The Separation between State and Religion

In time we will realize that Democracy is the entitlement of individuals to every right that was in its times alloted to kings. The right to speak and decide, to be treated with decency, to serve and be served by people in a State of “love” that is, to serve with one’s work for the development of ‘life’. To belong to the Kingdom of Human Beings without racial, national, social or academic separations. To love and be loved. To die at the service of the whole and be honored in one’s death, for one’s life and work was legitimately valued. To be graceful and grateful. To have the pride and the humility of being One with the Universe, One with every realm of Existence, One with every living and deceased soul. To treat with dignity and be treated with dignity for One is dignified together with All others and Life itself. To walk the path of compassion, not in the sorrow of guilt but in the pride of being. To take responsability for one’s mistakes and sufferings and stand up again and again like a hero and a heroine and face the struggle that is put at one’s feet and in one’s hands. Millions of people, millions and millions of people might take many generations to realize the consciousness of our humaneness but there is no other dignified path for the human being.

The “work” as I conceive it is psychological and political. Psychology is the connection between the different dimensions within one’s self and Politics is the actualization of that consciousness in our practical lives. Religion is the ceremony that binds the connectedness between the individual and the Universe. The separation between religion, politics and science, the arts and sports is, in the sphere of the social, the reflection of the schizophrenia within the individual and the masses. The dialogue between individuality and the "human" belongs to consciousness. The tendency to develop cults resides in the shortcomings we’are finding in life as it is structured today. “Life” has become the private property of a few priviledged who cannot profit from it because as soon as it is appropriated it stops to be “life” or “life-giving”.

We are all the victims of our own invention and each one is called upon to find solutions. The only problem is believing our selves incapable of finding them. We are now free to use all Systems of knowledge objectively, sharing them without imposing our will on each other. To become objective about our lives means to understand that the institutions that govern its experience are critically important. That we are one with the governments, one with the religious activities that mark its pace, that the arena’s in which we move our bodies and the laboratories in which we explore our possibilities are ALL part and parcel of our own personal responsibility. That WE ARE ONE WITH EACH OTHER AND EVERYTHING AROUND US and acknowledge for ourselves a bond of love in conscious responsibility. That we human beings know ourselves part of each other and are willing and able to act on our behalf for the benefit of each and every individual. That we no longer allow governments, industries, universities or any other institution to run along unchecked by the objective principles of humaneness. That we do not allow gurus to abuse their power or governors to steal the taxes and use them to their personal advantage in detriment of the whole. That we do not allow abuse from anyone anywhere because life is too beautiful to do so and that we are willing to stop the rampant crime with the necessary compassion Conscious knowledge is every individual's right. Conscious action is every individual's duty.

Blog Archive

Saturday 3 April 2010

The self and capitalism

http://ej.lib.cbs.dk/index.php/foucault-studies/article/view/2939/3007

SB: I agree.  One flaw in Foucault’s approach is the tendency to discuss social plan- 
ners, theorists and policies, as well as philosophers and philosophical endeavors, in 
a way that allows them to bleed over into a discussion of populations and everyday 
practices.  A more rigorous Foucauldianism for the purposes of this kind of histori- 
cal sociological explanation — and I believe Nikolas Rose comes close to this in    
many ways — is one that takes up the mechanisms and technologies by which these 
effects are dispersed and insinuated into daily life on the level of individual practice, 
though even here there is always the danger of a certain reductionism.  This is parti- 
cularly problematic where we attempt to consider contemporary formations of sub- 
jectivity in terms of the relative status of self-knowledge, or a hermeneutics of the 
self.  Much has been made in recent Foucauldian philosophical scholarship of his la- 
ter lectures and on the care of the self as if it were a contemporary possibility.20  But 
people today are typically quite indifferent to the status of anything we might call a 
truth of the self.  We know, since the postmodernism of Jameson, Baudrillard et al, 
that the populations of advanced capitalist societies are largely disinterested in 
truth, and totally willing to accept simulations of real things in place of reality.  
While they may from time to time acquire a taste for interiority and its mysteries, 
and may even feel, if we follow Anthony Giddens, that forms of supervised intro- 
spection provide relief from ontological insecurities, modern people are remarkably 
indifferent to the question of their own self-authenticity, or to the ‚truth of the 
self.‛21 

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)