In the Name of The Father, and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit, Amen.
ORBIS NON SUFFICIT
SOLUS DEUS SUFFICIT
No More Secrets, No More Boundaries
Means No More Freedom
Martin Luther said he is the freest of men because he is the most bound of men. He meant, bound to Christ, Who is the very power of freedom.
Boundaries or borders preexist or are made to restrict, to obstruct, to trammel some thing or other. This fact is easily observed and well-known. A boundary is a war zone. Conflict occurs at boundaries. And conflict, as the great Heraclitus observed, is the father of all things.
Secular (Leftie) and religious (Jihadi) anarchists preach that there are no more boundaries, no more borders, no more secrets. Of course, they mean that for themselves and not as a general rule. They mean their wants are untrammeled by boundaries. For others, boundaries are what anarchists tell them what to do, say and think. Anarchists are tyrants by another name: all of ye are belong to me.
In logic, the statement there are no boundaires is itself a boundary in two ways: (1) it posits the existence of boundaries in order to deny their existence, and (2) it posits a boundary beyond which the existence of boundaries cannot be posited or denied.
In the early spring of 1971, I conceived, co-authored and co-edited a self-published volume titled Attitudes. We copyrighted this work in July 1971 and actually sold a hand-full of copies, produced by mimeograph, hand-collating and hand-stuffing. Attitudes comprised a standard letter-sized file folder containing loose pages, some half letter size, some stapled together, on which were poems, brief essays, drawings and pithy observations. It was, frankly, a prolegomena to my subsequent studies in observation. My co-authors and co-editors were Paul Shewan, Chris and Teresa Venne, Liam O’Gallagher, Don Jensen, Tom Delaney, Gary Sagar and Robert Rheem.
It happens that I have an original copy of Attitudes, something of a miracle in itself. It remains on paper, so far, uncommitted to pixels, except now in part here. I quote below in full a six-page essay, titled boundaries, I wrote for Attitudes. The type-setting was, shall we say, irregular throughout the volume, and in ways created by each author. In other words, we each made our own mimeograph stencils. Teresa ran the stencils and she and Chris collated the results. I shall do my best to replicate the typesetting of boundaries here, using lines to indicate page breaks.
b o u n d a r i e s
boundaries mean different things to different people
if you don’t see them and if you don’t feel them,
boundaries have a WAY of making you regret your omission
ever walked through a wall ? ?
what are boundaries ?? it’s hard to say
The wild geese fly across the long sky above
Their image is reflected upon the chilly waters below.
The geese do not mean to cast their image on the water;
Nor does the water mean to hold the image of the geese.
part of an ancient Taoist poem
boundaries are subjective and objective in nature at the same time. boundaries are a construct of whoever is perceiving them and also a construct of the thing itself which is being perceived. I lack a language to say both . . . .
I’d like to talk about boundaries in six ways.
1. Things have outlines objects and subjects have outlines these outlines are one type of boundary
a tree has bark and root coverings
at one point a tin can is and at another point a tin can isn’t
also, up close a tin can has sharp boundaries; far away it has vague boundaries the human optic nerve has an information capacity about 10% that of the eye itself
boundaries of matter in space are a function of particle density: a sandwich of reinforced concrete with a thick lead slab in the middle won’t stop cosmic rays
The electronic activity of a tree extends in space beyond its “physical” boundaries trees and ground-hogs and caterpillars have FEELINGS they can make WAVES on an oscilloscope
If I were a hologram image, I could walk through a wall
my sensing devices determine the boundaries which are REAL for me
2. boundaries have to do with the location and outlines of arteries, particularly arteries of transportation
boundaries are where freeways end
boundaries are where blood veins and vessels end
the geosphere has fault lines, rivers, wind channels
transportation arteries and communication arteries often blend together
transportation arteries tend to grow their ends rather than their sides
communication arteries tend to extend everywhere, all-the-time
ORTHOGENESIS: extending the ends so much that the effect is extending the sides too
to use more communication and less transportation – – a tendency of evolution – – we’ll need different ideas of boundaries
3. individuals and cultures make boundaries
the boundaries we build are realizations of our ideas/images/constraints
technology is not a product; technology is the idea behind the product; technology is thinking
Customs Sovereignty lines
Morals Skills Laws Myths
Language . . . . . . they’re boundaries
is a fence across a prairie “natural” YES
the fence has more specifying ability behind it than the prairie . . . . .
evolution appears to be speeding up
a decision to go one way is a boundary against going another way
4. we can discuss boundaries as the perigees and apogees of pulses of
CONVERGENCE and DIVERGENCE
(input and output in computer jargon)
(contraction and expansion in geology and physics)
(depression and inflation in economics)
the boundaries of a module, a focus of organized energy, are the apogees of its divergence pulses and the perigees of its convergence pulses
these pulses can be phased together in many ways, with splendid effects
that’s what rhythm is
in music and spaceships
and trash cans
there are different WAYS of phasing convergence
two parallel lines pointing in opposite directions
a continuous elipse
eight S curves joined together to
form an 8 pointed star (4 humps
and 4 90 degree angles)
(a) have TOO much divergence or too much convergence
(b) cycle around on too few challenge
(c) generate a pleasing variety of balancing pulses
It’s easier to get on a converging pulse than it is to get on a diverging pulse Western societies tend to favor convergence pulses in 16th century music, there’s a cadence every four bars composition students know it’s easier to make a cadence than it is to expand a progression
it’s easier to shut off than it is to turn on
it’s easier to come back than it is to go out
you need BOTH, of course
can you imagine the marketing division of some corporation trying to solve the following sets of problems:
what is likely to be the phasability of the electro/chemical/aesthetic pulses of our product with the electro/chemical/aesthetic pulses of the environment in which it will be marketed?
telepathic communication is possible across vast distances
if the transceivers are in phase with the intervening environment
the sixties in the United States were a divergence pulse for young people and artists the seventies are becoming a convergence pulse for these people the changes demanded in the sixties will occur in the seventies
when I’m on one pulse, I need to hear things from the other pulse
5. the ideas/images in our minds have boundaries
I can buy bread because of ideas in my head about how to get to the store, what I’ll find and how to get back
the parties to a peace treaty need an idea of reality which shows each contributing to the other’s well-being
ideas tell you what to expect
ideas are programs
ideas are means of getting jobs done
you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear
6. for those with understanding, all boundaries ultimately cease to be perceived
the distinction between subject and object, the perceiver and the perceived,
disappears for those with understanding but this happens late and not early it happens when all boundaries are perceived
when all boundaries are perceived there are no more boundaries
when you have EVERYthing you have NOthing
no more pulses of convergence and divergence
past and future are united
many Westerners think of this condition as the elimination of the self
actually, it is the filling up of the self not nothing, but everything
which is nothing
MARRIAGE: “one flesh” psychosomatic unity
Man and universe are integrated
there is only one MISTAKE: thinking you can locate anything anywhere
e p i l o g u e
I’d like to say a few things about dissolving boundaries and resolving boundaries we learn by joy and by fear actually, we learn through both simultaneously, but one is always behind the other learning through joy is the process of acquiring richer and richer stability for yourself
getting more and more together
you need to be comfortable to learn through joy
the boundaries of your ideas must not dissolve faster or more fully than you deliberately make them dissolve also, new boundaries must not resolve for you before you’re ready for them to resolve
destruction and creation must occur at rates and in amounts which do not disturb your equilibrium, your maturing stability
the old theory is that creativity occurs in conditions of extreme stress and imbalance
I think we’ll find this theory to be partial and misleading
creativity is the process of dissolving and resolving the boundaries you value – – comfortably
(a new economics)
For the record, two of my essays for Attitudes were republished by Radical Software, both in Volume 1 Number 5: here and here. I did not choose the images which accompany those essays. I am proud of my association with Beryl Korot, Michael Shamberg, Ira Schneider and the others who created and maintained Radical Software. They did a wonderful public service and were especially kind in publishing my efforts, a nobody’s. It was a colorful time, and vigorous.
The denial of boundaries I rue the most — because it confuses the young and is used with that purpose in mind: to make the young stupid and not a threat to adults — is this: you can
grow up to be anything you want. That statement is a species of gaslighting. Adults use it to protect their position in life, that is all, to keep the young beholden to them.
In no way is that statement true. Not for anyone, not at any time. Adults use that statement to suppress the young, to manipulate their yearnings and their destiny and to destroy their self-confidence … again, with a view to manipulating the young away from being threats to adults.
No adult believes those words. They know in direct experience that those words constitute a direct lie. And how many valedictorians and commencement speakers use those words or their facsimiles year on year, decade on decade?
I am the gender I want to be is poisonous, lying fruit of the lie that you can
grow up to be anything you want.
To tell the truth, one would say to a young person, you can be what it is your inner necessity to be, and you can discover what that is, and you have to discover what that is, and once you do discover what that is and push yourself out for it, expand yourself with it, you will be happy, very happy.
If you do not struggle with a boundary, you do not mature. Ignorance itself is a boundary against which you must struggle to be learned.
If you struggle through a boundary, it remains intact behind you and you face another boundary in front of you. That is life. Nothing good and useful comes without struggle, war, conflict against boundaries. They are, therefore, your friend even though they may infuriate or even kill you. If you deny their existence, they surely will kill you.
Fulfill the reason your parents and The Almighty gave you this birth. Be who you are, not what you want to be. Trust your self, not the asses’ braying. Do not be gaslighted by adults scheming to concoct a menial role in life for you, or worse, a confused one, so they may lord it over you.
In 1992, Robert Redford and other Hollywood stars appeared in a movie, Sneakers, the sub-theme of which was no more secrets. It is one of my favorite movies, largely because it is comedic and I like comedic movies.
However, that sub-theme is the same as the main theme of the movie Soylent Green: No more freedom, to include proper food.
The phrase no more secrets equals the phrase no more boundaries. The phrases mean nothing is private, which means nothing is free — or, no one is allowed — to resolve its/their own destiny.
Senator Lindsey Graham: I’ve always believed that America is an idea, not defined by its people, but by its ideals.
This is a pernicious idea and a classic example of a clear and present danger to USA sovereignty. There is no such thing as a disembodied America, an idea existing somehow apart from bodies, persons, which is to say, boundaries. The Magic Negro and Co. also spoke in these terms, as does Speaker Ryan. Frequently. America is the habits and ideals of American persons/citizens. Otherwise it is not real.
Its signers made the Constitution real — lives, treasures and sacred honors, all tangibles — not its words on paper or the concepts those words expressed. Nothing is real until it is embodied in flesh and blood, or rock and river. The point is: tangible. Even the intangible — e.g., the dimensions of spirit and history — are real only as they incarnate, act on/respond to (dialectic) the five senses deployable by creatures, especially human creatures.
In Christian theological history the idea of disembodied reality — Lindsey’s and Paul’s ideals — is met first in a movement called Docetism. Worked into the appearance of an ethics system, Docetism was called Pelagianism. During the Middle Ages of Europe these dispositions came under the name of Nominalism and, nearer our times, Leftism.
Anciently Arians and modernly Mormons are ecclesial embodiments of Docetism. Quakers and Unitarians also fit the Docetic/Nominalist profile: only what I name exists and that only as a name/narrative, nothing more. Just forget all this body, senses stuff going on, this icky carnation, just do what feels good to do, like lots of sex and drugs and money. Don’t forget the money. But the ideas are all that really matter, and boy howdy partner, do we have them all wrapped up in spades on our side of any apparent conflict. Where’s the bong, or the chocolate? Laphroaig and a fiver will do!
Angelo M. Codevilla: But the spreading realization that many of America’s most iconic men have been treating women badly is freeing some of human nature’s magnetic needles from the bonds of political correctness.
An America that successfully competes is the best way to prevent conflict. Just as American weakness invites challenge, American strength and confidence deters war and promotes peace.
We will compete with all tools of national power to ensure that regions of the world are not dominated by one power.
Strengthening our sovereignty — the first duty of a government is to serve the interests of its own people — is a necessary condition for protecting these four national interests. And as we strengthen our sovereignty we will renew confidence in ourselves as a nation.
We must build a culture of preparedness and resilience across our governmental functions, critical infra- structure, and economic and political systems.
We will also reform our current immigration system, which, contrary to our national interest and national security, allows for randomized entry and extended-family chain migration.
The primary transnational threats Americans face are from jihadist terrorists and transnational criminal organizations.
Jihadist terrorist organizations present the most dangerous terrorist threat to the Nation.
The United States will impose swift and costly consequences on foreign governments, criminals, and other actors who undertake significant malicious cyber activities.
Citizens must be confident in our government, but also recognize that response and recovery begins with individuals and local communities. [Thus, Civil Defense Battalions.]
Rebuilding economic strength at home and preserving a fair and reciprocal international economic system will enhance our security and advance prosperity and peace in the world.
Economic challenges at home demand that we understand economic prosperity as a pillar of national security.
The United States will seek to ensure universal access to affordable, reliable energy, including highly efficient fossil fuels, nuclear, and renewables, to help reduce poverty, foster economic growth, and promote prosperity.
These are fundamentally political contests between those who favor repressive systems and those who favor free societies.
The United States must consider what is enduring about the problems we face, and what is new. The contests over influence are timeless. They have existed in varying degrees and levels of intensity, for millennia. Geopolitics is the interplay of these contests across the globe. But some conditions are new, and have changed how these competitions are unfolding. We face simultaneous threats from different actors across multiple arenas — all accelerated by technology. The United States must develop new concepts and capabilities to protect our homeland, advance our prosperity , and preserve peace.
We also incorrectly believed that technology could compensate for our reduced capacity — for the ability to field enough forces to prevail militarily, consolidate our gains, and achieve our desired political ends. We convinced ourselves that all wars would be fought and won quickly, from stand-off distances and with minimal casualties. [e.g., Donald Rumsfeld, Condo Rice, GWB, The Fraud]
The United States must retain overmatch — the combination of capabilities in sufficient scale to prevent enemy success and to ensure that America’s sons and daughters will never be in a fair fight.
We must convince adversaries that we can and will defeat them — not just punish them if they attack the United States. We must ensure the ability to deter potential enemies by denial, convincing them that they cannot accomplish objectives through the use of force or other forms of aggression.
Support for a vibrant domestic manufacturing sector, a solid defense industrial base, and resilient supply chains is a national priority.
The Department of Defense must develop new operational concepts and capabilities to win without assured dominance in air, maritime, land, space, and cyberspace domains, including against those operating below the level of conventional military conflict. We must sustain our competence in irregular warfare, which requires planning for a long-term, rather than ad hoc, fight against terrorist networks and other irregular threats.
Support for a vibrant domestic manufacturing sector, a solid defense industrial base, and resilient supply chains is a national priority.
Significant investment is needed to maintain a U.S. nuclear arsenal and infrastructure that is able to meet national security threats over the coming decades.
When faced with the opportunity to take action against malicious actors in cyberspace, the United States will be *risk informed,* but not *risk averse,* in considering our options. [Emphasis added.]
Across the *competitive landscape,* America’s diplomats are our forward-deployed political capability, advancing and defending America’s interests abroad. [Emphasis added.]
We must upgrade our diplomatic capabilities to compete in the current environment and to embrace a competitive mindset. Effective diplomacy requires the efficient use of limited resources, a professional diplomatic corps, modern and safe facilities, and secure methods to communicate and engage with local populations.
Prosperous states are stronger security partners who are able to share the burden of confronting common threats. Fair and reciprocal trade, investments, and exchanges of knowledge deepen our alliances and partnerships, which are necessary to succeed in today’s competitive geopolitical environment. Trade, export promotion, targeted use of foreign assistance, and modernized development finance tools can promote stability, prosperity, and political reform, and build new partnerships based on the principle of reciprocity.
Economic tools — including sanctions, anti-money-laundering and anti-corruption measures, and enforcement actions — can be important parts of broader strategies to deter, coerce, and constrain adversaries.
There is no arc of history that ensures that America’s free political and economic system will automatically prevail. Success or failure depends upon our actions. This Administration has the confidence to compete to protect our values and interests and the fundamental principles that underpin them.
We are not going to impose our values on others. Our alliances, partnerships, and coalitions are built on free will and shared interests. When the United States partners with other states, we develop policies that enable us to achieve our goals while our partners achieve theirs.
Stable, prosperous, and friendly states enhance American security and boost U.S. economic opportunities.
Βασιλεία του Θεού
Kingdom of God
Update 1: MLK’s response to the Watts insurrection of 1965 was his turning point to intellectual and moral devolution and vacuity. I watched his TV interviews in situ there. They were pathetic. He had no concept what was going on in Watts — and far beyond, to include on the campus of CalTech in Pasadena! Was befuddled. Brought advice that was akin to telling a Sidewinder missile to ignore its sensors and track out into the blue.
He was a man of high rhetorical ability in the context he knew (Jim Crow South, which even then was disappearing), powerful appetites, insufficient discernment regarding friends and minuscule native intelligence (thus the plagiarism). After Watts he was washed up as a cynosure, everyone knew it, but his appetites drove and finally marked and killed him.
Once more Americans placed hope in A Magic Negro, to their chagrin and harm. Never again. You can be an American of some measure of African descent and be respected as an American, but never again can anyone play The Magic Negro card and get away with it. Exhibit A: the last one’s trials — against his own constituency — at co-opting American land in Chicago for personal self-aggrandizement.
Update 2: Nat Hentoff: Let the asses bray.
AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA