Materialist

Image

Since the dawn of the civilised man we can date “love” back throughout history and investigate the claim to our obsessions we have with owning more than we need too.

In today’s Elysium reading we are going to explore marriage, the concept of love and the birth of materialism.

Before you read on, there were versions of me (CDY 3.0 and before – past mental lives of the current life I’m breathing) I was under the spell of materialism along with a typical beta-approach to ownership, a dissatisfied version of love and jealous right down to every bone… and yes, I was also deeply insecure.

I bring this up now as you read to make sense of what I uncovered to go from someone like that, to someone completely free in spirit and being.

My highest value with my life priority scale is that of human expression. It is important for me to express the curious nature of ideology that labour in extreme progressive mental and physical stimuli benefiting my overall wellbeing and passion for life.

To start off, I wanted to explore love through a few different yet practical means.

On one, chemical. The potent concoction that our hormones produce all the necessary ingredients so that we can excel the cell’s one true goal, to reproduce and duplicate.

With the help of the brain and sacred geometry. The very patterns we find in all of creative nature, our love is leveraged by the utility of our brains. The attraction model of our brains are there to identify the ‘golden circle’ from physical to mental.

Sacred Geometry is the art of patterns found in nature and all things creation. It is in these patterns that ancient and modern practices understand deeper underlying meanings of reality that allow a deeper introspective understanding then the 3-dimensional perspectives majority of humans have. The golden circle is the perfect ratio that our bodies identify in individuals that would match perfectly with us in geometric for love and reproduction.

We then fall in ‘love’ with mirrors of ourselves, and yet it’s not always a direct reflective mirror. Much like The Mirror of Erised out of Harry Potter, often what we see in the mirror, is not necessarily real, but rather, something we may deeply long for within ourselves.

The mainstream idea of love has also passed down onto us through generational lineage dating back to the dawn of civilisation. The very origin story we could call it.

This involves unity, matrimony and the idea of title deeds.

Many people would think that marriage had been invented for the unity of love but that is not true at all.

From our agricultural roots and need to expand into civilisation, our expansion demanded a way to to collect and pass down assets and various goods. The birth of the overconsuming-materialist would have occurred here.

Materialist: a person who considers material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.

History tells us that the first instance of recorded marriage dated as far back as 2350 B.C. When we weave through the timeline of human life on this planet, this was not long ago at all.

Prior to this era, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements.

And as our tribal collective grew into towns and cities, the need for social evolution was a necessary evolution for sustainability of this particular and strange direction of evolution.

One of the few reasonings to why our ancestors invented marriage, was simply to bind women to men and therefore guaranteeing the biological heirs to men.

These days we still carry traditions across, though fathers then would ‘walk down the isle’ and say: “I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring.”

And a woman’s destiny was set in stone, apparently.

Now this Elysium Post isn’t about what should be right or wrong, but the human condition at it’s very core and the miss-understood conception of love.

Why humans evolved to be like this and what were the underlying reasonings that stemmed from deeper internal issues in which majority of men had to face, and now, through the extreme progressive levels of consumption and marketing targeting men and women on deeper emotional levels for fulfilment (looks, needs, security).

See women (beings of emotion), to be told to be married and driven to remove individualism and their ability of choice, birthed from one trauma into a new one that the price of freedom attached a price tag within the “consumerism” age, from one prison into another, I because we have let the ‘Beta’ logic run rampart through the hierarchy of governing forces that have allowed ‘Alpha’ privileges to men whom happened to have concerning desires.

Our history has caused our culture to take these hits as they come, and our culture to “sweep” them under the rug, while men throughout history in ‘elite’ positions have enjoyed lifestyle opportunities without the ‘knowing’ of the detrimental effects their actions would have impacted upon their fellow humans.

A hierarchy of status that fed desire first, with bottomless stomachs. Now we are living in a time where stomachs are becoming full and stretched, and still dissatisfaction rans rampant.

This is what I want to explore here. From here on these are my thoughts about how I see the past and my theory, ideas and curiosity to why and how we got this way and why even to this day, these issues are still occurring.

We as humans have convinced ourselves that a ‘mediocre love’ has become a far better alternative, to settle with than experiencing any unfamiliar setting that challenge our paradigms as these beliefs are rooted deeply with a history that do not support an individual’s highest expression, yet highlighting deep insecurities. The same insecurities that society can capitalise on.

For us to take the best out of what we can get, to conform and fit in with outdated social collective acceptance and become in denial to our lack within ourselves..

We turn away from statistic and science and we try to keep our model of love alive even at the cost of our own dreams and finite time we spend within this world… all simply to not lose ‘that security’ we’ve been dared to believe a lover provides, and our economy creates comfort.

The comfier your death bed, the cushier your life.

Our lack of self-love, our insecurities through such ‘Beta’ behaviour, and our obsession with materialism are all reasons behind our ‘love-suppression.’

A materialist is rooted in, and engrained into every individual born into our modern culture. The archetype is filled with promise of security within collection and ownership and this (not being a true natural trait of human existence) is why I believe where the accepted stem of a fallen or ‘less-than’ idea of love situates from.

In order to start establishing foundation to my point, we must go back before civilisation and we must theorise and explore how humans conducted themselves prior to the westernised-economic influence upon mankind.

Most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements.

Now we need to observe the nature of jealousy and insecurity.

If you lived in an era where ownership did not exist then the idea of security couldn’t either.

To live in a time where what you earned was shared with others, knowing that when you were in need, the same would be provided back for you… This was all there was.

Tribal mentality is that of one.

There would have been no ownership of one person belonging to just one person. The idea of belonging would not have existed.

In fact in culture that such behaviour did not exist, sacred geometry of concoction-made ‘love’ would have pregnant women not only make love with the father of their children, but with the men who possessed other traits, hobbies, skills, a belief that the baby would inherit these gifts too.

Strange right? Imagine sleeping with your partner’s best friend because he could build a house, or was tech-savvy.

As bizarre as that may have seemed, the contrary can be said about the chains that citied such security at the cost of millions of lives and having our paths paved towards the privilege in finding ourselves reading this via the comfort of our locations.

Is it realistic to expect to trade such comfort? Of course not, yet it hovers over the entire collective, whether we shine a light on it or not.

If we were to take away all of today’s conditional traits stemming around materialism, removed the idea of jealousy because belonging and consuming was no longer a drive buried within the human mind, we would see that people are truly equal in being, extensions of our minds on different journeys, on different experiences.

The idea of love would still apply heavily on chemical-reaction, attraction to the golden ratio. Mother nature’s sacred geometry patterning right down to the ideal mate to effectively reproduce with.

The golden spiral is a pattern created based on the concept of the golden ratio—a universal law that represents the “ideal” in all forms of life and matter. In fact, it’s often cited as an example of the connection between the laws of mathematics and the structure of living things.

It was not because of social status, or ownership towards a woman (or man) that you attracted towards you, mostly from a ‘lack-of within,’ rather than the fulfilling promises Disney fantasy gave us convincing we are all deserving of of this very simple-dimensional love.

Love is actually beyond that of the fantasy.

Through my interest on the human psyche and my development as an individual, I have learned when one does not know what they don’t know, their idea of the topic is compartmentalised from ‘something they don’t understand’ into ‘something understood through influence’, (mostly by the outlet an individual trusts) they don’t need to apply any further thought to this.

“Love is everything,” says the one who struggles to love self.

“Money will make me fulfilled,” says the unsatisfied consumer who never has enough.

“Status will fulfil my destiny,” says the traumatised life who must validate their existence.

We can conceptualise our ideas of things we don’t understand and see them as truths from the perception of our collected experience.

To better understand how this perception-conception works here’s a relative example:

Have you ever read a book, and when you went back to read it again a few years later, you see deeper meaning you never understood before, simply because you were not the person you were then? Yep, same thing.

I believe to have a better understanding of love, we need to let go three influential archetypes that have influenced our sociology beings of modern times.

  • The materialist (the idea of ownership in wealth and people),
  • The outdated paradigms (Our traditions and where they stemmed from, the creation and history of these rituals and why),
  • and our disconnect to our human bodily function. This one is the deepest of challenge for people. It is the refusal that a chemical concoction can not be the reason alone that we “love.”

And I believe they are right, to an extent. Bodily influence through hormones and reproduction is beyond our conscious understanding. The same can be said with our will to survive if we are in danger, or the body’s natural healing capacity when the skin is cut.

Why would the chemical structure of “love” not also be a valid reasoning for survival?

I believe love is definitely beyond. I believe that the universe exists because love happened, a mixture of chemical-concoction and a result of a deeper much grander love that is beyond lack, how come something so infinite in size ever experience lack?

These are concepts of belief that I could be completely wrong on, however I see the expectation of love has been washed down and exchanged in value due to our economical gain. For the price of rapid civilisation came at the expense of the human condition in all of its true rawness.

Love to me is grander. It is beyond the individual ownership and reserved only in the unity of two people, or closest friends and family. Love is in the moment. It is an expression and reaction of all your human gifts free from idea and thought of influence.

When one is completely at peace with their body love is revealed, when one has no voice in their head, love is being. When one has completely let go of consumerism and the slavery effects upon the mind, love is free. Completely letting go of a false claim to security in which society has sold to us over and over again, equals the ability for love expansion.

All that is left is love for everything. When you can love the murderer, the politician, the betrayer, the hurtful, the beautiful, the differences, the curiosity, the beliefs, the damage, the destruction, the peace, the growth, all parts of the human and planetary psyche… These loves stem from the collective entanglement that is the result of this ecological disaster in which the human condition is weaved through… When we are capable of this, then one can truly experience love.

Love as non-attachment, not detachment.

The idea of having no attachment to anything and in turn being able to give more than ever before.

Life is but a constant conundrum, in that the more we focus on something, the more we get and the more it shows up.

The more we don’t want, the more it keeps coming back.

The more we detach, the more we get to give.

The more we stay as we are, the more life always looks and feels the same.

There’s a secret to living in this methodology, but it comes at the cost of letting go of everything you ever needed to know. I love so extremely deeply in moments, for myself, that the complete freedom of moments allow my deepest expressions to be shared with my environment, the person I share it with in that moment in time.

I cannot see people as property, whether lover or child, or even pets for that matter. My cat can move on from my home and live somewhere else if that was it’s choice. I love my cat, I do not own my cat.

To love my cat and own it, provides me with the falsehood that I must keep it inside to extend it’s mortality, or force it to be with me when I am in need, or follow my rules and expectations under my roof.

Love is therefore conditional, because we choose to want the pet when we lack something, and we crave to be loved when we think we are in lack. But these loves show up to reflect based on a lack. It’s in the abundant freedom of self-love do we then receive love in ways that we cannot fathom, or give love in ways that unless others share the same freedom of love, will never truly be felt at the capacity it captures in a single, shared, silent moment.

In order to stretch beyond the current paradigm of love, we have to understand that when we call it unconditional love, we are still treating it with condition.

I cannot see a single-linear base level direction for my life to go down with through influence and expectation of a poor history, therefore I cannot conditionally love due to expectation. Nor do I want too.

The letting go of the materialist has allowed interdimensional transformation as follows;

I have made millions of dollars in hundreds of different ways only to give it all back to the world.

I have created families with thousands of women and men only to watch collective progression higher than my living.

I have access to the entire world because none of this 3-dimensional experience ever belongs to me.

These are all realities that have unfolded already in moments that head in different directions, and I have zero desire for any of them.

The complete detachment of the materialist in all of its essence, readily available for anyone who is ready to let go and let be.

Welcome to the transcendence of love.