LIZ McCABE dot com

Wealth for the Fittest

“[Capitalism] has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade.”[1]

In light of the fact that we live in a society which calls itself, “capitalist,” let’s explore this idea a bit further.  At its core, capitalism is the belief that individuals can create wealth for themselves through merit — be it hard work, intelligence or ingenuity.  This concept in itself is admirable and very difficult to argue.  Obviously a society which encourages independence and excellence in each individual is something we believe is a worthy goal.  However, this truth is hidden within many distortions.  The first of which is the illusion of property, that we acquire wealth, power, and rights by the accumulation — hoarding — of things and man hours.  Each of these is an abstract concept and can be difficult to quantify.  Especially now, as we move into the “intellectual property” era and race to patent ideas.  Ideas!  The very core of creativity.  It becomes a question of what is ownable and are there limits on what can be bought and sold?  And finally, where is there room for virtue in a game where “he who dies with the most toys, wins.”

Our society also has a socialist (Communism, Jr.) slant, which leads many to believe in a dualism between freedom/capitalism and security/socialism.  In this way there is a belief we must trade certain freedoms for certain securities.  For example, trading our capital for our social security; compete while you are young and able and be cared for when you are old and feeble.  This is, however, also an illusion as evidenced by the fact that there will be no “social security” for my generation.  It is just a cleverly named tax wrapped up in the soft blanket of safety.

2 Comments »

Man v. Nature

“Thus with the advent of agriculture an élite became better off, but most people became worse off. Instead of swallowing the progressivist party line that we chose agriculture because it was good for us, we must ask how we got trapped by it despite its pitfalls.”[1]

Pinpointing the origin of social systems is simple, the agricultural revolution provided humanity not only with the ability to store food; this is the first time humanity sought to hoard and protect resources.  This was our first step into the materialistic world.  Having something to protect, to hold on to, creates a need for defense, property rights, and power over societies.  Authority steps in and spares us the quest for self-actualization and tells us our roles in this ideological body.  Furthermore, agriculture sets up a self-sustaining cycle where technological progress is viewed as the only buttress between prosperity and starvation/death.  This is because populations grow to the limits of their food supply.  No matter how much food is produced, the group will grow to meet the current level and the same problem is faced again and again without end.  Agriculture forces a new problem on any society which engages in it unthinkingly, that those in positions of power over proclaim, “we have the innovation to save you from certain death, only we can protect you from the harshness of nature.”  The main players in recent social system history (Capitalism and Communism) have gone about this with different strategies, but ultimately make the same promises of protection and security.  Yet, in time, the same problems arise.

Power-over societies rely on the concepts of scarcity and fear as they are necessary to create a populace which will willingly hand over power.  The world becomes much too big and complicated to take on as an individual, family or tribe.  It is much easier to hand over this responsibility to a larger entity so that we may live our lives peacefully inside.  Nature no longer provides for us, our government, our infrastructure, now keeps us fed, sheltered and warm.  Nature is cold and ruthless, and those who choose it over society are either savages, hermits or sociopaths.  We feel righteous in the achievements of civilization, and build monuments in self-congratulation.  Look at all the art, education and beauty our culture has achieved, and we surmise, this must be a result of our social system.  It provides for our every need so that we may engage our minds in harnessing the powers of the universe.  We have, after all, even unlocked the power of the atom.  Our bodies come to represent this dirty connection with nature and must also be controlled.  We set ourselves apart from nature, calling it “civilization,” and we are so well mannered, so well corseted and so well groomed.  Sex is suppressed, the feminine is dominated, and our bodies are covered.  Civilization’s destiny is rise to above these base and primitive things, to become the architects of the universe.  We do not want to be reminded of our animal natures, we want to be gods.

No Comments »

Contractual Freedoms

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”[1]

When we ask ourselves “What is the point? What am I really trying to achieve in life?” I think most people would answer that they are in the pursuit of happiness. We have been led to believe that all this work, all our progress and consumption will fill the void we feel inside, the vacancy where our more infinite selves once resided. It is the “American way of life.” And yet, our consumption grows because our immaterial selves will never be satisfied by the food of the material world. We are hungry, starving for something we have not only forgotten, but fear. What might we find if we looked down into those mysterious depths; would we lose our minds? At the same time, our wounding and dissociation has made us easy to manipulate as we live in a state of constant fear and survival. We want to trust authority, we want to be taken care of, made sure of our security and be sated by progress and plenty. We want to be a part of something, we want to feel that our lives have purpose. Somewhere in our quest we transmuted these immaterial needs into something we could hold on to. Filled with fear and unknowing as the past falls away and the future is unknown, we did not trust nature to provide for us. We no longer wanted to be at her whim, instead we found a way insure our own existence.

No Comments »

A Brave New Religion

“Academic religion is the killing jar of spirit.”[1]

The materialistic worldview, however safe, is woefully incomplete. It does not account for our deep yearning for connection, for love, friendship and community. In the intellectualizing of existence, we are compartmentalized, over-specialized and disassociated from our complete and whole beings. We are taught that to become an adult, we must let go of childish things, of the intangible, magical world of the imagination. Our creativity is valued, but only in so far as we can use it for practical means. Materialism’s creativity is called innovation, a word inextricable from marketability and industry. Our time is divided into seconds, milliseconds, nanoseconds of productivity and progress. Time spent simply being, not using our brains or our hands, but just existing is “wasted time.” Man hours, workdays, paid time off, overtime, salary, wages, business hours, time and a half, nine-eighty, and eventually two weeks vacation. These are the units by which we measure our lives.

2 Comments »

The Ghost in the Machine

“The rhythms of nature underlie all of human interaction: religious traditions, economic systems, cultural and political organization. When these human forms betray the natural psychic pulse, people and societies get sick, nature is exploited, and entire species are threatened.”[1]

The very nature of being human means we are necessarily individuals, but by no means is this a sufficient definition. We are beings who are more than just a sum of our parts, we contain “selves,” that are both conscious/individuated and unconscious/boundless. We are expressions of the infinite within the finite, we are the expression of paradox; we are both located in a particular time and space, and, impossible to locate. Because it is easier to identify with that which is tangible, seen, and quantifiable, our culture has moved towards a religion of science. These things, these physical, manifest things have never betrayed us, they simply are. Faith, however, is a much more treacherous path, one where it is possible to be lead astray and commit unspeakable acts in the name of unseen, and thus, unaccountable forces.

No Comments »

Veritas!

“Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn’t there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression.”[1]

The world has gone astray, as individuals we can feel it in a crisis of purpose, and as a society we feel it in a crisis of consumption. There is not enough to sustain our hunger for material goods, for many it would take multiple planet Earths to sustain their lifestyles. Petroleum is running out, and it is the fuel for our way of life. Religion no longer provides meaningful answers, although some cling tenaciously to it as their last vestige of truth. It all seems so much bigger than us, too much to take on. We are too busy trying to build lives for ourselves, trying to carve a niche and take some of the pie before it runs out. The individual is so concerned with his own needs and desires, the big picture becomes confusing and frightening.

Individualism, as defined by current capitalist standards, is the ability of each person to traverse social classes and gain wealth and power solely through determination. This kind of individualism is a myth which keeps the poor from begrudging the wealthy their dominance. The intention of this mental construct is to create the illusion of possibility within what is actually a rigid system. This particular system, capitalism, is just one of many social systems that denies the individual and confounds her ambitions. Where one believes she is getting ahead, doing better, and making a difference, she is really just conforming to conditioning which supports the current authoritarian regime.

Who or what is to blame? Where did we lose our freewill and ability to create lives that were balanced and in accordance with liberty, justice, reverence and sustainability? Historically, when one systems runs us too far off course, we have a reactionary response. For example, the humanitarian crimes of the capitalist industrial revolution spawned the socialist union movement in order to protect the exploited. Is this the solution, or is this merely a short term fix — treating the symptoms rather than the disease itself? What are the larger forces, what is the disease and who are we as individual humans within these systems?

No Comments »

No Comments »

Ahem. I got myself in pretty deep this time. All my posturing, swaggering and carrying on may cost me $100, or maybe I’ll win and become even more irrepressible. In any case, my friend Jack has laid the ground rules under no uncertain terms.

The Controversy that spawned…”The Bet”:

Is the faceless lecturer, introduced as “Donnie Hoyle” of the “You Suck at Photoshop-Tutorials” internet viral video series, the actor/comedian “Dane Cook”? (pictured below) …Or, is it someone else entirely?

Actor/“Comedian”: Dane Cook

Participant No.1 of The Bet, “Liz”:

Claims that said lecturer, without a doubt, IS actor/comedian “Dane Cook.”

Participant No.2 of The Bet, “Jack”:

Claims that said lecturer, without a doubt, IS NOT actor/comedian “Dane Cook.”

The Stakes of The Bet:

$100.00 USD (payable by cash, check, or PayPal)

The Rules of The Bet:

1. In order to win The Bet, either party (participants “Liz” or “Jack”) must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that his or her particular claim is TRUE by presenting irrefutable proof of that claim, as mentioned above:

a. In order to win The Bet, Liz must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the “comedic lecturer” of this viral video series IS actor/comedian Dane Cook.

b. In order to win The Bet, Jack must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the “comedic lecturer” of this viral video series IS NOT actor/comedian Dane Cook.

NOTE: The Bet does not require correctly identifying the actual individual (if it IS NOT Dane Cook) whose voice is heard as the lecturer of this viral video series, be it the so-called “Donnie Hoyle”as self-introduced by the lecturer of the viral video series (and as listed in some of the video’s credits and on blogsites pertaining to the viral video series), or be it some other actor, comedian, or previously unknown individual, i.e. some “random dude.” The only requirement is that the participants must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the said lecturer whose voice is heard in the viral video series is either: a) Dane Cook, or b) NOT Dane Cook, respective to each participants’ claim.

In order to win The Bet, either participant must prove his or her claim as to whether or not the lecturer’s voice is that of actor/comedian Dane Cook. If the writer or creator of the viral video series is an individual OTHER than the individual heard speaking as the lecturer of the viral video series, then correctly identifying that person, be it Dane Cook or not, does not secure a win of The Bet by either participant. The Issue: it is the VOICE of the lecturer in this viral video series that must be identified/determined as being that of actor/comedian Dane Cook, or NOT. The actual writer/creator of this viral video series, IF differing from the identity of the lecturer heard in the viral video series, is irrelevant in The Bet, and therefore presenting evidence, proof, or knowledge of this individual’s identity does not secure a win for either participant.

2. If the individual whose voice is that of the lecturer is NOT Dane Cook, Liz cannot win The Bet by correctly determining the actual identity of the individual, nor will doing so cancel The Bet. In fact, any such determination by Liz that the voice of the lecturer is NOT Dane Cook will serve to support Jack’s official claim that the lecturer is NOT Dane Cook, and therefore securing the win of The Bet for Jack.

3. There is no deadline or time limit for either party to prove his or her claim.

4. The Loser of The Bet must pay The Winner of The Bet $100.00 USD by way of cash, check, or via PayPal account, within 30 calendar days (Earth calendar days, ahem…); failure to comply with this rule will force The Loser to live in agonizing shame and humiliation for all eternity, and will force The Loser to become “The Official Be-Otch” of The Winner of The Bet for the rest of linear time as we know it, according to the laws of current Newtonian physics (and not quantum laws, in this case.)

5. NOTE: The participating party in The Bet known as “Liz” must respond to this email (which states the Official Rules of The Bet and is a legally binding contract) by 11:00pm EST (8:00pm PST), Sunday, February 3, 2008, in order to officially agree to and comply with The Rules of The Bet, thereby allowing The Bet to officially stand until it is deemed “over” as defined by The Rules of The Bet. Liz must provide an email response to Jack that she has read this email and the Rules of The Bet contained within, has agreed to those rules, and thereby wishes to proceed with The Bet as laid out in The Rules of The Bet. If Liz wishes to make any changes or addendums to The Rules of The Bet, she must do so in writing (via email) by the time limit mentioned above. If Liz fails to respond to this email by this time limit, The Bet will be officially terminated.

I suppose if you’re going to do something, you might as well do it completely! Anyone who has evidence to support my claim, please contact me immediately. Thank you!

1 Comment »

Some say that my teaching is nonsense.
Others call it lofty but impractical.
But to those who have looked inside themselves,
this nonsense makes perfect sense.
And to those who put it into practice,
this loftiness has roots that go deep.

I have just three things to teach:
simplicity, patience, compassion.
These three are your greatest treasures.
Simple in actions and in thoughts,
you return to the source of being.
Patient with both friends and enemies,
you accord with the way things are.
Compassionate toward yourself,
you reconcile all beings in the world.

– Tao Te Ching

No Comments »