Humans are Political Animals!

Dear friends,

Many academic disciplines analyze people as if We are talking insects. We are not! In other words, whether you place, for example, an ant or a bee either in the Sahel of Africa or on the North Pole, it will be the same creature and exhibit the exact same behavior. Again, people are not talking insects , because just the physical, intellectual, and emotional resources needed and interactions made to help us survive in different climates changes both our behavior and habits a great deal.

Consequently, humans are political animals (or as Aristotle put it "politikon zoon"). That is, We all either need or want whatever it is that We need or want; however, We must behave (speak and act) according to the circumstances in which We find Ourselves, due to the social interactions that will necessarily have to happen in order for Us to get what We either need or want from another person or nonhuman animal.

And this is where the political relations begin. In other words, since few of Us grow Our own food or make Our own clothes, and so forth, at the bare minimum, We must have contact with others who have what we need or want, and behave in a way that is favorable to the party who has what We need or want, in order to acquire whatever it is that We need or want. Ants and bees, for instance, do not have that need for social adaptation. Moreover, a person is being dishonest with herself/himself when s/he claims, "I am not political." Obviously, and unfortunately, even in erotic relationships this happens. Humans are political animals.Period!

G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post

Time and the Choices we make

Dear friends,

In The Character Of Physical Law, author Richard P. Feynman explains, "Remorse and regret and hope and so forth are all words which distinguish perfectly obviously the past and the future". Moreover, whatever remorse or regret one has from the past, s/he shouldn't waste time getting stuck in the past, because no one can resolve, much less undo, the past.

However, one can look to the future and act accordingly by having hope inside of one's self. Because having that type of emotional factor (hope) attached to his or her choices, as all choices are accompanied by emotional factors like greed and envy or generosity and kindness, one can move forward in life with a positive attitude towards one's self, life itself, and other people. Otherwise, one ends up suffering from any number of addictions, since an addict is a person who allows, especially, the emotional factor of greed to overshadow any feelings of remorse or regret. So s/he remains stuck in the past.

G. Djata Bumpus Read full post

What is Truth?

"If the truth is subjective, then why do so many people benefit by hiding it?"

  Dear friends,

It is common in our society to hear people ask, "What is the truth?".

In fact, silly college professors, especially, often tell impressionable young people, "The truth is subjective.". Consequently, many years ago, I formulated a question to object to this mystery. It goes, "If the truth is subjective, then why do so many people benefit by hiding it?".

In other words, the truth is the facts/all phenomena (i.e., what is). We may not know the facts right now, however, in time we may. Ya dig?. That is, through social interaction, scientific experiment, and empirical data (past experience and knowledge), we may find it, from time to time. That's where the wholesomeness of the scientific method comes in handy. You see, science is so special for us, because it is based upon the "falsifiability" of an idea or concept. 

That means that we can correct false ideas and practices and get closer to the truth. This is crucial, because science is about advancements and development NOT discoveries. So we are learning to heal both physically and mentally, more and more, as a species. On the other hand, religious dogma, for example, is useless. It claims to be truth that is not testable, much less falsifiable. All it leads to is intolerance and murder. Look at the vicious Zionists in Occupied Palestine.

 G. Djata Bumpus

Read full post

Knowing Yourself - the greatest human wealth

Dear friends,

A lot of people get on social media like Facebook and "mouth off". That is, not having to actually face anyone, or their own insecurities and inadequacies, such people confidently, or at least seemingly so, project themselves as a person who really knows himself or herself and, therefore, has something worthwhile to share.

Knowing yourself has nothing to do with how much material wealth you possess or how high your social status is like with what academic monikers are attached to your name such as MD, JD, or PhD for example.

That is, knowing yourself within the context of having a'"sense of self" - the greatest human wealth, can only come from having had many and varied experiences in life where you have had to confront your own insecurities and inadequacies, especially when being in physical danger. For only then will you know yourself, because only then will you be able to show to yourself whether o not you have the integrity to keep a promise to yourself by not allowing any other person or nonhuman creature to make you lose your composure by cowering and/or begging for mercy, as opposed to maintaining your well-being by fighting back, or in some cases, simply running to get help of some sort.

After all, those who will cower and beg, no matter how much income or social status they hide behind really have no knowledge of self, sense of self, or dignity.

G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post

On Having and Being

Deart friends,

This 22 minutes-long video by the great Erich Fromm is actually a perfect Sunday sermon… In this market-driven, possession-oriented society of ours the idea of "having is the most important concern of the average person.

Yet, whether speaking of today, yesterday, or antiquity we see that some of the world's biggest scoundrels either have or have had a great amount of "possessions", as it were, while not possessing any measure of human decency.

Moreover, Masters of living like Kan Kan Musa, Confucius, Moses, the historical Jesus, and Muhammad were not fooled by the glitter of gold or trinkets and baubles. For African American people particularly, and humanity generally, the vile and perverted political economy or process of social reproduction called Capitalism deliberately intends to deprive people of their dignity by having the latter constantly prostitute their powers to create and produce/work, as opposed to using their inner powers to market and manage their own skills and the products of their labor for the commonweal, without neighbors and fellow citizens using each other as means to ends.

G. Djata Bumpus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzpT1mZf718 Read full post

Why Erotic Love is not Unconditional

"...through your five senses you are attracted to the other person by the way s/he looks, smells, sounds, feels to you and makes you feel, and even how s/he takes (kisses, and so forth)"

Dear friends,

Erotic love, a relationship that is based upon sexual intimacy, can never be unconditional as, say, love between a parent and child, or two or more siblings, because it is based upon conditions that are difficult to maintain (please see Erich Fromm's "The Art of Loving"). For example, through your five senses you are attracted to the other person by the way s/he looks, smells, sounds, feels to you and makes you feel to him or her, and even how s/he tastes (kisses, and so forth). Yet, even then, as we have feelings about anything, there are conflicting feelings at the same time .

Moreover, the standards for either familial or close friend relations are not so scrutinized. Worse yet, in a market-driven society such as ours, there seems to be a tendency for individuals who live in such a social formation that requires people to always be looking for the “latest model”, whether dealing with human beings or nonhuman consumables like cars and clothes. Hence, we are witnessing shorter and shorter lengths of time that couples are staying in erotic love relationships today, because people desire a “new” lover/latest model, just as much as they want nonhuman consumable like car s,clothes. and so forth.

Of course, all of this mentioned above has been made more evident than ever with the market construct that began in the 80s which turned homosexuality away from its rightful diagnosis as a mental health problem to an alleged "gay culture" that is not based upon a reproductive process - like that of African American, Latino, Indigenous, Asian, or European-American cultures, but simply refers to an increased availability of consumables (gay nightclubs, gay magazines, gay marriage, gay this, gay that, etc.). Let's face it. People, "famous" or otherwise, who feel that they need attention are now coming out of the woodwork (not the closet) claiming that they are gay/the latest model.

Perhaps, as we continue to evolve as a species we will all be able to appreciate our fellows within the context of our/their humanity, as opposed to using each other as a means to an end, by seeing each other as objects for consumption. For then, it seems, at least to me, that having unconditional love for a girlfriend, boyfriend, wife, or husband will not be so difficult, since the love will be based upon showing care and concern for, trying to understand, and feeling responsible towards that special person in a committed way, and not surrendering to the illusion called "ego"that makes us "want" something, just so that we can say that we have it.

One Love, One Heart, One Spirit !

G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post

Excerpts of Thomas Paine on Rwligion

from The Age of Reason, by Thomas Paine

"I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own 
opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it. The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason."

I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall. I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy... But, lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind my own church...All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian ..or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe 
otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. 
But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally 
faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in 
disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. 
It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to 
subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to 
qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive any thing more destructive to morality than this?

Soon after I had published the pamphlet Common Sense, in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion. The adulterous connection of church and state, wherever it had taken place, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, had so effectually prohibited by pains and penalties, every discussion upon established creeds, and upon first principles of religion, that until the system of government should be changed, those subjects could not be brought fairly and openly before the world; but that whenever this should be done, a revolution in the system of religion would follow. Human inventions and priestcraft would be detected; and man would return to the pure, unmixed and unadulterated belief of one God, and no more.

Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus 
Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet, as 
if the way to God was not open to every man alike...Each of those churches show certain books, which they call revelation, or the word of God. The Jews say, that their word of God was given by God to Moses, face to face; the Christians say, that their word of God came by divine inspiration: and the Turks say, that their word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from Heaven. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some other observations on the word revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.
communication- after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to 
believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, 
and I have only his word for it that it was made to him...When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so.

The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention. It is, however, necessary to except the declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children; it is contrary to every principle of moral justice. When I am told that the Koran was written in Heaven and brought to Mahomet by an angel, the account comes too near the same kind of hearsay evidence and second-hand authority as the former. I did not see the angel myself, and, therefore, I have a right not to believe it. When also I am told that a woman called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not; such a circumstance required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for it; but we have not even this- for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter themselves; it is only reported by others that they said so- it is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not choose to rest my belief upon such evidence."

Read full post

Believing in "God"

Dear friends,

To me, it’s unfair to claim a special status as a “believer”, while excluding those who have a different interpretation of all existence as “non-believers”. That mean-spirited type of exclusion just mentioned is the basis for all human intolerance.

After all, believing in the ultimate power of both Love and Goodness is not the sole possession of those who identify with the three Abrahamian religions (of the Hebrew deity).

I mean, it (religion) has caused/does cause more killing and suffering, over several millennia, than all other philosophies or world outlooks combined in history.

Besides, if you believe in a world-ruling personality called “God”, then you are talking about a finite entity, because you've assigned a name to that being. In other words, we look at everything geometrically, giving form, shape, and/or substance to all things, in order to distinguish one phenomenon from another – whether we’re talking about physically or intellectually.

Consequently, recognizing something as an omnipresent, omnipotent phenomenon cannot possibly allow one to make a finite configuration. Therefore, at least to me, as opposed to merely worshiping an idol, what people may want to consider is: 1) Using the term “That which is nameless”, instead of “God: or “Allah”, and so forth…and 2) accepting the wisdom and teachings of the great masters of living like Kan Kan Musa, the historical Jesus, Muhammad, and Karl Marx. After all, everyone on “death row now “conveniently” claims to believe in “God”. Right? Peace.

One Love, One Heart, One Spirit,
G. Djata Bumpus Read full post

On Mental Stamina

Dear friends,

To be sure, we always hear about physical stamina – like that which is gained by, say, working as a laborer on a construction job, or training for various sporting events, or, perhaps, running a marathon. However, we can "train" our minds as well,in ways that make our ability to think grow with more lasting force and energy (inner powers), if we also use our powers of discipline, patience, and concentration, in order to help us “think through” problems of whatever magnitude. As a matter of fact, in these days of the Internet, you can just type into your browser whatever question that you might have about almost anything,, and you will, at least, be able to find some semblance of an answer, or begin a process of linkage that will help you.. Besides, searching that way develops your mental stamina too.

By thinking through our problems, particularly when we are in situations that require special attention from us, whether they are confrontations with ourselves – like taking tests in education or employment, for example, or challenges regarding relationships with others (such as our loved ones, classmates, fellow workers, neighbors or even strangers), we can integrate our powers, as a whole, in a way that makes us feel good, and, in fact, more empowered, after the aforementioned confrontations, instead of feeling regret.

Now, there are a number of ways to develop greater mental stamina. Playing games like checkers or chess will enhance your mental stamina. There are a number of “mind” games on computers that can help you with that too. Another method is: Teaching both arithmetic and mathematics to yourself. Because mathematics is an abstract science, that means that you can apply its principles to any number of activities in your lives. (And its not as hard as it may sound.) In fact, the reason why so many people either complain about or find displeasure with mathematics and science is due to the fact that they have not developed their mental stamina better. It is certainly not an issue of them lacking "intelligence".

Please remember, in order to be able to introduce a lot of helpful ideas to your child(ren), grandchildren. or other young people in your life, while, simultaneously, gaining more ideas and skills yourself, you will need to maintain a high level of mental stamina. Don't be lazy! 

Moreover, please learn to “think through” your problems, whatever they may be. In the process, you will also learn to enjoy your own thoughts more and more. That will allow you to be able to distinguish peaceful times from more volatile moments - easier. Better yet, that will put you ore in control of when you want the peaceful ones. Dig?

Keep moving forward!

G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post

Erich Fopmm on Alienation, Human Rights, Idolatry, and Identity

UTTER BRILLIANCE!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpfW1xfouaM Read full post

The Chiuces that We Make

Dear friends,

I find it interesting that sometimes even the most thoughtful people, when speaking of those in bad life circumstances, will say, “People make their own choices!” To me, the notion of making a choice is not so cut and dry. That is, when one makes a choice is that an action in and of itself? Or, is a choice the qualification of an action?

In other words, to suggest that making a choice is an act (of free will, mind you) does not take into consideration compulsory behavior, for example. And even then it seems, at least to me, especially in a market-driven, possession-oriented society like Ours, often times, greed presupposes compulsion.

Besides, is the abovementioned "free will", as it were, really made freely, if it is actually a manipulated and/or coerced response that is initiated by cultural group dynamics, along with both social and historical experiences, that allow us to be part of a particular population group? We are not solitary beings, after all.

Now, to be sure, sexual greed, social status, and power dictate the direction that most people take in this political economy or process of social reproduction in which we live called advanced corporate capitalism. If that were not the case, then Our society, much less the world, would be far less populated. Additionally, in this country alone, issues like abortion and homosexuality would be seen in an entirely different context.

G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post

The Origin of ALL Existemce

"People have been speaking about "eternal life" for several millenniums. But how can we imagine what eternity is, if we can't imagine that in the beginning there was nothing? Yet, nothing is something...Isn't it? Hence, the origin of all existence."

Dear friends,

During the 18th century, Edward Burke proposed, "The ideas of eternity, and infinity, are among the most affecting we have, and yet perhaps there is nothing of which we really understand so little, as of infinity and eternity." (see A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful)

 People have been speaking about "eternal life" for several millenniums. But how can we imagine what eternity is, if we can't imagine that in the beginning there was nothing? Yet, nothing is something. Isn't it? Hence, the origin of all existence.

G. Djata Bumpus Read full post

Some Wisdom from Albert Schweitzer about LIFE

“A man is truly ethical only when he obeys the compulsion to help all life which he is able to assist, and shrinks from injuring anything that lives.” - Albert Schweitzer

Dear friends,


It is obvious to me that people who hunt down and kill non-human animals for fun have serious mental health issues, just as those who murder other humans for power and wealth -through war - do, as well. Moreover, the crazies are not only the ones who murder people in movie theatres, temples, and the like.

Of course, Australopithecus Africanus, the earliest known hominid related to humankind (beginning @ four million years ago) was a meat-eater. Vegans be damned! Nevertheless, they killed for food, not fun. Finally, we should embrace the idea that all fauna and flora are sacred, as long as that belief does not interfere with our ability to maintain our existence.

At any rate, below is an excerpt from the work and wisdom of the great Albert Schweitzer. Please reflect and enjoy.

G. Djata Bumpus
***********************************
“REVERENCE FOR LIFE" by Albert Schweitzer

The following words by Albert Schweitzer are excerpted from Chapter 26 of The Philosophy of Civilization and from The Ethics of Reverence for Life in the 1936 winter issue of Christendom.

"I am life which wills to live, in the midst of life which wills to live. As in my own will-to-live there is a longing for wider life and pleasure, with dread of annihilation and pain; so is it also in the will-to-live all around me, whether it can express itself before me or remains dumb. The will-to-live is everywhere present, even as in me. If I am a thinking being, I must regard life other than my own with equal reverence, for I shall know that it longs for fullness and development as deeply as I do myself. Therefore, I see that evil is what annihilates, hampers, or hinders life. And this holds true whether I regard it physically or spiritually.

Goodness, by the same token, is the saving or helping of life, the enabling of whatever life I can to attain its highest development. In me the will-to-live has come to know about other wills-to-live. There is in it a yearning to arrive at unity with itself, to become universal. I can do nothing but hold to the fact that the will-to-live in me manifests itself as will-to-live which desires to become one with other will-to-live.

Ethics consist in my experiencing the compulsion to show to all will-to-live the same reverence as I do my own. A man is truly ethical only when he obeys the compulsion to help all life which he is able to assist, and shrinks from injuring anything that lives. If I save an insect from a puddle, life has devoted itself to life, and the division of life against itself has ended. Whenever my life devotes itself in any way to life, my finite will-to-live experiences union with the infinite will in which all life is one.

An absolute ethic calls for the creating of perfection in this life. It cannot be completely achieved; but that fact does not really matter. In this sense reverence for life is an absolute ethic. It makes only the maintenance and promotion of life rank as good. All destruction of and injury to life, under whatever circumstances, it condemns as evil. True, in practice we are forced to choose. At times we have to decide arbitrarily which forms of life, and even which particular individuals, we shall save, and which we shall destroy. But the principle of reverence for life is nonetheless universal and absolute.

Such an ethic does not abolish for man all ethical conflicts but compels him to decide for himself in each case how far he can remain ethical and how far he must submit himself to the necessity for destruction of and injury to life. No one can decide for him at what point, on each occasion, lies the extreme limit of possibility for his persistence in the preservation and furtherance of life. He alone has to judge this issue, by letting himself be guided by a feeling of the highest possible responsibility towards other life. We must never let ourselves become blunted. We are living in truth, when we experience these conflicts more profoundly.

Whenever I injure life of any sort, I must be quite clear whether it is necessary. Beyond the unavoidable, I must never go, not even with what seems insignificant. The farmer, who has mown down a thousand flowers in his meadow as fodder for his cows, must be careful on his way home not to strike off in wanton pastime the head of a single flower by the roadside, for he thereby commits a wrong against life without being under the pressure of necessity. " Read full post