between ecology and ideology? The universe is a reflection of self, and that reflection stands alone. But it can also be contorted and skewed by the powers of hierarchy, oppression, institutional disinformation, and ideological absolutism. These realities impede human quality of life and inherent human free will; it impedes both individual and collective human vitality. Observing that we live in an unsustainable society that has done little but to mimic other failed societies, we need to do something to help and protect ourselves because for the last 10,000 years centralized societies have been failing en masse with enormous ramifications, and there is no reason for us to think that is going to change. We need to pursue action in creating a culture that works, and that's not just for us but also for generations to come; I think permaculture, sustainability, and recreating ideologies that respect the natural world should be the primary focus.
Today, an institutional separation between human ideology and the human relationship to global ecology has changed the dynamic of how human culture is created, destroyed, and changes in general. The present dynamic that defines our culture is between our ideology, our institutions, and our ecology. For example, ecology is turned into resources, and resources into institutions, and institutions into ideology. It is arguable that the lack of large social institutions prior to the agricultural revolution allowed for those cultures to be relatively permanent and sustainable. Due to their sheer diversity these culture forms were versatile and adaptive to their environment. The dynamic that formed culture then was solely between a culture's ideology and its ecology, and through that dynamic a more immanent and engaged relationship was formed between humans, their natural environment, and their ideology. This relationship evidently allowed for a non-hierarchical, egalitarian and matrifocal social structure that had relatively no unsustainable impact on the physical world and on human existence as a whole. I think these kinds of societies were the only ones that actually exercised free will without being a detriment, or causing harm, to themselves and other forms of existence.
Ever since 8,000 B.C.E. totalitarian agriculture, paired with totalitarian ideology, have ultimately worked as regressive powers that have stifled the vitality and freedom of humanity. It is no coincidence that societies that host absolutist ideologies have been the most militaristic and patriarchal, and it is also not a coincidence that those same societies and their institutions assume dominion over their natural resources, the people that inhabit their territory, and the religion that they practice. Dominance-based ideology and institutions work hand in hand to create an obstacle between the individual and their natural place in the world. For example, in these societies, an arbitrary surplus of food creates a superficial carrying capacity that works to stimulate population growth, which cannot be sustained without misappropriating natural resources. This makes an individual involuntarily dependent upon that state because the appropriate amount of resources are displaced and ecological carrying capacity is no longer in balance with the size of the population, notwithstanding the fact that most people are no longer encultured or educated in a way that allows them to survive from directly harvested resources. For example, the specialization of trade and the division of labor, which began after the agricultural revolution in 8,000 B.C.E., arbitrarily increased the interdependence of those societies causing them to have too much dependence on one resource or skill for export or domestic consumption, and it also caused the individual to become even more dependent upon the state and its institutions because they lost the versatility of being able to independently sustain themselves. This accompanied the implementation of state craft knowledge, and it exemplifies the fact that true wisdom is vulnerable and cannot be proselytized. The wisdom in these sustainable culture forms evidently did not allow for the regulation of other culture forms, but the unsustainable culture forms and their perception of knowledge and power almost completely destroyed the former.
Today, an institutional separation between human ideology and the human relationship to global ecology has changed the dynamic of how human culture is created, destroyed, and changes in general. The present dynamic that defines our culture is between our ideology, our institutions, and our ecology. For example, ecology is turned into resources, and resources into institutions, and institutions into ideology. It is arguable that the lack of large social institutions prior to the agricultural revolution allowed for those cultures to be relatively permanent and sustainable. Due to their sheer diversity these culture forms were versatile and adaptive to their environment. The dynamic that formed culture then was solely between a culture's ideology and its ecology, and through that dynamic a more immanent and engaged relationship was formed between humans, their natural environment, and their ideology. This relationship evidently allowed for a non-hierarchical, egalitarian and matrifocal social structure that had relatively no unsustainable impact on the physical world and on human existence as a whole. I think these kinds of societies were the only ones that actually exercised free will without being a detriment, or causing harm, to themselves and other forms of existence.
Ever since 8,000 B.C.E. totalitarian agriculture, paired with totalitarian ideology, have ultimately worked as regressive powers that have stifled the vitality and freedom of humanity. It is no coincidence that societies that host absolutist ideologies have been the most militaristic and patriarchal, and it is also not a coincidence that those same societies and their institutions assume dominion over their natural resources, the people that inhabit their territory, and the religion that they practice. Dominance-based ideology and institutions work hand in hand to create an obstacle between the individual and their natural place in the world. For example, in these societies, an arbitrary surplus of food creates a superficial carrying capacity that works to stimulate population growth, which cannot be sustained without misappropriating natural resources. This makes an individual involuntarily dependent upon that state because the appropriate amount of resources are displaced and ecological carrying capacity is no longer in balance with the size of the population, notwithstanding the fact that most people are no longer encultured or educated in a way that allows them to survive from directly harvested resources. For example, the specialization of trade and the division of labor, which began after the agricultural revolution in 8,000 B.C.E., arbitrarily increased the interdependence of those societies causing them to have too much dependence on one resource or skill for export or domestic consumption, and it also caused the individual to become even more dependent upon the state and its institutions because they lost the versatility of being able to independently sustain themselves. This accompanied the implementation of state craft knowledge, and it exemplifies the fact that true wisdom is vulnerable and cannot be proselytized. The wisdom in these sustainable culture forms evidently did not allow for the regulation of other culture forms, but the unsustainable culture forms and their perception of knowledge and power almost completely destroyed the former.