d e v o n
NASA
No title available
dirt enthusiast
almost home
Peter Solarz
JVL
DEAR READER
art blog(derogatory)
hello vonnie
Love Begins
AnasAbdin
Sweet Seals For You, Always
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
RMH
sheepfilms
No title available
Three Goblin Art
Jules of Nature
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from Chile
seen from Germany
seen from France
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@scarlettmoz
“The opening of a new epoch of the Spirit, which will include higher achievements of spirituality, presupposes a radical change and a new orientation in human consciousness. This will be a revolution of consciousness which hitherto has been considered as something static.”
— Nikolai Berdyaev, The Divine and the Human
The Intruder, c. 1910 by Leonard Campbell Taylor (English, 1874-1969)
Dekolonisasi Pemikiran: Menghadapi Krisis Ilmu Umat Modern
Di balik gemerlap kemajuan material yang ditawarkan peradaban Barat, tersimpan sebuah tantangan eksistensial yang sering kali luput dari pengamatan indrawi. Tantangan ini bukan sekadar soal dominasi ekonomi atau kekuatan militer, melainkan sesuatu yang jauh lebih fundamental: Krisis Ilmu (The Challenge of Knowledge). Sebagaimana ditegaskan oleh Prof. Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas, masalah utama…
New Gorillaz interview with some new artwork!
And this time the characters finally talk!! ❤️
Twenty-five years since releasing their first album and taking their virtual band all over the world, Gorillaz co-creators Damon Albarn and
“I’ve always loved the idea of not being what people expect me to be.”
— Dita Von Teese
si Berkeley.
I’ve been living inside Berkeley’s head for a few days now and I still can’t tell if he’s a genius, a madman, or someone who simply followed a thought further than most people are willing to go. I started with Principles of Human Knowledge, thinking it would be another tidy philosophical system I could read, understand, and move on from. It didn’t work like that. It felt more like being slowly cornered by someone who keeps asking very simple questions until your certainty starts dissolving.
The idea of a solid, mind-independent world turns out to be something inherited, not examined. Useful, maybe necessary for daily life, but oddly abstract once stripped of habit.
What’s unsettling isn’t the claim that the world is unreal. Berkeley never says that. What’s unsettling is the suggestion that “material substance” might be a placeholder. damn.. a word used to avoid admitting how dependent reality is on perception. Remove perception and nothing remains that can actually be pointed to. Only a concept, empty of content. deep sial.
That’s where the discomfort starts. Because this isn’t skepticism meant to collapse meaning. It’s skepticism aimed at cleaning metaphysics. Matter begins to look less like a foundation and more like an unnecessary duplication also an extra layer added because people feel safer believing there’s something solid underneath experience.
Because if everything we know is within perception, then what holds reality together when no one is looking? What keeps the world from dissolving into private hallucination? Berkeley’s answer is God, an infinite perceiver sustaining continuity. Which make sense doh.
The Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous takes that pressure and stages it through conversation. Hylas carries the confidence of ordinary certainty. Philonous asks questions. Slow, deliberate questions. If heat feels different depending on the body that experiences it, where does heat truly reside? If color shifts with light and perception, can it be said to exist independently? Again and again, what seemed to belong to objects slips back into experience.
Hylas isn’t foolish. He represents what most people assume without thinking. That’s why the dismantling feels gradual rather than theatrical. There is no sudden collapse. Only the realization that what appeared self-evident rests on ideas never fully examined.
By the second dialogue, stability becomes the concern. Without matter existing independently, what holds the world together? Doesn’t reality risk becoming fragile, subjective, unreliable? Berkeley reverses the anxiety. A material world that exists beyond perception can never actually be reached. It remains hypothetical. In trying to secure certainty, it introduces distance. Experience becomes a veil rather than contact.
The third dialogue closes the circle. Matter has lost its necessity. It cannot be sensed, cannot be conceived clearly, cannot be verified outside perception. It survives mostly because people are accustomed to imagining it. Berkeley’s solution is to ground continuity in a constant perceiver..God.. as structural necessity. Whether one accepts that move or not, it reveals the core of his project: not to dissolve reality, but to remove what he sees as redundant metaphysics while preserving coherence.
What lingers after all this isn’t disbelief in the world. It’s a thinning of certainty about what “world” means. Reality begins to feel less like something standing apart from awareness and more like something inseparable from it. Not imaginary. Not subjective in the shallow sense. But intimately tied to perception, sustained through it.
The shift is subtle but difficult to reverse. Once the idea of mind-independent matter loosens, attention itself begins to carry a different weight. Experience is no longer just a window onto reality. It becomes part of its architecture.
And strangely, this isn’t entirely foreign to older cosmologies closer to home. In Kapitayan thought, before religion hardened into doctrine, there was no rigid separation between visible and invisible, material and spiritual. The world was not treated as dead matter moving through empty space. It was understood as layered presence..seen and unseen woven together. Stones, trees, rivers, ancestors, breath: all participating in a field of existence that did not require proof of material independence to be real.
What mattered was alignment, not objectivity in the modern sense. Presence, not possession.
Berkeley arrives from a different lineage, using reason rather than ritual, but he circles a similar intuition: reality cannot be fully separated from the act of perceiving it. Existence is not a cold object sitting outside awareness. It is encountered, sustained, and given meaning within it.
The difference is that Kapitayan never needed to argue this geometrically. It lived it. Berkeley had to dismantle centuries of material certainty to reach something that older traditions never abandoned.
So what remains after reading him isn’t the feeling that the world has disappeared. If anything, it feels more immediate. Less like a stage set and more like a living field of perception where presence itself carries weight.
Not everything needs to be solid to be real. Not everything real needs to exist outside awareness.
And once that settles in, the question shifts quietly from “What is the world made of?” to “What does it mean to be present within it?”
social cancer
I keep circling the same thought since finishing that book, but it’s not really about the book anymore. It’s about the kind of sickness that doesn’t announce itself. The kind that settles in so slowly it starts feeling like order. What unsettles me is how a society can function perfectly while being fundamentally unwell. Things work. People go to work. Families eat dinner. Ceremonies happen. Morality is spoken about confidently. And yet something essential is missing, like circulation. Nobody collapses, but nobody is fully alive either.
The illness isn’t chaos. It’s adjustment.
People learn very early where the edges are. What can be said, what should be joked about, what must stay unspoken. Not because someone threatens them every day, but because they’ve seen enough examples of what happens when someone crosses the invisible line. So they internalize it. They don’t need to be watched anymore. They carry the watcher inside.
That’s the part that feels darkest to me. Control that no longer needs to show itself.
And once that happens, the whole thing sustains itself. Authority doesn’t need to argue. It doesn’t need to explain. It just waits while people correct themselves, correct each other, teach their children how not to stand out. Fear becomes a kind of wisdom. Silence becomes maturity. Survival gets confused with virtue.
What’s strange is that nobody feels like a villain in this setup. Everyone has a reason. Everyone is “just being practical.” Everyone is protecting something, family, reputation, safety, peace. And slowly, without any dramatic moment, truth becomes inconvenient. Not forbidden. Just inconvenient.
That’s when a society stops asking whether something is right and starts asking whether it’s worth the trouble.
I used to think awareness would break this spell. That if people understood the structure clearly enough, they’d reject it. But the more I think about it, the less convincing that feels. Awareness doesn’t automatically produce courage. Sometimes it just produces better excuses.
People can see the cage and still worship it.
Because the real cost isn’t ignorance. The real cost is isolation. Once you step out of the shared illusion, you risk losing the comfort of belonging. You risk being misunderstood, mislabeled, quietly pushed aside. And most people don’t want freedom badly enough to pay with loneliness.
So the illness persists not because people are blind, but because they are attached.
Attached to routine. Attached to approval. Attached to the idea that stability is the highest good. And that attachment is powerful. It turns obedience into common sense. It turns fear into politeness. It turns compliance into character.
The most disturbing part is how ordinary it all looks. There’s no dramatic collapse. No obvious enemy. Just a gradual narrowing of what feels possible. A shrinking of imagination. A quiet agreement to not disturb the surface.
And once that agreement is in place, even resistance starts to look immature. Naive. Dangerous. Like something you grow out of.
That’s when a society becomes very hard to heal. Not because it’s broken, but because it’s functional enough to survive.
I don’t know what the cure is. I’m not even sure there is one at the scale people like to imagine. What I do know is that this kind of illness doesn’t live in governments or institutions alone. It lives in habits. In daily choices. In the small moments where a person decides whether to stay quiet or speak honestly. Whether to blend in or stand slightly apart.
Maybe the real question isn’t how societies get sick. Maybe it’s how much sickness a person is willing to carry just to stay comfortable.
And that question doesn’t belong to history. It belongs to now.
By singling out humanity as a unique life-form that can consciously change the entire realm of first nature, I do not claim that first nature was “made” to be “exploited” by humanity, as those ecologists critical of “anthropocentrism” sometimes charge, the idea of a made world has its origin in theology, notably in the belief that a supernatural being created the natural world and that evolution is infused with a theistic principle, both in the service of human needs. By the same token, humans cannot “exploit” nature, owing to a “commanding” place in a supposed “hierarchy” of nature. Words like commanding, exploitation, and hierarchy are actually social terms that describe how people relate to each other; applied to the natural world, they are merely anthropomorphic.
- Murray Bookchin, A Philosophical Naturalism
The manipulated people in modern cities must be fed, and feeding them involves an extension of industrial farming. Food plants must be cultivated in a manner that allows for a high degree of mechanization — not to reduce human toil but to increase productivity and efficiency, to maximize investments, and to exploit the biosphere. Accordingly, the terrain must be reduced to a flat plain — to a factory floor, if you will — and natural variations in topography must be diminished as much as possible. Plant growth must be closely regulated to meet the tight schedules of food-processing plants. Plowing, soil fertilization, sowing, and harvesting must be handled on a mass scale, often in total disregard of the natural ecology of an area. Large areas of land must be used to cultivate a single crop — a form of plantation agriculture that lends itself not only to mechanization but also to pest infestation. A single crop is the ideal environment for the proliferation of pest species. Finally, chemical agents must be used lavishly to deal with the problems created by insects, weeds, and plant diseases, to regulate crop production, and to maximize soil exploitation. The real symbol of agriculture is not the sickle (or for that matter the tractor) but the airplane. The modern food cultivator is represented not by the peasant, yeoman, or even the agronomist — men who could be expected to have an intimate relationship with the unique qualities of the land on which they grow crops — but the pilot and chemist, for whom soil is a mere resource, an inorganic raw material.
Murray Bookchin, Ecology and Revolutionary Thought
The Interwoven Unsustainability of Colonialism, Nationalism, Imperialism, and Capitalism: Bakunin's Critique and Pathways to Sustainable Alternatives
Mikhail Bakunin, a key figure in the development of anarchist thought, offers a critical perspective on the interconnectivity and unsustainability of colonialism, nationalism, imperialism, and capitalism. His views help elucidate how these systems interlink and perpetuate unsustainable social structures, as well as suggest sustainable alternatives. Interconnectivity and…
What is the State? | The State is Counter-Revolutionary (Part 1)
“The greatest fruit of self-reliance is freedom.”
— Epicurus, Vatican Sayings
The only permission you need is your own.
Unknown
The angels are guiding you right now. Follow the link in my bio to receive their message.
The American philosopher and professor, Noam Chomsky, loses the ability to speak and write at 95 years old, this forces him to give up the throne of speech, in which he exposed the truth about global systems some of his most famous sayings: -
- There is no such thing as a poor country. There's only one failed system in resource management!
- No one will put the truth in your mind, it's something you have to discover for yourself
- If you want to conquer a people, create an imaginary enemy who seems more dangerous than you, then be their. savior.
One of the clearest lessons in history;
- "Rights are not granted, they are taken by force."
There is a purpose in distorting history and making it seem like great men did it all. It's part of how you teach people who can't do anything, that they are powerless. and they should just wait for a great man to do it.
- The world is a very mysterious and confusing place, if you are not willing to get confused, you become a replica of someone else's mind
- So you can control people. Make him believe that he is the reason for his delay and that you are coming to save him. ”
- The world or the West will regret its trivial ideas that divert a person from his humanity or his nature. They must know the right religion. and the right belief..!!
