth of the era”.  We must remember that it is a truth that only exists during the era.

Many “truths” that people believe are probably of the “truth of the era” sort.  This is particularly so with social-based truths, such as religion or politics or popular opinion.  This fact shows that an “idea” tends to be social in manifestation.  This is not surprising as the social manifestation is the best means of the bonding element for a population of people.  This would particularly be so in mass media society and “advanced” civilization.

In societies that are not mass societies, “advanced”, or have mass media, the best bonding element would probably be things like conditions and lifestyle . . . how one lives and not the social situation.  As a result of this, in older societies a lifestyle becomes the “idea” that bonds everything together.  Once that lifestyle falls that “era” falls.  This has been seen in the fall of many primitive societies, for example.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Britain and British things, Historical stuff, Modern life and society, Philosophy, The U.S. and American society | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on my saying “education is nothing but learning the repertoire of the modern world” – some myths and conflicts of knowledge

Recently, I made this statement:

“Education is nothing but learning the repertoire of the modern world.”

One could go on to say that this is true for any condition where there is a “power” that one must follow:  a “power-that-be”.  Since any condition contains a form of “power-that-be” it requires a person to learn its “repertoire” in order to be able to live in it  (the “repertoire” is really the knowledge that surrounds the “powers-that-be”).  If one lives in a specific country, for example, one must learn the “repertoire” of its ways and knowledge to live in it, if one gets a job one must learn its “repertoire” to maintain it, and so on.  In other words, any “power-that-be” develops a “repertoire” that must be followed.  This becomes important as one benefits from the “power-that-be” by following its particular “repertoire”.  Education, or the learning of its “repertoire”, is not about gaining “truth”, in actuality, but in gaining the power and benefit of the “power-that-be”.  As a result, each time a new “power-that-be” appears the “truth” changes to conform to it. 

In the modern world, for example, a person must learn the ways of the modern world (its “repertoire”) in order to live in it and benefit from it.  This “repertoire” now consists of a whole mess full of information and facts which a person must “learn” to survive (and it takes years to learn its “repertoire”!).  What do you think schooling is about?  What do you think education is?  Do you think its to discover some great Divine truth, the great mystery of life?  Its only to gain benefits from the “powers-that-be” by following its dictates, its “repertoire”.  This is not because the “repertoire” knowledge is “right” by its nature, but only in the fact that the modern world is the current “powers-that-be”.  As a result, a person is, in some respects, forced to learn it whether they want to or not, whether they believe it or not.

We could then revise the statement as:

“Education is nothing but learning the repertoire of the powers-that-be.”

This fact is revealing about the nature, and myth, of knowledge.  The most important aspect of this is that it shows that the “powers-that-be” make knowledge “right”.  To put it another way, education is a form of gaining power, not of seeking “truth” or “right”.  This power is achieved by following the “repertoire” of the “powers-that-be”.  Following it helps you gain its power.  This gaining of power has the effect of making its knowledge “right”.  It gains power in a number of ways, such as:

  • It makes knowledge valuable.
  • It makes knowledge useful.
  • It gives knowledge power.
  • It creates a unifying effect.

In some respects, the “powers-that-be” lay the foundation for all these to function.  It becomes the platform, so to speak, that all these are built upon.  As a result, the stronger the “powers-that-be” the “stronger” the power and, accordingly, the knowledge . . . but only within the “powers-that-be”.

This strength, though, is often confused with “right”:  the “power/right confusion”.  Another expression of this confusion is “might is right”.  The problem, of course, is that “might is not always right” but power gets things done, making it seem right.  This really shows a basic inherent problem with power and its deceptive nature.  Because power accomplishes and gets things done it tends to give the illusion that this is because it is “right”.

Knowledge (that is, knowing its “repertoire”) creates the means for gaining the power of the “powers-that-be”.  Learning the “repertoire” of the “powers-that-be” gives one advantages, such as:

  • It allows a person an “in” with the “powers-that-be”.
  • It gives one power or the benefits of the powers that the “powers-that-be” contain.
  • It gives a person advantage over other people who do not know the “repertoire”.
  • It allows one to fit in to the “powers-that-be” power structure.

Knowing, then, is not this “great knowing of truth”, as is often supposed.  There is nothing Divine, mystical, or magical about it . . . its just a means for power.  In addition, it does not make people “better”, sophisticated, “educated”, etc.  That’s just a reflection of the power it gives and how that power affects people by giving them advantage.  One can see that it is really nothing but a conforming to the “powers-that-be” by using its “repertoire”.  In this way, “right” really means “gain by conforming”, in actuality.  This discrepancy between the power of the “powers-that-be” and real “truth” has caused a great myth and misunderstanding about knowledge and education, in my opinion.


The influence of the “powers-that-be” show that it is a social power.  In other words, its a “social-based knowledge”.  The main benefit of this form of knowledge is its social consequences.  Since society has a great impact on a person this often becomes a dominant form of knowledge (in some cases, it becomes “the” knowledge, the “accepted” knowledge).  As a result, knowing its repertoire is critical in social situations.  This seems particularly prevalent in large societies and, especially, “advanced” civilizations such as the modern world.  This is because these societies are so large that social institutions, ways, associations, etc. become a basis of ones life.  It sets the pattern for how life is lived.  The social repertoire, then, becomes critical.

Because its social-based, one effect that the learning of its “repertoire” can make is that it makes one “appealing” in the society as one reflects the social ideals.  In other words, it can make a person “stand out” and “be favored”.  This isn’t necessarily because they are better than other people but because they are catering to the ways of the “powers-that-be”.  In this way, it shows how powerful the “repertoire” can be and that it can give one great social power and influence and meaning in society.

But life is not all social.  There is the deeper personal and individual “knowledge”.  This can be described as “personal-based knowledge”.  Typically, this viewpoint is developed as a matter of living and experience.  It often contains what can be described as ‘inherent truth’ (see my article “Thoughts on ‘inherent truth’“).  This ‘inherent truth’ usually does not require an external or social power to make it relevant.  It is a truth coming from within a person.  As a result, it is not a result of conforming to an external power.  This point of view is seen a lot in smaller societies where the control of society does not play a strong part in life and in conditions where the act of the individual person is more critical.  In some sense, we could say that it is a manifestation of a “personal power”.

Knowledge that is social or personal-based tends to have advantages and disadvantages.  “Social-based knowledge” is based in ones social conditions which force people to have to conform to social conditions, neglecting their personal qualities.  In this way, “social-based knowledge” tends to have an alienating quality . . . it develops social standing but on the person.  “Personal-based knowledge”, on the other hand, tends to have a tendency for self-growth, being more focused on “personal power” and the person.  But this is at the expense of society . . . it develops the person but not social standing.  These tend to give these a contrariness or opposition quality.  In other words, they are not compatible.  In this way, “personal-based knowledge” tends to alienate ones self from society and “social-based knowledge” tends to alienate ones self from ones self.  This shows that there is an irreconcilable tendency between these two forms of knowledge.  Its no surprise, then, that there is a great history of the conflict between “social-based knowledge” and “personal-based knowledge”. 


This conflict between the “social-based knowledge” and “personal-based knowledge” appears in ways like these:

  • Confusion – the two forms of knowledge are equated and treated as the same when they actually are not.
  • Incompatible – the two forms of knowledge simply don’t work together.

These forms of conflict can appear a number of ways:

  • As a social conflict
  • As a private conflict

Social conflict can cause things such as war, divisions, disputes, different theories, and such.  When there is a serious dispute between two forms of knowledge, and an actual conflict occurs (such as war), the “winner” tends to view their truth as “right”.  As a result, a lot of truths are not a result of them really being “right”, inherently, but that they, for whatever reason, happened to of won.  This is “right-as-a-result-of-winning truth”.  In actuality, this has determined a lot of “truth” in the world which has, accordingly, created a lot of popular opinions and points of views. What many people think is “right” is often because, somewhere in the past, that point of view happen to of won against another point of view.  Not because it is actually “right”, as is often supposed.  Had it not of won their whole point of view would be different.  What this means is that a lot of the “right” of truth is actually based on historical circumstance. 

Mass society also creates “right-as-a-result-of-trend truth”.  In other words, because it is a trend, or popular, it makes it “right”.  My experience, though, is that there is no correlation between trend, and being popular, with what is “right”.  As a result, popular opinion is not something to be relied upon.  This particular point of view seems particularly popular with people in large cities (that is, live in mass societies) and females (who tend to be imitative and so rely on things like trend to determine how to behave).  There are even some people who feel that it has been given a “validity” in democracy as there is a mistaken notion that trend and popular opinion represent the “will of the people”.

Private conflict can appear in a number of forms, such as:

  • Passive – Many people will hold the two different forms of knowledge (social and person) as separate in their minds.  Their “social mind” will reflect “social-based knowledge”.  Their “private mind” will reflect “personal-based knowledge”.  In this way, many people actually develop a “multiple truths orientation”.  As a result of this, “truth” will change depending on their state of mind.  Sometimes, these truths can even contradict each other.  This usually does not create any problems as the two minds, with its two truths, are kept separate and, as a result, never conflict.  Its not uncommon that, in a mass society, people often develop a strong “personal-based knowledge” because society is just too big and varied (this is common in modern society).   The society basically offers no solutions or answers.  This forces people to have to rely on their personal truths as a basis of life.  Since these personal truths are typically different from the popular social views they develop a “multiple truths orientation” and, in some cases, almost have two separate lives as a result, a social and private life, each with their own separate truths.
  • Active – For some people, they cannot keep the two truths separate.  As a result, “social-based knowledge” conflicts with “personal-based knowledge” creating great crisis and pain.  It can cause great inner turmoil as well.  In this form of conflict they cannot reconcile the two and they fight it out in their mind.  They often will end up taking one point of view and then go against the other point of view (sort of like an “either/or” situation) to reconcile the conflict.  This can turn into an extremism (favoring ones point of view) or a rebellion (going against the other point of view).  If one does not do one of these it can even turn into a great questioning of ones self and a questioning of life causing great confusion, and despair.  This can even turn into apathy, depression, and giving up on life.  We see, then, that the conflict between the two forms of knowledge (social and personal) can have great impact on a person.

So we see that the conflict of these two forms of knowledge causes great despair on all levels of human life, social to private.  In fact, much of history is often nothing but this conflict of knowledge (social versus personal).  Many wars, political conflict, social disputes, religious wars, etc. have origin here.


But human cultures often do develop a reconciling of the two.  In some respects, this reconciling is one of the traits of a stable culture.  It does this by putting the different truths in their respective place in society.  In other words, they allow both truths to exist and give them a place, in society, for those truths to be manifested.  By giving them a place these different truths are given things such as:

  • A place to be so that they can grow and develop.
  • They are separate from each other, avoiding conflict.

What often ends up happening is something like a spectrum of “knowledge” in the society.  A good example is the ecclesiastical order of the Catholic church where there is something like a spectrum in the theology (from social to personal orientation):

  • University theology.  This is the “formal” knowledge of the church and tends to be impersonal.
  • Monastic Priest theology.  This is “applied University theology” applied to monks.  It has to be modified to fit the monastic life but tends to still retain much of the “formal” knowledge of University theology.
  • Secular Priest theology.  This is “applied University theology” directed to the population.  Here it has to begins to change (often dramatically) to fit the individual and personal situations of the people.
  • Lay Monk theology.  This is theology applied to the lay monk (non-priest) and tends to lack a lot of the “formal” qualities of University theology. 
  • Hermit Monk theology.  This is so personal that each hermit monk develops their own specific form (which can even conflict with “formal” University theology).

Though they are all part of Catholic theology each is different with different characteristics.  They may even contradict each other (and have, in fact, created problems in the past).  What works for one may not work for another but each is given a place separate from the other.  In this way, they as if develop on their own, often oblivious of the other.

But most societies don’t develop such formal organizations.  Many societies, though, develop conditions where a spectrum can reside, though unorganized and informal.  This spectrum would go something like this:

  • Social  – “accepted”.  This is what’s formally “accepted” by the society as a whole.  Often, this is dogmatic and formal.
  • Social – “useful”.  This is practical knowledge the society accepts as a whole.  This is usually the knowledge finds “what works”.  It often appears like the “accepted” form but is, in actuality, modified to make it “useful”.
  • Combination.  This is a combination of the social and personal forms (see two entries below) that works for both.  It is the “median line” where both are used but modified so that they work together.
  • Personal – “useful”.  This is personal knowledge that one uses in day-to-day living.  It often consists of how a person does things and what a person must do.
  • Personal – “private”.  This is personal knowledge that one uses for ones self and no one really knows.  These include things like personal belief.  This can be so “private” that a person may not even realize they believe it.

Most people live on many levels of this spectrum, though they tend to favor one particular spot.  Often, people will bounce around, going from one to the other depending on the circumstances.  This shows that many people practice many “truths” and cater to different forms of “knowledge”, which can even be contradictory.  In this way, it shows that life isn’t as “single-minded” as it may seem.  Often, all a person has to do is watch ones self, what one does, and how one thinks to see the different levels one lives on.  It can be quite surprising.

Finding out where one is on the spectrum can, I feel, have a great impact on ones quality of life.  In other words, a person should try to find the “spot” where ones orientation best lie and try to put themselves in that “spot” in life.  A person can do this by finding a correlation between:

  • Ones character traits.  That is, is one social or personal in orientation.  It refers to ones natural tendencies.  In my opinion, a person is happiest when they are following natural tendencies.  As a result, its critical to learn what ones natural tendencies are.
  • The conditions one lives under.  For example, does one live in a very social orientation which forces one to be social in orientation?

Both of these requires that a person must know themselves and be aware of their surroundings in order to determine the situation.  What one wants to do is to put ones self in the conditions that match ones character traits.  For example, a personal oriented person should avoid strong social conditions, a strong social oriented person should try to put themselves in strong social conditions, etc.

In finding ones “spot”, though, a person must keep several things in mind:

  • An awareness that there are many forms of truths.
  • That your truth isn’t the same as everyone else’s.
  • That one should not equate ones truth with everyone else’s.
  • That each truth has its place and form.

In the more personal orientation, though, a person must often create their conditions.  This is often an easy thing as a personal orientation tends to conflict with the social orientation, particularly of modern society.  In other words, the preference for “personal-based knowledge” can force people into a solitude and isolation from society.  Sometimes this can be forced upon a person causing great conflict.


In the modern world, with its more social orientation, there is a tendency to think that there is only one truth and knowledge.  There is a tendency where people will try to conform themselves, and their truths, to the “accepted” truth causing all sorts of problems for themselves.  In many ways, a lot of personal problems in people in the modern world are manifestations of this tendency.  Much of this is rooting in having to learn the “repertoire” of the modern world, the primary “power-that-be” of today.  In other words, education causes a lot of problems for people by deceiving people into thinking that its “repertoire”, which is the socially “accepted” truth, is everything and what life is about.  

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Education and learning, Modern life and society, Philosophy, Psychology and psychoanalysis | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on different aspects of the “beauty of nature”

I have always loved nature.  Most people, though, tend to think that this is for the physical and pleasant beauty of nature.  I disagree.  I agree that nature can have a pleasant beauty at times.  I also think that there is a beauty that goes beyond physical beauty.  The beauty of nature, that most people refer to, almost always applies to specific “ideal” aspects of nature:  a good view, a nice pleasant spot under some tree’s, a good camp site, etc.  These are generally conditions that are “pleasing” to the human person and the human condition.  No wonder there is such pleasant physical beauty there.

Anyone who really looks at nature, though, can see that there is dark side to nature.  All you have to do is go out of the areas that are “pleasing” to the human person.  Go into areas that you have to stoop to get through or push away branches to walk.  Sit where insects are crawling all over the place.  Walk up the side of a hill that has a 70 degree incline.  Trudge your way through mud.  You do things like this and the beauty of nature vanishes.  In addition, one must remind ones self of all the hidden dangers.  You could slip and fall and break your leg.  A tree can fall on you.  A moose might attack you.  Its because of this that I often say, when I go into the woods:  “there is danger here . . . hidden behind the flowers”.  Its also not uncommon for me, when I walk in the woods, to state to myself, “If a tree falls and lands on me, killing me, no ones going to cry for me.  You won’t be seeing the birds, squirrels, and deer line up in a row and weep.  Nothing will happen.”  Here another side of nature appears, a very unforgiving and cold side.

Truly, nature is “un-human”.  That is to say, it is not a world that “conforms” to humanity and the human condition.  Its not a place that conforms to us.  Instead, we must conform to it and follow its lead.  That is to say, we must take what it offers.  In addition, we must create a niche, in the midst of nature, in which we can modify things so that it fits our “human nature”.  We must keep within a certain temperature range.  We must have food that is edible.  We must make chairs, beds, etc. that our comfortable for us.  This shows that “nature” and “human nature” do not correspond.  This fact causes a need to create what can be called the “human niche”.  This is that reality which we must carve out of nature, in the midst of nature, to make nature fit us.

This “human niche” slowly becomes human society and civilization over time.  When this gets too big we tend to become arrogant and begin to think that “human nature” and “nature” are the same thing, forgetting that they are actually different.  Eventually, we go on to think that we have control over “nature” and that we are above it.  In this way, the “human niche” takes on an illusionary quality about “nature”, making it appear smaller than it is.  As a result of this, it tends to develop misconceptions about “nature”.  Commonly, there becomes a tendency to downplay “nature”, almost as if it is a minor influence in life.  As a result, the “human niche” begins to be perceived as the everything in life.  “Nature” becomes viewed as subsidiary to the “human niche” and may even be viewed as its servant.  In some societies “nature” can practically disappear as a presence in life . . . “nature” literally disappears.  In addition, we tend to lose the “nature” side of our selves as the “human niche” grows.  In other words, an overly strong “human niche” makes us lose touch with “nature”.  This even includes our “human nature”.  In short, as the “human niche” grows we tend to lose touch not only with “nature” but with our selves.

One effect of all this is that the “beauty of nature” is looked at from the context of the “human niche”.  This point of view tends to look at nature from contexts such as these:

  • It is looked at from the comfort of the “human niche”.  As a result, it is “pleasant” and “good”.
  • It is looked at from a distance, as if seeing nature only from a context of a documentary.
  • It is looked at from the context of people who do not have the proper sense of what “nature” really is.
  • It is looked at from the point of view of people who have lost touch with themselves.

The effect of these is that this form of “beauty of nature” tends to be illusionary and lacks depth.  In addition, it does not really hit one deeply at all.  This is why the “pleasing” side of nature is emphasized.  The “beauty of nature” that this condition creates can be described as the “human niche-based beauty of nature”. 

But if one goes beyond the “human niche” one see’s another form of beauty, one that isn’t so pleasant, easy, simplistic, or shallow.  Unlike the “human niche-based beauty of nature”, which is generally pleasant-oriented, it can be hard, difficult, painful, and even horrifying.  In addition, it is so deep that it can change the person and alter the self.  This, really, is when “nature” hits deep as it changes ones self.   In this way, the self is as if transformed and altered by “nature”.  In some respects, one becomes a part of “nature” by being transformed by it.  In so doing it seems to have these effects:

  • “Nature” takes on the quality of something that is animate or alive.  We see, then, a natural tendency to see “nature” not as an inanimate object but as something alive and living.  This sense, really, is the source of god and spirits.  In this way, any form of spirituality is related with “nature”.  As a result, any spirituality based in the “human niche” (such as organized religions, learning spirituality from a book, etc.) tends to be shallow or superficial-like.  They are a good guide, and a support, but the heart of any spirituality lies in “nature”.
  • It makes one alike or akin to “nature”, almost like we are relatives or brothers.  In this way, “nature” becomes something more like a relationship, something you associate with, much like another person.
  • There becomes a strong sense of “self-in-the-world”.  In some sense, the self is felt strongest in “nature”.  Not only this, the self is perceived as being in-the-world.  This gives a great sense of “aliveness” and of living.  Perhaps one could say that life is found in “nature”?
  • One as if becomes closer to “human nature”.  In other words, by becoming closer to “nature” one becomes closer to ones natural self.  Because of this, “nature” can have great impact on becoming a human being.  One could very well say that a person finds “human nature” only in the midst of “nature”.

This transformation, and its effects, creates a whole other form of “beauty of nature” which can, at times, have great influence on a person and even become profound.  We could speak of this as “transformation-based beauty of nature”.

This transformation, though, requires going beyond the “human niche” and abandoning it, at least to some extent.  I do not believe, necessarily, that “living in nature” (that is, like an Indian or mountain man) automatically does this.  That is to say, living “living in nature” does not necessarily create a “transformation-based beauty of nature”.  In fact, it may not do any transformation at all!  This form of living, it seems to me, can create a “practical” version of transformation, based on active living and participation, which is more akin to learning a lifestyle than anything else.  It often only creates a “living in nature lifestyle” which is not the same as a real transformation.  In other words, knowing “how” to live in nature is not necessarily transformation.  It requires more than that.

I believe that, in transformation, we are looking at something that is deeper.  It requires a mental attitude and quality.  One could say, I suppose, that transformation requires, as a prerequisite, a “spiritual” sense.  This means that transformation is more spiritual than physical or practical or a lifestyle.  It happens in ones mind.  I also think that only some people are prone to this.  Many people don’t have this frame of mind.

Because it happens in ones mind (that is, interiorly) it is not solely based in the physical fact of “nature”.  That is to say, being in “nature” doesn’t just automatically cause a transformation.  This fact shows that there is more to “nature” than “nature”, that it is an experience and a phenomena.   Because of this, “nature” appears in different ways:

  • As a reaction to physical “nature”.  Being in the midst of “nature” can affect a person interiorly and affect a person deeply.  In this way, it can promote and cause an experience and phenomena.
  • Having a “non human niche” perspective.  In some respects, anything that is not part of the “human niche” is a form of “nature.

We see, then, a pattern where “nature” really means an absence of the “human niche”.   Accordingly, it does not necessarily mean being out in physical nature. So we see that, since transformation requires “nature”, the abandoning of the “human niche” is necessary for transformation.  In the end, one does this interiorly, in ones mind.  Being in physical nature can have great impact on this interior sense and, in some cases, be critical.  But to be in physical nature alone, with no interior sense, does nothing.  In this way, we see that transformation is rooted in ones interior self. 

With this we can see that there are two ways to abandon the “human niche”:

  1. Being inspired by physical “nature”.  This only leads to the second way.
  2. By abandoning it interiorly. 

The power of physical “nature”, in this process, shows that we have a deep association with nature.  In actuality, “nature” is a part of us and we are a part of it.  This fact tends to be forgotten in the “human niche” which tends to make it appear as if we are separate from “nature”.

When we move away from the “human niche” (both physically and mentally) one ceases to have its security, identity, and support.  One is now exposed to “nature”.  In this way, one really stands naked in the world . . . there’s nothing to hide behind.  Not only that, we must remember that “nature” does not conform to us . . . it is “un-human”.  In this way, “nature” as if squashes the self . . . “nature” kills ones self.  This is what I found.  For many years in fact, after loving to be in nature for many years, I found I avoided nature.  Looking back on it now I know that it is because of its squashing quality.  Nature actually began to scare me.  Its because of this that I find myself often stating:  “nature destroys me”.  Later I would begin to say, “I go into nature to be destroyed by nature”.  In effect, its squashing quality causes a death in the self.  The self is as if insufficient in the face of “nature”.

When in nature I saw nature as “beyond me” and “more than me”.  It seemed incomprehensible, beyond my reach.  My human mind could not comprehend it.  Knowledge such as “cumulus clouds”, “sequoia trees”, “strata of rock”, etc. were only words and ideas from the “human niche”.  What use are they out in real “nature”?  I could sit and pretend to know, using fancy words and ideas as they do in the “human niche” (particularly if they are scientific), but these truly, deep down, do not explain nature and are insufficient.  Words have little use.  “Nature” is beyond me, beyond words.  This makes me feel so small and insignificant, a nothing.  This creates a great sense of humility.  I often call this one of the “great truths” for in accepting it one is accepting the first “great truth” of life, that one is small and the world is beyond ones self, mind, and understanding.  This means that this “great truth” is not a knowing of information or facts, as is often supposed viewed as being “truth”.  Instead, it shows that “truth” is an awareness of a condition and an acceptance of it.  In other words, “great truth is awareness and acceptance”.  Humility, then, is the accepting of ones insignificance and inability to comprehend. Of all the “truths” I’ve learned it has the greatest sense of “truth” I have ever felt . . . but yet it consists of not “knowing” anything.  I call this “wonderful humility”.  This sense can be so deep that it often becomes profound, almost unreal.  In this way, it shows that “humility is the base of profoundness”.  This profoundness is a beauty in itself, a “humble beauty”.  It is truly wonderful to walk in the woods feeling this humility and insignificance and inability to understand.  The world becomes something to marvel (see my article “Thoughts about learning to ‘marvel’“).  This beauty, interestingly, is a beauty of a relationship, not of a sight or image (as we generally see in “human niche-based beauty of nature”).  We see, then, that there is beauty beyond a sight or image but in something as simple as an awareness of a relationship.

Its not uncommon that this “humble beauty” makes me feel like a child in “nature”.  I feel simple, helpless, and vulnerable.  I feel innocent, dumb, and naïve.  But, like a child, I find a reliance on a parent . . . “nature”.  In this way, “humble beauty” tends to create a trust and a faith.  This also leads to a relationship with “nature” as if it were a person.  As a result of this, there becomes an awareness that nature is lord and master.  That is to say, it dictates things.  We follow it.  In some sense, we serve and must submit to nature.  Only in serving and submitting to nature do we truly know it and see its beauty (also see my article “Thoughts on the importance of subservience and submission“).

But this sense of humility and insignificance also “destroys me”.  My self is as if squashed by it.  But there is a part of me that lives and grows, a “nature” part of me.   It is a deeper self that is awakened by this squashing of my self.  It is as if awakened.  In this way, it shows that there is an “outer self”, which is based in worldly things and the “human niche”, and a deeper “nature self”.  The squashing and death of my self, my “outer self”, becomes the birth of a new self, the “nature self”.  This death/birth becomes the transformation.  In this discovery of the “nature self” a person becomes changed, a new person.  With this new “nature self” the world changes and new beauties appear.

Through this new “nature self” there is a sense instilled in me that there is a deep and strong connection between nature and me, that we are “bound” together.  I feel nature as a part of me and it a part of me.  As I said once many years ago:  “when I looked out into the world I see my self looking back at me”.  The sky, the trees, the mountains, seem as much a part of me as my hand or foot.  In this world, then, “nature” and me become so bound together that we seem as if one entity.  This is a great expression of the self, of what I call extension and projection (for example, see my article “Thoughts on the importance of spatial relations and the self – the creation of a “self-space” and its effects” and “Thoughts on the progression of projection“).  The self is as if expanded to encompass the whole world.  It creates a bond, a belonging, a being-a-part-of.  “Nature” is no longer just a place but “me”.  This creates a beauty based in the expression of the self.  This expression of self, this sense of being “bound”, and the beauty it creates, is “beauty-by-being-bound”.  A person becomes a part of all nature, including all the things that have no apparent beauty, such as the horrid heat, the insects, the mud of the marshes, the dead branches, the spiders, etc.  This bond, this being bound to nature, is one of the great beauties of nature I think.  Its also difficult to achieve and very transitory (meaning that it comes and goes).  As a result, one is always seeking it.

This “nature self” is not something that, once found, is always there.  One must continually hunt and seek for it.  The “nature self” is a deeper self and an experience that comes and goes, is found and lost.  In this way, the “nature self” becomes a continual questing, and endless seeking, and an ongoing hunt.  This shows that “nature” requires a continual seeking of a death and a birth to discover the “nature self”.  Its this death and birth that leads to transformation which creates new forms of beauty.

I know, from experience, that the “nature self” is really a sense of the pre-self, which is what I call the self before a self actually appears (see my article “Thoughts on the pre-self, primal self, world self, post-self, and the greater self“).  This causes a number of responses:

  • A sense of “uncontaminated self”.  That is to say, the self is felt in a pure way, without all the conflicts, burdens, and dilemma’s that the self develops later.  The self is as if “pure”.  In some sense, its a “primal sense”, of “life at the beginning”.
  • A progression of self’s.  The sense of the pre-self as if starts a “new beginning” with the growth of the self.  One goes back to the “self before the self” (the pre-self) and progresses through the different self’s again (such as the primal self, world self, post self, greater self).  In this way, the self’s are as if renewed and reestablished.  One effect of this is that it makes it so that the self is dynamic and is active on many different levels.

The effect of these is that the different self’s as if revolve around and around like a big wheel, going around and around from one to another.  This gives a great sense of life, a growth, and insight coming from the different self’s.  Hidden aspects of the self as if appears from nowhere and one develops new awareness and growth.  The self changes.  The perception of the self changes.  The perception of the world changes.  This causes a new form of beauty, one based in experiencing the self.   This is the “beauty of the revolving self”. 

Interestingly, the more the “nature self” is practiced, the more the “human niche” seems small in comparison.  This has become so powerful that I often view the “human niche” – human society, human lifestyle – as a separate entity, a separate world removed from nature.  Human society, to me, takes on this quality of being nothing but a big shell that separates itself from nature and as if protects itself from nature.  It makes it appear that nature and the “human niche” are separate distinct places that are, in actuality, incompatible.

When I do not practice the “nature self” I find that I slowly become absorbed into the “human niche”, usually without my knowing.  Accordingly, I find that nature moves further and further away from me and the “human niche” mentality becomes dominant.  In this state the “external self” becomes dominant.  Because of this, the “human niche-based beauty of nature” becomes the beauty I see.

Its as if there is a great tug-of-war between “nature” and the “human niche”.  One continually goes back and forth in an endless struggle.  Though this is hard and painful, at times, it is much like the revolving of the sun, which creates day and night in an endless never ending cycle.  There seems a naturalness in this revolving of “nature” and the “human niche”.  They reflect two aspects of the human self.  Like night and day they, too, are opposing elements.  And, like them, they have moments of conflict and moments of glory.  This tug-of-war, of going from one to another creates a particular quality of beauty.  There becomes a beauty in the glory of “nature” and the “human niche” as well as the conflict that happens between them.  This becomes a beauty in conditions.  We could call this the “beauty of opposing qualities”.  I find this the hardest beauty to see and the one I most struggle with.  I often feel this is because of a number of qualities:

  • Its hard to go from one extreme to another.
  • Its hard to see beauty in all the qualities at one time (“nature”, “human niche”, the glory of each, and the conflict between them).
  • The birth/death (transformation) is painful.

All these put great stress on the self.  The tendency is to “favor” a specific quality at one period of time.  In other words, we tend to be ‘quality focused’.  Since this is a cycle of opposing qualities this ‘quality focused’ orientation hinders the cycle nature.  This form of beauty requires one to see things as a whole.  In other words, to be ‘cycle focused’.  One cannot really see the “beauty of opposing qualities” until one becomes ‘cycle focused’.  This seems to be something that takes time to develop.  Time develops things like this:

  • Experience
  • A growth of self
  • Observation
  • Awareness

These add up, over time, and allow one to be able to look at things from a distance.  This is because the ‘cycle focused’ orientation is an orientation based in looking at things from a distance.

What we see in all this is that the beauty of “nature” goes way beyond physical beauty to the depths of ones self.  Not only that, it appears in different ways, such as a beauty in experiencing the self or in a relationship.  Because it goes into the depths of ones self it requires a change of self to achieve (transformation).  This opens up new aspects of the self and, accordingly, new forms of beauty.  In many ways, this shows that the “beauty of nature” is not only found in actual nature but within ourselves.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Contemplation, monastacism, shamanism, spirituality, prayer, and such, Dehumanization and alienation, Existence, Awareness, Beingness, Consciousness, Conceptionism, and such, Philosophy, Religion and religious stuff | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment