Celebrity After Celebrities

Although celebrities function as the necessary human face for corporate bodies, they are still loose cannons. They have off days, can cause unwanted controversy and can't be controlled and shaped completely. Corporations still have to work with them and be patient to some degree. Celebrities are also pretty expensive, and they age and eventually die.

Top tier celebrities may as well not exist. To the masses they may as well be virtual, as most of us will most likely never see them in any kind of believable proximity. Eventually there will arise a virtual celebrity capable of fulfilling all the roles and demands our current tabloid royalty face, but without complaint, and for a lot less money too.

They will be able to go to Mars and back, skype us from the ISS, be able to speak any language fluently, have personalities that will be much more encompassing and appealing to more demographics than the sparkling apparitions we currently spend our days looking through in lifestyle magazines.

On a realistic level, the best way I can think of to bring humanity together is the threat of a massive fuck off asteroid that is big enough to destroy the Earth if it strikes, but still small enough to be taken out if we all join forces. This scenario incarnates the mantra "We only get one go at life".

In a similar sense, when the first global virtual celebrity starts encroaching upon and then usurping the role of its meat-filled contemporaries, celebrities as we know them now will become mortals again. Ironically, they'll come back down to Earth and join us plebs in the chorus against worship of a God that isn't real.

Libraries can be Great Weapons against Loneliness and Mental Health related Issues

With sponsored facebook ads reminding us of the 1.2 million older people that will be lonely this Christmas, it seems as though as a nation we're still boldly sailing towards our shared vision of rendering every last public amenity into a commodity or service we have to buy back in order for it to continue to exist.

Libraries are literally the incarnation of learning and education, but more importantly now I feel as though they represent more than just the importance of literacy. They can function as hubs of well-being, social cohesion, tolerance and empowerment too. Literally antidotes to the avalanche of loneliness and mental health related issues we're facing.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/dec/12/library-closures-will-double-unless-immediate-action-is-taken

We Were Already Living in a Post-Truth World, it's King Just Needed Crowning

We were already living in a post-truth world. Its king just needed crowning. I think it came from the need to go beyond truths. Truths just couldn't convey what we were feeling anymore. They didn't do our feelings justice, and hearing the truth so often made it boring and cliched, so we went beyond it.

Statements that were true like "I'd appreciate it if you could pass me the salt" became "It would be awesome if you could pass me the salt". Volcanoes erupting are awesome. Solar eclipses (although I do think eclipses are happening a bit too much these days) are awesome. Passing salt over the table to pour on one's runny egg is not awesome. If it is awesome to you, then check out a volcano erupting and compare the two.

The truth is boring and cliched because it doesn't change fast enough to keep up with our crazy and sexy lifestyles. It just gets added to slowly over time. The truth is seriously uncool. The truth is a 90's dad in beige Gap Khakis.

So we have to sex truth up in order to make it great again, because the internet made reading and hearing about the truth over and over painfully dull, and humans prefer truth that is playful and very aware of itself. Seeing the truth doesn't mobilise us anymore. Seeing what we'd like to believe is the truth, makes us move. Seeing this self-made truth being crushed will also make us move too.

Taking the Moral High Ground to Win People Over

I don't think taking the moral high ground is ever a good idea, at least not demonstrating it to the person you wish would change their ways. Think whatever you want in the privacy of your own mind though.

I tend to find that it acts in a way that is counter-productive to its aims. Like, if a kid from a working class comprehensive school is eating a processed ham sandwich and a kid from a grammar school comes along and makes him feel bad for not knowing all the reasons why that ham is harmful. Regardless of the facts, it's the use of the moral high ground which makes the working class kid cling to his ham butty even more, because it's part of his identity, although he probably wouldn't see it like that at the time. He loves ham butties and this educated know-it-all is attacking something he loves.

You don't make people change their habits for the better by assuming the moral high ground and expecting them to then see the reason in your arguments. Both sides must feel like they are on the same level and facts about health should be discussed as facts about health, divorced completely from morality and moral judgments.

When people finally put into action the self-help lessons they've been bludgeoning themselves with, they feel like massive cliches.

The Kind of Facebook Conversation I've Been Wanting to Have for a While

Facebook has the potential for some great debates and edifying arguments provided that those involved within the debate remain within the boundaries of the debate and keep there attacks fairly and squarely aimed at the opposing points being asserted.

It's taken a while for me to have one on a subject that was substantial and all parties left feel like they'd not only learned a different perspective, but learned that it was possible to debate aggressively and dialectically and come aware feeling great about everyone there.


Bridget: Sometimes it seems the only road to freedom is through the firing squad of our fears. We are already in God, in freedom, in harmony,, which makes the bullets harmless.

Ben: I sometimes feel like being on the road to freedom is the problem.

Freedom for me seems either individualistic (freedom of expression) or involves the emancipation of a particular group of people (freedom of oppression for blacks), which means that a barrier is automatically created between themselves and everyone else who is not concerned with them achieving their freedom. I never hear anyone say things like Freedom for the World, because it sounds like a contradiction. One man's freedom is another man's shackles.

More and more it seems like the only road that everyone should be travelling down is the road to harmony, as harmony is the perfect synthesis of everything and everyone.

Bridget:  We cannot truly experience harmony unless we're free from all our shackles, our fears. I'm on my way to the plantation.

Ben: I don't think we can all be free in practical terms because someone or something has to be in control, and in many ways I think the feeling of freedom is actually being enslaved to something which is good and nourishing for the soul.


Bridget: Divine Love set us free. God is not the jerk we think he is.


Hermian: Harmony depends on another group or person reciprocating. I can only control my feelings, goals etc. so I am focused on what I can bring to the table of life without attachments to what others bring.

Ben: I think harmony depends upon people and groups having the same goal. They don't necessarily have to reciprocate or reflect back what the other gives on a personal level. Obviously, it would be amazing if they did, but it's about working together perfectly towards the same desired goal. I can work harmoniously with someone I don't even respect simply because we both recognise that our goal or the place where we need to get to is more important than how either of us feel about each other. I think when we put aside the personal for the sake of a higher goal, then a mutual respect can then develop and harmony in its fullest sense can be achieved.

Hermian: Great discussion Ben. My point being that while harmony is an honorary goal, I don't have control over the other party's intent or actions. So I choose to not make it the dominant factor or goal. It's an important one, but justice, and equality, and pure unadulterated love, and kindness all rank higher for me. I respect your perspective

Ben: Yeah, I'm loving this conversation. I think I'll have to take a timeout at this point though because I don't have as solid a conception of things like justice and equality. I always seem to run into examples that problematize everything I thought I knew about them when I feel like I'm just on the verge of understanding.
Love, I also would rank above of harmony, because I think love can make harmony very likely. Harmony doesn't necessarily give rise to love at all, especially in the case of my example above. Having said that, people do kill for love, and will actually try to kill love itself if they feel that the object of their love has too much control over them and they need to be free from it. And so the need for freedom returns once again! :)

Hermian: Killing for love is not love. That's power, domination, obsession and possession. When I love, I understand that the person's right to determine their own destiny and path to enlightenment/alignment overrides my desire to be in their life. Love is freeing - not stifling. At least my version of love.

Bridget: Working out my own salvation is a full time job. All the work to be done is on the inside and whatever progress is made is reflected in the outside. My understanding of Love is reflected in loving. My understanding of us as one is reflected in harmony. The more I understand the higher I reflect, or demonstrate. I can't demonstrate on your understanding of art, only on mine. Understanding starts on the inside. A true understanding of Love is demonstrated in harmony. Not the human kind of love, but Divine Love. My contribution.

Hermian: I guess the point I'm making is that harmony is the outcome of people having the same goals and working towards that. Love on your end does not automatically lead to harmony because it depends on someone else working towards the same goal.

Bridget: Harmony is my individual contribution to whatever is happening around me. We can all be at the same workplace. Working together. I am working toward going on a vacation, you're working towards paying for college, Ben is working towards paying his rent, different goals, but no one is a jerk, we respect each other and work in harmony. Then again we can all be working towards the same goal. But because I have less to gain from that goal I could decide I want to be a jerk about it or not. Harmony is my individual consciousness contribution to whatever situation I find myself in.

Ben: I think that people can and do kill for love. One example would be if an axeman was at my front door trying to break it down because he was trying to kill my son. If I had no other option and that was my last resort, I would probably kill the axeman because I love my son so much. I think it's possible to kill and also sacrifice yourself for love.
I've been learning music theory recently and I'm amazed by how many parallels there are between music and war and peace. For example there is a chapter called "Using conflict and resolution to create harmonies". I almost imagined my music theory book as a manual for making the world a better place!

Bridget: Are you killing for love or for fear. At that moment your stronger emotion is not love but probably fear and anger. A stranger could have done the same thing in that situation knowing that some was in danger. Then again someone knowing the power that love hold over us could stop the whole situation talking the ax man out of it. It has happened.

Ben: I agree with you that at that moment i probably am consumed with fear and it is fear or anger that would enable me to kill the axeman. However, I still hold that I would be killing FOR love. Not with love in me. With fear in me. But in order to protect something I love. It would be for my son, who I love. He is my love. He could be my only source of love.

Bridget: What if your son was the axeman going in to kill your brother whom you also love. Would you still kill for love, or love will find another way?

Ben: I think there are limits to what love can accomplish in the moment. I think love works best over time. But, If I'm trapped in a situation where I have two people that I love equally, but one is trying to killing the other, then on a realistic level I would try to immobilise whoever it was that had the axe and try to prevent a death from happening.

Bridget: Which means that at that moment you're not going to put a limit on the power of love. So we chose when to put a limit on the power of Love. Fear causes us to chose when to put a limit on the power of Love. But in reality if God is love then love has no limits.

Bridget: If God is love then the power of Love has no limits.

Ben: I would love to believe that love had no limits but I don't think it's something you can just choose to believe. It's more like it chooses you to believe.

Bridget: Maybe its more than belief, its understanding. To understand God is to understand love and to understand love is to understand God. He wants us all to understand

Ben: Maybe. I'm in no rush to find out. If it happens then so be it.

Hermian: Best conversation I've ever had on FB!!! Much love! Only love!

The Landowner and The Workers (adapted from Matthew 20 - New International Version)

Matthew 20 (New International Version)

A landowner woke up early in the morning to go to the marketplace in a village nearby to find some workers for his vineyard. He found some men that looked strong but seemed like they had nothing to do that day. He agreed to pay them £80 for the day and sent them to his vineyard to start working. At midday, he visited the marketplace again and came across some men idly standing around doing nothing. He asked them, "Do you want to work in my vineyard for the rest of the day? I can pay you £80?" The men were pleased with the offer and hurried off to the vineyard to start working.

An hour before dusk he went out a third time, back to the marketplace, and found 2 men who looked bored with their lot in life. "Would you like to work for the rest of the day in my vineyard?" the farmer said. "I can pay you £80". The men thought the farmer was playing a trick on them as there was only an hour left before the sun would set, but when they realised the farmer was being genuine they rushed off as fast as they could in the direction of the vineyard to  start work.

When the darkness of evening finally fell, the owner told his foreman to assemble the workers in a line, and he would pay the men that worked last, first.

"Thank you for your work today. Here is the £80 that we agreed you should be paid."
"Thank you landowner!" The men replied happily.

The landowner then paid the men who had started working at midday. They were pleased to receive the £80, but not as pleased at the workers that were paid first.

Finally, the landowner paid the workers who had started work in the morning. The men took the money, but then started to grumble and complain that they had been working all day long and had done much more work than the others who started later in the day.

The landowner replied "Didn't we agree before you started work that I would pay you £80 and you were happy about this"
"Yes, landowner" the men replied
"Don't let my generosity make you feel envious of what other men get. You were happy to work for me for £80. You should be happy to receive your £80"

After a few moments the men had calmed down and realised that it was wrong to let another man's good fortune make them feel like they had received bad fortune.

They thanked the landowner for teaching them an important lesson. A lesson which only they had been taught that day.