Comments on: Living with Peak Oil awareness

By: Max

Max — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:48:57 +0000

Aldous, now you are free to comment freely- and to post- which I hope you do prolificly going forward. You do realize, that in your brotherly form to me you are the inspiration for the essay that heads these comments? And also, that this essay has now been seen- and continues to be seen- by many others at a site called My Left Wing where it became the most highly recommended diary of the day yesterday and continues to hold that position even today? I’m so blown away by the reception it was given that I intend to cross-post suitable writings there in the future and hope that some of the very good writers from that site may eventually find there way here to post and comment. Though New Worlds is still only inhabited by the three of us in the form of comments and postings, I feel certain that many others (even one of considerable literary reknown) has visited and will be visiting again. I think it’s a great start and I look forward to this developing into a rich and vibrant community in due time.

By: aldous

aldous — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:24:15 +0000

Ah Max, byronius,
I am truly honored that you value my input in this incredible forum. Without patronage, I am humbled at the invitation to the discursive circle of two proven great minds. Max’ succinct summary of the planet’s status here on the edge of Peak Oil is a commendable starting place for a gushing stream of creative thought from as many progressives as the three of us can possibly muster. And byronius, you’ve disarmed me gently, and I know not how to answer. You said I’m “probably the biggest Reality Fatso [you've] ever met”. But which do you mean, a “Typical Realist” or a “Mad Realist”? I presume you compliment by meaning the latter, but, interestingly, my first assumption was that you meant the former. That assumption is, of course, the product of low self esteem. No matter (and this is for both of you), the distinction has got me to thinking: What is the best way to go, or is it a matter of “to each his or her own according to one’s gifts”? And perhaps the essential question is, relative to the bifurcating reality stream, what exactly are one’s gifts? Personally, I don’t know. On the one hand, I am a spiritualist thru and thru and know without a doubt that the purpose of life is to reach the Omega Point (whatever the fuck that is), the Blue Pearl of the heart, the seat of consciousness on the roof of the sushumna. On the other, it is hard to get to that point of ultimate human development when the physical ground of that development is crumbling all around us. I certainly do feel like a ship-wrecked sailor reaching for the sky as the ship goes down. So I appear to be of two essences: One, a skyward-tending faculty, and the other, a hellbent and twisted form muddling in the mud. The mantra of the first is, “Only mad reality exists” and the second is, “Only the mud, which I shall do my best to transform to clean mud, exists”. The problem with the first stance is that, even with unbending intent, the soul (or, more accurately, the Self) will certainly be saved, but the body will die just as miserable a death as that reserved for Dick Cheney. The problem with the second is that no matter how good a job we do cleaning up the mud of this world, our souls will remain unsated. To me, Kashmir Shaivism offers the beginning of a resolution: God is not only Mad Reality (the transcendant form) but also the Typical Reality (the immanent form). Such is also the marriage of man (sky) and woman (immanent). Another important component of the equation is right action: According to one’s gifts, one places one’s energies into either Mad, Typical, or both realities. After this brief contemplation (thanks to the inspiration of the two of you), I suppose I have a foot in the door of each reality.
In conclusion, it is essential that the transcendance be given its due, through personal efforts such as meditation. But immanence must also be attended, through a transformation of the reigning industrial paradigm of dominance and exploitation of women, children, and nature to a paradigm of community and sustainability.
For a future post, we’re in a heap of trouble peak oil or not. In fact, it might be divine grace that we’re running out, for if we kept consuming/destroying at our present rate, we’d have planetary death in a few decades anyway…

By: byronius

byronius — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:52:58 +0000

We’d probably have a better chance of delaying or avoiding the crisis if our leadership were not so committed to driving us off the cliff and killing everyone on the planet. What’s going to kill us first? That’s what they want to know, and what they want us to embrace as logical action. Great guys, our Glorious Leaders. Phwaaaah. Pooof. Brraaaaappppp.
The leader of the Buddhist Nation in the US, Chogyam Trungpa(?) Rinpoche once told us all at the Kerouac Conference in 1981 to hold up our hands and make the the universal sign for “O.K.”, and repeat over and over: “There will be no holocaust.” He said that this would prevent holocaust — that our belief shapes reality, that none of this is real, just communally-imposed interpretation of what masses of particle/waves look like and mean.
And I tend to think that Madman Reality counts for several hundred thousand Typical Realities. So, Andy — start pushing the other way, please. Your Big Fat Reality Weight is needed on the Line. In fact, you’re probably the biggest Reality Fatso I’ve ever met. Ahem. There will be no Holocaust. ‘Cause you know it’s gonna be — All Right.