Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Prime Directive & the Force(s)

Yeah boy, there's nothing like an entry based on both Star Trek and Star Wars mythology. I personally believe them to be much closer to the truth than the antiquated religious crap. Ubergeek orgy here indeed.

I've mentioned the Prime Directive in the original entry and in Hell Paradigm, but I've yet to express how much it means to me. In short, I absolutely believe there's a real PD, and that the closest religious (or if you will) tradition to the truth is that of Deism, except I tend to see Creation in terms of the collective, plural; not monotheism. I don't believe the PD is a 100% absolute. I support higher intervention at the latest possible time (like, possibly yesterday).

I also believe the Jedi to be real; or effectively. The Force is an infinitely more scientific representation of Creation/Creator(s) than a (pathological) white-bearded man on a cloud throwing lightning bolts. The Jedi/light side ethos is the real, or certainly highest, e pluribus unum.

I don't see how those who are reverent or in awe of the dark side could be as such without doing unto others (or another) exactly what they would not have done unto themselves; and/or are otherwise getting their pathological/sociopathic jollies off someone else's pain or misery.

The all-time most interestingly (to me) unasked question is that of, if truly applicable, which force is older: the light or dark side? Is it possible that Creation/light/good existed alone initially, and by horrible accident, a jealous little vampiric, sucking-distorting thing was born from it/them? Is it possible that the original influence on humanity (on Earth) was that of the light side only (bearing in mind that there's no such thing as pure light or dark)? Could the vampire infestation have begun at least relatively shortly before recorded history? The answer is, for all we know now, all are possible. Concerning the (currently) unexplained, all that's conceivable is possible; within a minimal (at least) modicum of reason.

Why is it so difficult to accept the idea of long eras of rule by Greater Good and, the only one we've known at least since known history, Greater Evil? As I mentioned in the first entry, it's possible they're cyclical. Or the burden of proof is on a higher intelligence (even if it's only our own after better education) to present otherwise.

The allegedly impending 1000-year rule of "Jesus Christ," btw, is actually punkass chump change that only a drone of limited imagination would consider impressive. When one considers the 7000-or-so known years of Greater Evil rule, a mere millennium ain't exactly, like Fox News (har har), fair and balanced.

I dunno, perhaps the battery universe (always an abundance or overabundance of negative with positive everywhere all the f-ing time) theorists are right, but even if the dark side is as old and ubiquitous as the light, it's the objectively-viewed (psychotic/pathological) actions and results of the perpetrators of the darkest dark that prove themselves the inferior force. They make for nothing less than real world, living, breathing Hells. So whether it is or they are simply of a younger force or, let's say, of the markedly destructively pathological persuasion, my (at least currently) favorite term for them is punkasses. All who are able to seperate (well enough) their hard-wired punkass programming from their real, calm and civilized selves are excluded from that label.

Punkass isn't to be confused with punk; in the progressive politics sense. A real hippie and a real punk are pretty much the same; the punk being a perhaps angrier version of the same ideals. The punk in punkass refers to youth (or the younger) or inferiority. Perhaps a future title or subtitle of a book will be The History of Rule by Pathology or Punkasses.

Or hopefully we will be able to solve problems and move on without such dire labels.

Everyone is so conditioned to respond to the "war on terror" and the "war on drugs," but what we need is a war on pathos. The 3 basic types are fear, anger and sorrow. (That's not saying I believe it possible to eliminate bad feelings altogether). It all begins with honesty, revealing secrets.

All the furor over global warming, while a legitimate and serious concern, is, intentionally or not, an obfuscation from the primary ecological issue: human population explosion in tandem with industry as we know it. I say more power to the Highest Power on Earth, if not Earth itself, in giving us the best warning signals It (or They) can or will. Anyone with half an eye for science will notice a clear and present Quickening. Things can only change big time soon enough.

After whatever catharsis humanity undergoes has transpired, new knowledge (of the presently unexplained) and evolution of consciousness will rule the day. We or they will live in anarchic (or something much, much closer to it) harmony. We or they will put to death the primitively cynical adage that absolute power corrupts absolutely. We or they can and will have a truly effective system of checks and balances where only good, honest and humble (enough) souls will have positions of (at least primary) authority. And that's to the extent such a concept as government will be necessary.

Everything is science; including the political kind. Better science equals better living.

Heck, for all we know, the dark side (having any significant power or influence) is the minority aberration. It's a mighty big galaxy, universe and (apparent) multiverse to really be able to make any blanket assumptions. Does anyone else see the need for new science/reality as much as I do? Wouldn't it be proper for us, in whatever time we have left before the Earth/ecological situation gets too dire, to acquire as much common sense and decency as possible? Could that be the only way to save the human race?

No comments: