Love parallax

From Wikinormous

The ”love parallax” is an attempt to bring to light the comparative, competitive and judgmental societal structure most of us (?) are born into. I assume few would disagree that the world in its cultural, political and traditional strivings is exempt from duality. That is, we quickly conclude a yin and yang view that fits most aspects of our life. Good - bad, love - hate, winner - loser, black - white etc. But if ”they” have another method than ”we”, does that inescapably have to be better or worse? If pondered upon with distance, most would probably say, no, it is but ”another method”. One of infinitely many. Then that aught to suggest there is no ”duality” in anything, with proper distance or scope to it all. Yin and yang some say, is in fact not dual, but singular, again when ”looking” in another angle. Oneness is not really my point here but more a quantumness (though possibly the same thing?).


Love intervention

When love comes along we can´t talk of better or worse. Love is. It is a personal touch, the sublime, the beauty. We do have competitions in beauty and love in the form of beauty-contests and TV shows etc, but not love as in ”my love is better than yours”. This is the angle I´m aiming for. Love in numbers is not possible. – I like this better than that. Rightly so, but it is a personal choice, nothing you can force on to others. ”This” is potentially as likeable as ”that”. Since I believe, when push comes to shove, when ones life is on the edge, love is ”the absolute”, so should all human efforts be ”valued”. Our societies collectively and us individually in it must be treated with equally loving qualities. Collective method ”vs” individual is a given tough ”duel”. It shouldn't be though. Collective is not better than individual or vice versa. It is another level neither lower or higher. Collective solutions are in fact not collectivism by nature (collectivism, where the sum of all parts rank higher than the parts).

I can´t deny the possibility to love worldly power and money. But again it stands in no contradiction to the one who loves solitary, owning only the clothes he wares. To be rich in money and pour gifts over loved ones never change the fundamentals. Likewise ”less rich” tokens of appreciation.

Love, sublimity and beauty, in the eyes of the beholder, is the love parallax. A healthy perspectivist tool. A tool or method you only can give yourself. The love parallax is not meant to say we all shall cutely love one another, but to show we certainly can love in infinitely many ways and respectfully understand that love in every aspect of life, family, ideology, art or innovation never should be coerced.

Heir or dare

Can we only ”know what to love” in what we inherit? Is every generation bound to evolve its culture, world views or technical infrastructure they are born into? It is tough not to indeed, but bound? No. Not if you don´t want to. Not if you think out of the inheritance box. In Buckminster Fuller words; ”You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” This could be seen as to create something completely from a clean slate. Entirely other paradigm. Tabula rasa. The old model is not mandatory at all. If you don´t want it, or parts of it. We certainly don´t have to forget everything, that would be a waste of wisdom and knowledge. So then, why can´t all models coexist? Old systems in coexistence with new? Some small communities and other bigger ones. One family with other. Old couples and new couples. Basically that person and this ... If there is no judgment in what we chose to believe in, whom to love etc, then there is no contradiction in any type of communities or interrelation we create. A 1400 century type of kingdom can coexist with a ”republic anno 2008” or a smaller community, a family etc. Free will is not total anarchy (a too quick assumption) if it isn't what you want. We could therefore add anarchistic groups in coexistence with above, as long as we give ourselves and everybody else the right to chose.

If we equal strength with beauty for a moment .. One beauty is not less beautiful than a group of beauties. Strength can take form in micro scale as well as a macro.

Laws outlawed by nature

No idea, theorem or theory is more vage than that claimed to be a law. If a theory or law has a ”natural” strength against critique and endures many years of discourse and innovation, does not de facto make it more rigid than any other idea. It is merely an issue of time, trends of human thought stuck or even purposefully hindered in its processes. Development is not to walk yesterdays paths, but to find new.

No law has ever withstood its own revisions. Laws are therefore a false notion and futile for means of evolution, ideology or ruling in any type of venture. This does not suggest that every idea or concept is unworkable, indeed the contrary, but as we say, they are bound to a specific context, culture and tradition. But contexts themselves are weaves of ideas and thought patterns and likewise up for modification. So ’everything is possible’ is not just a cute phrase, but the key to our survival, in small as well as grand scale.

We are after all not human havings, but beings. That's a verb for ideas, not stagnant position.

”This philosophy [technical philosophy] derives its inspiration from science in several different ways. Take first its best aspect, as developed by Dewey. He points out that scientific theories change from time to time, and that what recommends a theory is that it ”works”. When new phenomena are discovered, for which it no longer ”works”, it is discarded. A theory–so Dewey concludes–is a tool like another; it enables us to manipulate raw material. Like any other tool, it is judged good or bad by its efficiency in this manipulation, and like any other tool, it is good at one time and bad at another. While it is good it may be called ”true”, but this word must not be allowed its usual connotations. Dewey prefers the phrase ”warranted assertibility” to the word ”truth”.” Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, 1952 pg. 99

Judgement day

My personal judgement I dare say, is that we are very little leaning towards such love parallax existence. In fact it seems to be heading an ”opposite” when experiencing how policies and global solutions are being drafted and implemented. Are we all behind these trends wholeheartedly? Are these methods something that speaks to us as if we spoke them ourselves? Can we sense a love relationship to society and the statist building so as to continue as a marriage?

I think many would start to consider a divorce. I am. The ”judgement” then, is still only to be done on yourself, nobody else.


Diversity is really our strength, not our weakness. War becomes less and less possible the more you see Individual beings in stead of groups, communities, ideologies or nations to represent them.

From essay ”Why democracy* never really was born ...”

<comments />