Royalty's right to rule

What was the purpose of monarchy?  

In the greater economy of life 

which economy is obscured from all some of the time

and most, all of the time, 

in that greater (greatest being too presumptuous a word) economy of all,

with an intricacy and depth that modern physics only rarely even glimpses at the physical level, 

what purpose does inherited social position and political power play?

Jan Cox did not specifically mention this. As with most of the posts to this blog, meant to cast more attention on this 20th century spiritual teacher, the rationale is that he demonstrated and bid his students,

think fresh thoughts. 

Here is my latest attempt to think creatively:

And so here is a partial answer to the question, what is the purpose of monarchy.

At one time monarchy was an experiment on life's part to 

mechanically produce 

objectivity.

Royalty, occasionally, perhaps more often that other methods (in the past), produced people

who had nothing to hide, no bias to obscure, 

and were supremely confident of their right to lead.

Their swords cut clean.

The bravery of past kings is astonishing. Often it seems medieval kings barely passed on their genes when they died in some poorly thought out but incredibly brave military skirmish.

Now after some evolutionary twirls, this purpose is mainly irrelevant, the survival of mankind being less assured by physical leadership, than that of other human realms.

Objectivity was, it is perhaps unnecessary to say to those who have studied the writing of Jan Cox, cannot BE mechanically produced. One assumes this was always true, so life's experiments in this regard are --- instructive. 

Certainly though the landscape, and meaning of kingship, external and internal, has shifted, over millennia. 

Words We Need

What is the opposite of the word ventriloquist.  Here is a definition of ventriloquist:

"The art or practice of speaking without moving lips so that the voice seems to be coming from somewhere else."

So my thought is, what would be a word for the situation where speech comes from all around a person, but appears to originate with the person with their mouth open.

Hmm, some phrases come to mind, "human history," the rational mind," "the verbal mind", "the ordinary mind," but a word, which means the opposite of ventriloquism...."I" would be a one letter word which might do the job. Still an open case though....

Words and worlds

Again the world sees straight in your face evidence of the nature of human beings and refuses to draw the obvious conclusions. The evidence is not just the accounts of the miners in their underground tomb; most natural disasters present stories of heroism, of extraordinary courage and devotion. What we see is people feeling and acting on their unity. The obvious physical separation of  human bodies deflects from the reality than human minds are not separate. The mechanical, rational part of the human mind is not completely separate from the minds of other people.The potential for a separate, evolved human mind exists,(as Jan Cox outlined in his work and books)  but the reality of the contemporary human condition shows itself on a broad scale during disasters. Of course it is safe enough for the endurance of the mechanical growth of humanity to allow these glimpses. For what follows such events; words. Words: guaranteed to make you forget what you saw, what you experienced. The miners made an agreement when they were together, alone. They would share equally in any profits from the accounts of their stories. How wonderful is that, and how sure to ensure they forget the nightmare of unity. 

The Brevity of Bede

Historians refer to the gloomy dark ages, and cite the scholar and monk, we now call the Venerable Bede, as an example.  Bede died in 735 AD, and among his memorable word pictures is that of a bird flying through a feast hall, the bird enters and exits the light, from the night, back into the night,  and so, is the point, man's life is comparably short. And Peter Quennell cites this as an example of the pessimism of that era. 

And with Quennell we see the extent that reality can be sidelined. To contemplate reality is joyous.  Infinities are infinities-the gulf of dark surrounding man is not diminished because we have electric lights and walls of books; the glut of knowledge we have at our disposal does not alter the proportions of light and the surrounding  unknown. Our basic situation is a feather's weight different from that Bede drew. The brevity that was the soul of Bede, is not historical, that span is the human.

Statute of Imitations

What google search engines can't find, is anything really original.  The words that compose a search string, must be phrases that others have used. By definition, that which someone else has already said.  The whole weight of the internet, the stricture, for instance, at wikipedia that eyewitness testimony is not a  valid citation, favors the hackneyed.  Yet it is not only philosophers like Jan Cox, putting fresh thought at the center of mystical technique, who stressed originality as a critical method.  Artists, writers, scientists, all depend on the energy and glitter of fresh thought. Jan Cox just made originality an accessible means of real effort at the personal level.  The internet is the past. You really cannot leverage any change, without bouncing off the past, at least. But know it for what it is --- and remember the currency of human thought is repetition. The web is yesterday, the web is for the masses. There is no statute of limitations on imitation,  the hackneyed, the trite, --- and this for good reasons ---, and yet for some, real breath, of molecules with a chemical signature unrecognized by ordinary textbooks, is strengthened by an insistence on the freshly ..... 

Putting Descartes before the thought

That Rene Descartes, what a slacker, and inventing a whole mathematical system, does not mitigate his failure of nerve at the really important point.

His famous skepticism,is still a useful tool, but his conclusion, is, like all conclusions, fatal to real progress. Recall that Descartes wondered, how can I determine reliable knowledge, and he decided to doubt everything he could.  The story we know is that he found one undeniable thought; "I think, therefore I am."

This was the exact point at which Descartes could have leveraged his consciousness into an area where vision was possible, the glints we all live with, could have been sustained a bit longer, but with his motto, I think therefore I am, he put a skull and crossbones sign, right at the mental geographical point where in fact, any sign should read: "come on in, the water's glorious."

Because you have to keep pushing, and the glimpse that our verbal apparatus is but a mechanical contraption, not even designed to pursue knowledge, but rather just rearrange the external world, is a good step. But it was foreclosed to Descartes, who put himself, right in the way of a clear view.  He trusted in words, when he was close to getting beyond them.

The mind, the ordinary mind, in the presentation Jan Cox used once, is a burglar, who, when the householder is roused to investigate a break-in, the burglar then puts his arm around the shoulders of the householder and says, "where, we'll find him, where could he be?" 

A resolute skepticism is a useful tool, take a thought, any thought that crosses your attention, say a thought like:" I love you, Tom Kelly." There is a landscape beyond the words, you have to try to look through the sentence train.

I think therefore I am, how reliable is that? No "I", no "think", might have allowed a glimpse of "am," 

But not for Renny. He still gets a halo for the tools of skepticism though. And now that I put this together, what if, Descartes meant that sentence, dada, I am, as a joke. A joke he was sure the right people would get. After all, it is manifestly absurd, to someone advertising they will doubt everything.  Really, I think I just got the philosopher's joke. It's on me. 

Thoughts on viewing Newton's Royal Society portrait

Words are just wigs, really. Man made approximations, enhancements, of reality, which do not bear close inspection, 

do not bear close inspection unless, your intent is to discover reality, regardless of what you find, 

reality, 

regardless 

of what you find