Contentment and Apathy

[moses2792796]

A large part of the justification for modern civilisation, at least for those who still attempt to justify it, is the utopian ideal to which it aspires. The fully realised state of which would provide every individual with 'freedom' (in a strictly limited and material sense), a comfortable standard of living (once again only in a material sense) and equality, the very existence of which is absurd when comparing one object to another. Without venturing into the actual definitions of these notions, which in the modern age are extremely vague, we will proceed to the actual mentality that they are a part of, the very mentality which allows the western civilisation to uphold its image of superiority while it continues to negate the very things it prides itself on. The mentality is one that is commonly referred to as 'progress', and once again this is a rather vague notion of which there is little understanding among our contempories. Overall it is understood to mean the shift towards the utopian state we described above, although there is some confusion as to whether this state is to be found in the act of progress itself, whether it is a fixed point in our future, or whether it has already been achieved in the recent past and we are now beginning to distance ourselves from it. All of these perspectives show more or less equal confusion and they are the ones that dictate most opinions in the socio-political sphere of today.

The fundamental flaw of this idea of 'progress' is not only that it assumes that, stability can be found through purely material means, and more importantly, its ultimate goal is a purely material state. To make this point clearer, we must delve slightly deeper into the notions that modern people believe will coincide with a 'perfect civilisation'. While the use of this term will cause considerable controversy the denial of such a mentality is merely verbal, and the actions of our contemporaries speak otherwise. We have only to look to the field of modern political debate to witness this mentality directly, where we see both sides insisting that there is only their way, and that any other will lead to failure. This is demonstrated even more clearly by the need for western civilisations to continually denounce and threaten civilisations which do not conform to their particular standards. This particular attitude reveals an mentality of possessing pure truth, which, in a domain that deals only with the relative such as politics is completely absurd. This exposes the western (and now global) deviation for what it is, a complete breach of principle higher than relative points of view, and explains why the current civlisation is unable to accept any that differ from it significantly, and also why there is so much internal division and strife in western countries. The lack of a unifying principle means that modern man can no longer comprehend that a political form is of little importance and will always proceed successfully when it is attatched to a higher unity. But we have journeyed too far from our subject, and now we must return to the notions we have already spoken of. The most simple of these is the one which is termed, 'standard of living', few would actually deny that this is a purely material achievement, and certainly not an indicator of the success of a civilisation. In fact, even on its own material terms, the improvement of the individual's material condidtion causes as many problems as it solves, and it in no way contributes to their overall spiritual completeness, which, being intangible can in no way be significantly affected by merely tangible rewards. By living with a great deal of material wealth, one is only made to desire more, and this vicious cycle causes the individual to develop a mentality of ceaseless agitation, unable to pause and contemplate, obsessed with all that is transitory, this mentality is altogether comparable to the ceaseless need for change that the idea of 'progress' represents.

The second and third notions must be dealt with in more detail, for they are at greater risk of being misunderstood as being immaterial. We begin with equality, in other words, the levelling of all men, and now all people, to the same basic unit. It must be said that this is only possible from a purely material point of view, when the human is viewed as mere mechanism and nothing more, simply a numerical unit, without anything as complex as individual aptitude taken into account. Here also we see what amounts to a denial of the possibilities of man that transcend his material parts, for it is only these that are common to all, and therefore fit within the boundaries of equality. This notion then strips man of his ability to be anything more than machine, an undeniably material perspective if such ever existed.

The last, and perhaps most significant of these utopian ideals is that of freedom, or liberty as some prefer to call it, this is rather more difficult as it can be understood in a spiritually legitimate sense, although, as we will soon reveal, the modern conception is far from being as such. As we said earlier, the modern conception of freedom is purely material, and is essentially defined as the right to believe what you will, and act accordingly, provided that this does not interfere in anyone else's freedom. The contradiction here is obvious, as it means that no one may influence another's life in any way, but this is irrelevant, what is significant is that this conception of freedom leaves no room for Truth. It is only concerned with choice, in other words quantity, and has no regard for the quality of that choice. This mentality of quantity over quality is simply another manifestation of blatant materialism in a rather crude disguise. One example of this is found in what moderns call freedom of speech, which means the right to be able to express any opinion (although much hypocrisy is witnessed here), this amounts to limiting knowledge to a purely relative and individual perspective. A truly traditional society would allow freedom of speech provided that the speaker spoke the Truth, and it must be said that anyone who desires to speak otherwise is not worth hearing, however, the modern world, which no longer understands what Truth is, allows all manner of falsehoods to be spoken, that is, so long as they do not conflict with the flimsy notions they have concocted to justify their failure.

[moses2792796]

Now that we have made it clear that the utopian ideal inherent in progress is an entirely material one, it becomes clear why our contemporaries are so obsessed to the point of being hypnotised, by material objects. In modern society, daily life revolves entirely around riches, technological advancement, and other transitory and meaningless distractions. This is precisely what progress entails, an obsession with the material, so as to overlook any unifying principle that would bestow that material with any meaning. The state of constant change that progress implies means that the society does not only change in form, but it also lacks a stable centre, from which all other aspects may develop with purpose and direction. The lack of stability can be observed in every aspect of modern society, and the division in multiplicity that it causes too, for this is essentially the rule of matter. We know that material always decays, death is the rule of matter, however for the principles that precede material manifestation time is non-existent. This is what was meant when the scriptures spoke of the Spirit living on after the body had died. Without a central guidance the materialisation of society necessarily implies a degenerative process, which we witness in what could be termed an 'inversion of quality', where destructive processes come to be valued. This originally came as a shock to the western world, when serial killers and sexual predators began to emerge, literally a product of the time. But this is now becoming more and more accepted as a necessary evil, and in the culture of the lower classes of society there is now emerging a phenomenon whereby it is considered that crime, gluttony, and deviancy are all things that should be done for their own sake. If this is not an indicator that humanity has lost its way one would wonder what is.

It must be remarked upon that it is quite astounding that modern man still manages to convince himself of possessing a greater happiness than was existent in past civilisations despite the obvious pain he must feel at this loss. We expect that this is supressed deep into the subconcious by a sort of psychological defense mechanism, and we use the word mechanism here to signify that this is merely a material function and has no real effect on the problem at hand as this spiritual corruption manifests itself at a later time in a great variety of mental disorders and neuroses which are exclusive to the modern civilisation. It is disturbing to see the level of denial that must be at work when these facts, which the moderns are quite apt to deal with, are ignored simply because they do not conform to the popular point of view.

It is now that we come to the subject of this essay, which is essentially the difference in mentality between the man of a traditional type, and the man of the anti-traditional or, modern type. Firstly we will examine apathy, which is closely associated with the modern, progressive viewpoint. We must clarify that this apathy of which we speak is, in many ways, merely an outward sign of what has been stated above. In other words, it is caused by the loss of a unifying principle, however the examination here is necessary to make the contrast between two different mentalities completely clear. The progressive perspective, essentially states that at a certain point, a manifestation, such as civilisation, will reach a utopian state (once again we will point out that those who deny believing in a utopian state still tend towards this view, for all practical purposes) at which point nothing more must be done other than to sustain it. This explains largely, the constant agitation and dissatisfaction of modern man. So desperate is he to reach this state, that he blindly acts without contemplation. We see here that his lack of connection with the principle reality ensures that he cannot actually achieve anything, for his actions take place only on the physical plane. This constant motion, which causes more problems than it solves (the destruction of Earth's environment being a significant one), perpetuates a vicious circle whereby man cannot pause to examine the results of his so called progress, and is all the more infatuated by it. This is fundamentally, an apathetic act, although the constant actions taking place may make it appear as though it were otherwise. The reason for this is that, by desiring this utopian state, modern man wants to reach a point where nothing is left to be achieved, and where action and even thought is no longer required. A state of perfect happiness in a purely sentimental sense. It is rather like watching a dog chasing its tail, as it is perfectly obvious that nothing intangible such as happiness, or even fullfilment can ever be attained through purely material means. It is quite possible that, conciously or not, many individuals realise the futility of this pursuit, but do not have the ability to realise this fully. This is another possible reason for the prevalence of mental disorders within modern civilisation, which are essentially outward manifestations of inner spiritual corruption. In accordance with this theory it is the more intelligent members of society that tend to be more susceptible to these disorders.

In contrast to the apathetic perspective, is that of contentment, while at first this may not seem so. The essential contrast is that the apathetic man acts because he desires something, which is the utopian state to which we have previously alluded, while the content man never acts from desire but rather from the knowledge that it is required of him. The content man has realised that all events on the material plane reflect the principles which rule it, therefore his action is dictated by these principles. Unlike the apathetic man, he possesses a stable centre, which is identification with the transcendent unity, and so is unmoved by the results of physical action. He is never unwilling to act and if fact, desires nothing more than to act if this reflects a greater order. Despite this though, he understands that action must be subordinated to knowledge, and that everything that takes place physically has no meaning unless it is in accordance with a unifying principle. This stability is the antithesis of the modern man, who must act without knowledge, much like those that Christ refered to when he said "he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth". Essentially meaning that those who act without knowledge act without direction from a higher influence, and are therefore spiritually blind.

We have reached the time now where the mentality of the blind is the mentality of the world, humanity itself has become blind. A phenomenon which is unknown to recorded history. Although the few who are still innerly content will watch in sadness and attempt to act with restorative power where they can, the apathetic will continue to chase their illusory utopia till the end, flailing helplessly like a drowning child, and all the while wondering why the more they tighten their grasp, the more their dreams seem to slip out of their reach, eventually to leave them in darkness for eternity.

[SchmottyBeardo]

Funny thing is that I don't know one person who is in pursuit of utopia, as you describe it, in this focus. I do know many who rely on faith derived from their fear of eternal darkness to allay the same.

Most people from every corner of this beautiful planet are only trying to survive. Above and beyond that they would like to be left alone to make their own choices for the most part.

In the Declaration of Independence it is described as "Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness."

The fact that you have enough time and that there is the technology to allow you to tie yourself up in philosophical knots in front of the online world, suggests that things are not quite as bad as you suggest.

That said, I do believe that this reality is in jeopardy. But, in the end, it is all Love's experience.

A place of Peace
A place of Rest
A place of Nothingness

[moses2792796]

We specifically stated that although many would deny a pursuit of utopian ideals, their mentality is usually in conflict with their words. Your vague references to the symbols which we have dealt with in detail in our essay have little relavance unless you would care to expose some of these 'philosophical knots' that you refer to, although we should warn you that the essay in question had little to do with 'philosophy' as our contemporaries understand it and your perception of it as such would explain your own lack of comprehension. Your reference to technology as a sign of achievement suggests that you failed to understand ANY of the article's content and we would therefore suggest that you re-read and contemplate further before you respond again, if you choose to do so, otherwise you will continue to contribute nothing of value to this thread.