Freedom From the Known

On one end of the spectrum of mental illnesses exhibited on the Internet through various expressions, is the well-known one of those fearing to be known -- as though that was the worst of all eventualities, rather than realizing, that is the whole purpose for living one’s life -- getting to know oneself. The ancients put it more succinctly as the directive to “Know yourself.”

The best way to know oneself is not by developing elaborate theories on who one is and what one is doing -- but the actual observation of what it is one is doing, as expressed in one’s actual interactions and communications. In the literary records of the past, that interaction aspect of expressions was not expressed as communications -- but were acts apart from any interactions.

That’s what plays, novels, poetry, the arts were about -- allowing for no interaction between the author and the audience, which creates the problem of interactions and communications. When one reads the still extant writings of journalists, academics, and critics, one gets the impression that the whole intent is to deny the existence of the audience (reader, listener, observer, etc.), as though that event has meaning without that context, and in a vacuum.

Every event is an interaction between everyone there -- rather than that it happens and everyone is only a passive observer of what is going on. Their reactions and interactions are as large a part of the final outcome and resolution. So if one hears what is untrue to be propagated widely without interjecting what one knows to be true, the outcome of that conclusion is something other than if one had acted.

The kind of conditioning in which “things happen” without one being able to act upon that action, is really a great problem in the conditioning and education of people -- which some proudly proclaim, is their “objectivity” in knowing and witnessing, without action and being an integral part of that event -- as though that placed one above and beyond what was going on.

That would be like having a policeman with a long record for provoking arrests -- in favor of one whose very presence, eliminated the possibility of a disastrous event -- because ultimately, any event is the sum of all the actions and interactions.

Sometimes, outcomes cannot be helped, if one is determined to override all the rules, with ruthless disdain for everyone else. Most events do not start out with the that inevitability for disaster -- and can lead to many possibilities, including the resolution of many problems -- among which the most invaluable, is this ability to interact, communicate and synthesize that which would not have been possible in isolation.

People don’t have to agree to do something beforehand in order to do something; they need to understand the potential of that possibility beforehand. That "unlimited" potential is restrained and constrained if the eventual outcome has been predetermined -- as most public forums (events) are these days. People have already made up their minds before they commence with their discussion and inquiry -- and/that nothing else is possible.

Anonymity and the Internet

Virtually all the problems are caused by anonymity — and actually there’s very little gained by it.

The objective in life is not to be more anonymous but better known — and that is why people even try to become famous, for no good reason.

Anonymity merely reinforces that you are nobody — and have to live in fear of being known, and having your thoughts revealed for who you truly are, and what you really think. Most people have bought into this negation of their own selves and being — as though it was some kind of a value.

Freedom of speech also implies the right to be known — for that speech, but if you can only say such things under the cloak of anonymity, then there is no freedom but the fear that prevents any freedom.

So if we are to move into the next step in freedom, we have to let go of this “protection” of anonymity, and when we do, virtually all the problems on the Internet disappear — because legitimate people are not inhibited and restricted from what they will do, while all the criminal and sociopaths are.

There is very little to be lost and everything to be gained — but the old media status quo is vested in anonymity because they want to reserve the right to determine who is well-known and who is not, as they are probably the greatest perpetrators of the “anonymous sources” control of information.

That’s the paradigm shift of the Information Revolution — and not just MORE of the same.

The fear of being known, is also the much deeper fear of knowing oneself — and that is the great prohibition of the mass (anonymous) society.

So everyone pretends to be somebody they aren’t, rather than in being who they are — and being known as that person.

So while initially the Internet has caused an explosion in the participation of the traditional manner, in order for it to evolve to the next step of usefulness and validity, people have to be known — which doesn’t mean that everybody will be a celebrity. It will still be very difficult for people to be known, or for other people to want to get to know them.

But there is vastly more to be gained by this self-knowledge that the continuing deception of who one is to everyone else — and ultimately, to oneself, which is the greatest illusion and delusion of all.

The Age of the Individual

The root meeting of “individual,” is indivisible -- or that which is whole, and not divided into the many fragments and compartments of existence, apart from every other, but rather, a part of every other, both within and without -- which implies completeness and integrity, and means to be one, and not many contradictory parts struggling to overcome one another. That is the inevitable result of slicing and dicing life into many different pieces of unconnected experience and knowledge -- rather than integrating the whole (individual) in everything one does, to maintain the integrity of that individual. Living in that fragmented (compartmentalized) way, caused many to report (or be unaware), that every part of their existence seemed to contradict every other part of their being, and so it seemed that the more one did, the more remained to be done, or became apparent.

Naturally, that leads one to ponder,"W hy should I do anything at all, what is the use, if the more I do, the more needs to be done -- without end," leaving one even less fulfilled than one began on that quest to fulfillment. Obviously, one is not on the right path -- if that feeling is true, and one has to question if there are any other ways of being and doing -- until the right question no longer needs to be asked -- because it was the right question. But how quickly we forget -- as well we should, to free the mind to move on to the unanswered questions.

The “collective” person -- is only a part of a whole, taught to believe they are virtually nothing except for the collective (group) to give them meaning and identity, thinking he cannot be complete in himself, which is to be an individual thinking for himself. Such people cannot be right in themselves -- but only in conformity to a group, and rightness is determined by their conformity to those norms -- rather than the larger whole of all existence. That group is apart, from everything else, and not a part, of everything else -- and seeks to dominate everything else to its exclusive benefit in that primitive and animal sense of purpose, as though that too was humankind's only purpose and reason for being.

That worldview is to see everything in isolation, as well as in contradiction and opposition to everything else -- which is not the way the world is. The world really is the working together of all things as a greater, coherent whole -- and the isolated and alienated few that resist, are invariably overwhelmed and extinguished, because they do not understand the greater flow of these developments, and all that it is telling us is the right action at any time.

But that doesn’t mean that one should just go along with the group-think -- but see beyond it to the total content of all the information. Then everything seems to make sense and have a unity, and unifying purpose. This is the original purpose of understanding -- to see the universe in everything -- and not to slice and dice it beyond recognition into the tiny parts that don’t add up to any whole, and anything living. That was the unfortunate consequence of much knowledge and specialization of a previous generation -- thinking the more things one knew, the more one knew.

The great advances have always been the reduction of unlimited and unmanageable complexity to a new level of greater simplicity, universality, integrity (integration), to produce individuals of greater wholeness and unified purpose and understanding. This is the new and greater meaning of individualism and not the old concept of those struggling to grow beyond their compartmentalized, alienated and isolated existences -- as though the world existed exclusively for their own benefit.