ob[li]f(e)ious: it's about time: November 2009

28 November 2009

What is your definition of status quo?

23 November 2009

OB(LI)FIOUS PROJECT PROPOSAL OF RESOLUTION,
amended 30 January 2007; 23 November 2009

This project is the product of pursuers of peace who feel compelled to construct a collective narrative and model of living that accurately represents their individual experiences as they shift from archaic paradigms that were likely imposed on them. The project is being constructed so that persons who crave undistorted information, who are in the process of dissolving problematic dogma, may together learn ways of engaging in a creative process for surveying messages--in general, those of the dominant, imperialistic, and Eurocentric world--with the intention to examine, invent, and practice viable alternatives that would continue to drive an expansive awareness of peace that is unveiled as we spread it through our communities. It is becoming apparent that a revitalized sense of awareness is becoming a concrete modality at this historical moment, which may be seen as another development of certain socially significant movements, as traditional barriers to peace continue to dissolve within our communities. If you are not as proactive as you would like to be, this is the time to recognize new beginnings.

Dialog amongst us, whether in face-to-face discussion groups or elsewhere, may start from exploring the interdependence of concepts such as universality and relativity. Through such dialog, we will uncover alternatives to the components of an artifice permeating our lives, that, though designed, constructed, and reinforced by institutions that supersede us, is typically reinforced and perpetuated also by ourselves.

As it is this project's goal to resolve transparadigmatic disagreements, the project's collaborators embrace change as a crucial constant of the process by which there is growth, and therefore seek constructive criticism.

At its core, then, the Ob(li)fious project is the logical extension of a community that seeks to promote, besides the things stated, its own solidarity. The participants thus resolve to provide a forum for discourse that is open to all who accept the challenges outlined in this proposal, and who recognize the dignity of every individual and her right to participate in this dialog.

Another crucial component of the Ob(li)fious project is self-publication of educational media, to be determined by all collaborators. All are welcome to participate.

Consistent with this community's humble intentions, the project's participants recognize this very statement as being in a state of perpetual revision. As a living, growing, breathing organism that appreciates, reflects, and resolves an indefinite number and style of perspectives, the Ob(li)fious project seeks to be a passive (malleable) vehicle for spreading peaceful thought and action.

Notes on paper:

The "whoa" concept and the universal conversation: the materialization process of metaphor.

I will prove that all information is true, seeking to resolve conflicting stories and paradox, showing how, like puzzle pieces, the information exists to expose confusions, their sources, and a universe that is livable by and inclusive of everyone, thus deflating and dissolving behavior patterns that have proven to negatively impact others and the planet, proving that they are counterintuitive to growth and all life on the planet, although, as I shall also prove, necessary in themselves for the duration they served. I am aware of how ambitious this project seems, and one who assumes it is ambitious would be correct in that assumption. I am ambitious, as well as persistent, and I am attracting many who share in this ambitious, if lofty, goal, so that what is being constructed, by no means intended to be an imposition of a reality on everyone, is a product of people who share this level of commitment to creating a world we imagine for ourselves. And yet, I feel everything is exactly the way it has to be.

A proposal of a new paradigm, where, for example, there is nothing "wrong" or "right," calling in my thesis for a radical reinvention of language and government structures to reflect this statement.

Also, a study to discover how accurately the moral majority portrayed in the media represents an actual demographic.

LIFE

"Life," by Decio Pignari, conveys, perhaps, my favorite idea: compression and combustion (as creation), expressing concepts such as oneness and compression, while achieving simultaneously an image of evolution. Like the title of this zine, "Life" seems to operate intuitively as an asemic poem, being the thing itself that it wants to express. It conveys even more when, appropriately as a cinepoem, it is played as film reel in which the fundamental principles, the phonemes (the linguistic or fundamental one-syllable human sounds which are known as letters in written form) join together in a procession, to form one unit (word), and conveys many ideas in that central condensed byte of information. As theorists and authors such as C.G. Jung, James Joyce, and Joseph Campbell have indicated, definitely influenced by Biblical and other mythical imagery, a word, as a symbol, is the thing itself. Within its form is its concentrated essence, which it may at any time choose to leak out, thereby manifesting itself in the material world.

A Guiding Principle

Accurate information begins with a question, rather than a statement.

We can say this because a statement reinforces an existing belief and the only way beyond it is to look at it differently, from another perspective, which is why we question.

From the question comes a hypothesis as we gather information and appreciation for what we're studying. The goal is maximum appreciation, maximum analysis and maximum willingness to adjust our view in light of what is discovered in that awareness.

Further, through dialog--discussing and analyzing ideas in a nonconfrontational way, presented with trusted others--we work at seeing things from other perspectives that we could not have considered ourselves before due to the limits of subjectivity.

For instance, a paper topic may resemble the following.

paper topic:

violence in media: mass effect on society (all age groups): desensitization? intention? who's behind it?

First of all, if such a question is to be proposed as a topic to explore by the group in consideration for publication, I would suggest that the question must first be asked, "Is this a question worth exploring?" This is not to say we instantly should dismiss any proposed topic; to the contrary, appropriate consideration should be taken to determine factors such as whether the topic agrees with the intentions of the publication, and whether the available evidence on the subject could generate a thesis which would agree with the publication's theme and general purpose.

After these considerations have been made, the group would discuss the above sample topic. In this scenario, one must be careful with the question, "desensitization," since it is one that appears to be leading one to a conclusion, promoting bias. However, if one is willing to accept an alternate conclusion, and keep the process of discovery open-ended until adequate information is received that properly evaluates both or more possibilities, the question can be reasonably answered. Perhaps "desensitization" could be rethought and replaced with a word that would answer this question without promoting bias. Answering a question is the intention of this group; answering questions from a precept, bias, or any other motive than to discover the essential thing itself, will not yield the results we intend to grasp. I am, so far, encouraging the observance of a subject-object continuum, where all viewpoints are valid, though objective information may be separated from subjective experience and exposed as artificial and problematic.

The Ax Handle Story

". . .by living with them on a daily basis, I was continually struck by their profound practicality. They did not talk of doing things; they did them. One day I was walking in the forest with a man named Rafael. I mentioned that I needed a new handle for my ax. He stopped in his tracks, saying, 'ah yes,' and used his machete to cut a little hardwood tree a few steps off the path. Then he carved an impeccable handle that was to last longer than the ax itself. He spent about twenty minutes doing the bulk of the work right there in the forest and an additional twenty minutes at home doing the adjustments. Perfect work, carried out by eye alone. Up until then, I had always thought that ax handles came from hardware stores."-Jeremy Narby, The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge