You are a teacup


You are a teacup that is hooked into a billion other teacups.

In every moment we choose what we fill ourselves with.

Domination. Violence. Fear. Separation. Love. Hope. Strength.

We must choose to empty ourselves of the fear of our lives in order to be full of love and strength and hope. We must empty ourselves of the negative in order to find peace within ourselves- there’s only so much room in the cup.

If we fill our lives with the illusion that we are individuals unique unto ourselves, we forget that we are connected. If we can break down the idea that we are autonomous, we begin to see how we affect each other. When we recognize our connectedness, we see that we must stand in solidarity in order to liberate ourselves. If I try to break out of a system of injustice without recognizing that we’re connected, I’m just going to pull you through the mud: we’ve got to stand up together.

Fill your cup with love. Empty yourself of the fear. It is an illusion, a distraction from the knowledge that it has been obscuring the entire time. You know who you are, but the fear is obscuring your vision by telling you who you “ought” to be.

Empty yourself of the fear and you will find the strength to know yourself.

There is nothing to fear.

b

Advertisements

7 Comments

Filed under Freedom, Love, Oppression

7 responses to “You are a teacup

  1. Anonymous

    I feel it necessary to crititcal engage and not just jump on the band wagon. This is not a scolding but a questioning, because i see some theoritical under-developments that could potentially be counter-productive. Slogans have there place but not when your preaching to the choir.

    First off, your ideas of the self are very vague. You 1) state that the self is a social construction, that it is a product of the current social order; but you also 2) appeal to a true self that is repressed by the social order, as if its covered over and all we have to do is going searching for it underneath all this social construction. But what is to say that this supposed repressed self is not one more piece of social construction, that the very idea that you have a hidden self being repressed is a social construct and power deception itself?

    Also, there seems to be a regrettable strand of, what I will call, “hippyism” – that is, the idea that all one needs is to “fill” oneself with love, to be positive and peaceful, and fight against everything negative (I’m sure the word “fight” would be considered too negative in this regard for you). I am very critical and suspicious of this attitude or disposition. I don’t believe it to be very effective, as we saw with the 60’s hippy counter-culture. Love and peace sounds very nice, and they are very easy things to say, but I don’t believe they will have an impact on the powers-that-be; nor is it that easy, as if we just need to change the way we think (towards more positive content) and the world will change, all evil will be vanished.

    In short, I believe you are too naive. I have to go, only 2 minutes remain of computer time for me. I will dive into this further later.

    • Great point made. I believe what the author meant was that the natural urges of human capacity are indeed repressed by this system we live in today. What the author probably meant was that in your uniqueness, you may claim to have distinct qualities that are commendable and useful, but in fact you are another consumer. The point being made in this argument is one of the current state of selfishness and separation. And yes, this certainly may be rooted in similar beliefs of the ‘Hippy” culture…but I believe elements of that movement are essential to our new development as a society. We are all one. Please offer your opinion on how to effectively make change- I would like to hear it.

      -nameless

  2. Anonymous

    First, I do not think it would be productive at the moment to give my opinion on how to make effective change. Much more urgent is to take a step back and reflect on our positions, and on the current state of power structures. Only this will give us a guiding light out of the horrible mess we find ourselves in. I think I would add more to this conversation by adding a critique, though in solidarity with the struggle, not against it. Critique always runs the risk of adding one more service to the powers-that-be if it is not geared towards actual practice. So I will have this in mind as I proceed.

    Now, you talk of natural urges. What are these natural urges? Are they distinguished from supposedly opposite or repressive social constructs? This idea of natural urges (or desires, impulses) that would be covered over by the social seems to be a very inadequate conception of what is going on. It tends to assume that there is a common human nature that exists outside all social formations – an idea that has been heavily criticized in current philosophical and social theory. A much more plausible conception of humanity is to acknowledge that it is essential malleable and inherently social, that is to say that the social is human nature, and that what it means to be human has changed throughout history and will continue to change. It is actual dangerous to say that there is an unchangeable nature to humanity, for this is exactly what those in power say (i.e., that humanity will always need to be guided by superior powers because they are inherently flawed).

    I am basically following Michel Foucault here, an extremely important thinker for our times that we all need to know on a very intimate basis. I cannot stress this enough: there is at least two thinkers that we should all be familiar with (and which it seems we are not) – Marx and Foucault. Unfortunately the library is closing, so I can’t say all I wanted to say. Nevertheless this should be enough for you to comment on. Next time I will continue down this same path.

  3. I understand that there is a certain Hippy Philosophy behind what I’m writing. However, I won’t take that as an insult. Indeed, I feel that the hippy movement had both its strengths and its weaknesses, the largest being an inability to radicalize more folks into action- the difference in what I’m proposing and the hippy movement as we think of it.n I think that we have a responsibility to discuss and radicalize the people as well.

    However, I’m a person of faith. A point that I know is going to be hotly contested if not grounds to write me off completely. However, I feel that a faith in humanity in general is in warranted in my life and I’ll respect anyone’s right to disagree. But, at the end of the day, I believe that people are meant to be loving creatures and that the fabrication of a society based on oppression is contradictory to our nature. And I believe that we can change our society by finding that purpose within ourselves and sharing with others and changing the world in which we live.

    If that makes me a naiive hippy, then so be it. But I still believe in people.

  4. Anonymous

    in reply to the last post. You are just throwing claims out there without backing them up. “I believe that people are meant to be loving creatures and that the fabrication of a society based on oppression is contradictory to our nature”. weak.

    • Anonymous

      True, no backing. Lets put it into context: When you want something from someone, do you hurt them to take it? If someone is in the middle of the street, even if your in a rush, do you stop your car?
      Today’s culture is on a bigger scale: When we want something, we take it, often inducing great harm. When we want to go fast, nothing will stop us, regardless of the consequences.
      You can be assured there are great consequences to our lifestyle and policies as an economic system. We need a major fucking brake check.

  5. Jason

    I will not remain anonymous, so my name is attached. I don’t see much need for anonymity on my part, I am not ashamed of what I write nor care if other people know its me. Perhaps for others this is necessary but I personally would rather now who I am addressing so we can talk outside of this blog. Of course, my conception of the purpose of this blog is probably much different from everybody else (i.e., I do not care about recruiting more people through this medium but rather engaging in a critical discussion with those I am already working with).

    So, to continue and not get sidetrack with menial complaints… I will try to make this quick and to the point.

    I am still very reluctant about this “hippie” strand that keeps popping up in your supposed philosophy. In truth, you are not rigorous enough in your conceptualization of terms to be regarded as creating a genuine philosophy. Though perhaps this is not a bad thing. Nevertheless, it is very easy to use the word “love”, to say “all we need is love.” But what do you mean by the word? I see very different kinds of love. In fact, one could make perhaps the argument that each love is in its very essence particular, and that appealing to some kind of universal love that is supposed to free us is actually neglecting the way love actually works. Even here I am doing an injustice to the phenomenon of love by merely using the word, because using the word “love” implies a universal meaning that I (or you for that matter, at least so far as you have written) fail to conceptualize or define. Or maybe there is an underlying same meaning to the word that persists throughout all its different application that you are appealing to. Either way you need to specify what you mean by it.

    I agree with the anonymous post that you are just throwing claims out there without backing them up. You need to back them up, you need to explain what you mean by the word “love”, or else this lack of definition will only serve as a road block in the struggle. This is exactly one of the faults (perhaps the main one) that I see with the hippie movement. For me the main problem with that movement was not their inability to radicalize more folks, but rather their slack and undisciplined approached which is exemplified in their use of vague notions such as “All we need is love.” This undisciplined vagueness is also seen in your conception of the self, which I tried to point out to you but which you still have not addressed adequately.

    Moreover, you seem (following the hippie movement) to have an idealized conception of love that, to me, is just not accurate in regard to the reality of it. Love is not an easy thing, it does not come as naturally as you seem to suggest. On the contrary, I would make the claim that it is a highly conditioned phenomenon, that is, that their needs to be sufficient conditions met before it can come into being. And that it takes quite a bit of effort to maintain it since it is such a fleeting and momentary thing. All artists know this, and if they are any good they know that to base a society solely on love is practically impossible (sorry John Lennon, never was that big of a fan anyways).

    As for your last post, I am not exactly sure what you are getting at, further explanation is needed. We need to be rigorous here, this is part of the point of this blog, to critical engage. Otherwise we will run (as a group) into a wall that we will not get beyond until we clarify what we mean and what we intend. Hope you respond.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s