From individual to individual

Speciesism and homocentrism are the external manifestations of patterns in thinking that deny animal intelligence, and instead overvalue human intelligence. Humans are mostly behaving contractualist, unpredictable, unreliable, unfair, … and the list could go on in pretty negative terms. I wonder why that is the case, and I think it does not have to be that way.

I think it is possible for a human to be ‘animal intelligent’, to be non-contractualist, predictable, fair, tolerant, loving, … and that list could go on in positive terms. From my experiences with animals I learned about the possibility of ‘animal intelligence’:  The animals I have lived with truly were my best friends.

I think for a person who is truly nonspeciesistic in his/her thoughts and critical about homocentrism  it should be technically possible to really make the shift and start to become a better individual than what humans have per definition been so far, and even prided themselves with.

The time of human intelligence is over for me.

I am glad I defend animal rights from a standpoint of true ‘animal independence’ (of any human paradigm: biology, ethology, philosophy, religion … ).

***

Fragmentary thoughts:

The border around the castle ‘HUMAN’ is the one of scientifical categorizing. Within the castle we claim to be ‘complete’.

BIOLOGICAL HIERARCHISM ALWAYS PUTS HUMAN ‘OBJECTIVITY’ ON TOP OF WHAT IT DENIES THE OTHER SPEICIES: THAT IS ON TOP OF ANIMALS’ OBJECTIVITY

How can absolute objectivity be captured? With which parameters to measure against? Humans’ objectivity claim relies on subjective interests.

Ethical behaviour is one of the components taken out of the frame of an allround objectivity.

Animals get denied for their actions to be viewed as not insinctual.

Subsequently the VALUES of behaviour get ruled out from being within the ethcial scale of social actions between the species, etc.

A term such as ‘ethical’ desribes something that is existent, it’s not an idea in itself – otherwise it would not exist in the correlations…

Just thoughts, 17th Oct 2012

Farangis Yegane, Deer, acrylic on canvas

Confessions

Not that I’d assume there is an obvious form of a “good” and a “bad” that is equally visible to everybody at every given time, but an unobvious form of these phenomena exists.

***

If you have an enemy, try not to face him directly – he may not even recognize you.

***

You can win the heart of a potential friend over by: being generally considerate towards the concerns that binds the pain and joy of all hearts together.

***

What you are crazy? The world falls apart, and where are you? Be you crazy or not – where are you?

***

Private matters = how the person relates with her “I” (self-conception) to the world.

***

Not ease, but comfortability in wisdom.

 

 

An end to philosophical validity can lie in what we perceive to be reality

The human continuum with its cultural values is not necessarily one, and can’t necessarily be unified with its diverseness.

Every individual has the right to hold her or his own views.

Thus I can be for Animal Rights INASMUCH as I can be for Human Rights, for example.

No philosophical school can propose me their argumentation as valid IF it asks me to see nonhuman animals other than I see them now as an Animal Rights person.

Philosophy should stay out of attributing different “life forms” with their labels of value or meaning.

Otherwise philosophy becomes as bad as how religions function – as doctrines based on belief. Homoncentrists believe that nonhuman animal life matters less than human life,  and they believe that the world relevant to nonhuman animals and the systems meaningful to nonhuman animals life must not be regarded as a complete world in its own rights in their own terms.

universities – ‘institutionalized’ thinking

Universities – ‘institutionalized’ thinking


Why criticize universities, they are the only real location where you can develop your free thinking together with others on an intelligent and sensible plane … ???

The reality of universities is more than an ambiguous one. Hanging between reasonable discourse and hierarchical oppression. Language, logics, proof, deduction, induction, theories, argumentation, discussions cloak so many truths unspoken of.

Without the noble and legitimate dress

a naked truth glimpses through, that seeks to escape another type of truth. One that you can only find in the nightlight, within the space inbetween being and notbeing.

… but compassion

compassion

is not something
that’s FELT from a higher position up

imagine your are in a prison
feeling compassion for your tortured co-inmate

you feel her/his pain, because you
understand
You KNOW their pain.

when I feel sorrow for somebody I can’t understand, then my understanding might stay on the level of only feeling pity for somebody who suffers an injustice or fate that I wouldn’t want to suffer. I stay distanced to him or her.

when I feel the PANGS of compassionate feelings, that only those kinds of feelings can produce, then an understanding must have preceded this emotional response in me.

 

All included

the political ramifications of:

what I say, whereever I happen to be
what I do where I am
how i decide, and how I come to a decision
how I influence my environment posivitely

You say that only politcal parties are political?
I say:

whatever you do, and whatever I do
has political ramifications
on the grassroots level
no matter what

It depends on what you consider “political” to be.

The plane in life of deeds and words is a large and impactful one.

Academia Lost

Knowledge that circles round

Some take separate terms, and build a logic simply on these terms as pillars. But in reality nothing is so separate that it should become a carrying pillar. The building risks to stand on the wrong pillars.

To avoid being a bad constructor I want to acknowledge how each phenomenon becomes explicable only in the entireness of its “environment”!

Highlighting a few terms out as central “pillars” of my argumentation – around which all other relevant aspects have to settle themselves – lets me build a roof upon this construct, that seems logical in itself. But again, the fullness of life does not work itself in any fully contrivable logics.

A logic that lies within “something” is not mirrored in a logic contrived by my singling out some of its aspects and sticking them together so that they fit … .

When I want to prove how knowledgeable I am however, I can’t really leave my argumentation a lot of space to breathe. Everything has to be waterproof, for no leaks to let fallacies to become instantaneously visible. My opponent can rebut me.

No this circle of yay and nay just wastes a lot of time. And it is possible to differentiate within more or less fully integral settings.

People just trash everything

When you are good to them, or you try to be, they trash it
When you happen to be a plant, they trash it
When you are honest to them, when you are helpful
they trash it
Just cry about it, you will be trashed anyway, and we are gonna celebrate it

When you are happy or unhappy, they trash it
with what aim?
with what aim do they kill, destroy, disable your agency wherever and however they can?
WITH WHAT AIM?

WHOAAAAAAA

We who are trashed are gonna recycle ourselves,

and we are never gonna need you