Consider facebook, etc. as a morphine drip for your ego. Like religion, it is successful because at its core it makes “me” feel special: god/google/pinterest is thinking about ME, all this is being done for ME, who sees my likes, who follows my lunch habits, who likes that I like that he likes. Help me instagram, let me be the one to upload. Wars about caves, rocks, and relics are currently trending, and I will use all the proper hashtags so people can know I’m on the fast track. #monkeyswithtech
Humans once thought intelligence was the contemplation of the “I” — the first person and its intentionalities. Later on, we began to see how the brain creates the “I” to frame those intentionalities and corresponding environments. Soon we will see that the next phase is sort of an homage to classical virtue: we are all merely semi-organized matter-and-force particles/fields, and as such, any delusion of or lust for inequality is pure folly. Equality — even inside the prison of the “I” — is our (distant?) future.
What is more important: the act of conquest, or its fruits? If it be the former, then we remain barbarians. If it be the latter, then their acquisition need not deprive. Great things come about not because of competition, but because of ingenuity, and only the brute and the idiot believe that deprivation is the sole means of advantage. There is never a NEED for competition, but only a need for ingenuity—the conditions for which need only be reimagined.
Male-dominated societies often put pressure on women to apologize for their ‘hormonal outbursts’ or ‘strange emotional behaviour’. Ironically, the female has had to endure millions of generations of murder and rape, because the male was unable to curb its despicably violent tendencies. The former may lead to a ‘conversation’, but not to war, which the male feels so comfortable with. Ultimately, the male is equally as susceptible to its hormones as the female.
There are few more frightening personalities in the world than the one who attaches social difference to knowledge, a coaxing self-pleasure in a thing’s obscurity. If it be so wonderful an insight, then it must be so for all. Beware of those who boast of esotericism—for they are the ones likely to overlook oppression.
Deriving pleasure from the state of having that which another does not, is not only barbaric, but is indicative of a will to dominate. But, deriving pleasure from the state of KNOWING that which another does not suggests the knowledge in question is insufficient. Because difference is preconfigured by subjectivity, to revel in difference is to revel in ignorance.