What “Off The Grid” Really Means

Maybe it ought to be obvious, but it just occurs to me, with startling force, that the best way to effect change in our government and its duplicitous, co-dependent relations with corrupt corporations and nations, would be for as many Americans as can willingly do so to begin the process of becoming as self-sufficient as possible, in as many ways as possible.

Currently, our dependency upon the daily augmented array of new must-have gadgetry from military-invested corporations like Sony, Microsoft, Apple, General Electric, and so many, many others (see Nick Turse’s book “The Complex”), or upon products of corporations exploiting cheap labor abroad, or upon companies exploiting South America and Africa (and the Middle East) for oil, is exactly what gives the incentive to our leadership to enter into dubious political and economic co-dependencies with the countries and companies involved. If we can find more ways to generate more of our own energy, avoid extra travel, buy fewer unnecessary products, maybe entertain ourselves by, for example, reading literature to each other, playing music for each other, or through enjoyable conversation, perhaps we can take some of the energy out of the machinery of exploitation currently in place globally.

Even Marvel comics is a Pentagon contractor! Also, Walt Disney and Columbia TriStar Films. GlaxoKleinSmith is a Pentagon contractor. If we can get more self-sufficient on our own health care, that might help steer our economic dependencies away from the military-industrial-congressional complex. Major processed food manufacturers (Sara Lee, Nestle, Kraft) have investments in the military industrial complex. If we can find more ways to eat whole foods, buy locally, even grow our own food, that might help.

I believe this concept is of inestimable power. In essence, it is the same principle used in walk-outs, civil disobedience, product boycotts, etc., to great effect. But what I’m talking about here is a more subtle, but much more powerful form of active change. There is no direct confrontation of police officers with wooden bullets and tasers, no direct challenge against insulated legislatures and corporations. Nevertheless, it directly impacts the machinery of the economy and directly steers that machinery to comply with the peoples’ will. Because of that, it’s more powerful than law. It’s our dependency upon the products of governments and companies that gives them authority and power in the first place — and as much as we are attached to those products, by precisely that amount are we controlled by them. This truly is, I feel certain, one of the most profound ways we individuals can quickly and positively impact the corrupt behavior of governments and companies.

While our country still has the affluence to exist in other than the survival state, we should use these means to effect change. Even though our American standard of living is in decline, and most of us must give most of our energy to paying for our needs, there are still actions we can take towards self-sufficiency. For other countries, like Burma, who are completely at the mercy of their elite governments and exploiters, it is too late. If Monsanto (and others) succeed in getting a “patent on life,” if water is privatized, if the “Bush Movement” succeeds in creating a truly, blatantly totalitarian state here in the US, then our options will be reduced to nil. Right now, we have the power because the Power Structure depends upon the energy we provide it through our money and faith.

Love Means Harmony

One of the challenges to modern industrial civilization has been how to determine (in the absence of so-called “conclusive” scientific evidence) whether a particular product or behavior of human beings is in fact detrimental to health and well-being. Often, there is no truly conclusive scientific evidence, especially with regard to the subtle. Results are subject to interpretation, interpretation subject to predisposition. Furthermore, the methods of rational argument can serve many masters. Principles of reason depend upon axioms, or accepted facts. The facts that determine the course of reason depend upon one’s point of view.

The answer is so simple that it escapes notice. But that doesn’t mean the answer is accepted or recognized as an answer, and there are many reasons for this.

The simple answer is, that if the product or behavior is not born of love, it is harmful.

So, how do we quantify this a little so that our stubborn, naturally self-serving mind can accept it, or even recognize it as having a reality apart from the appearance of pure, impractical ideology? I’ll use a personal experience as a starting point.

Today, while driving in to work, I was stopped at a traffic light and noticed the turn-signal of a local bus. The signal device was the type of LED array that’s frequently in use today on commercial vehicles as a turn-signal or break-light indicator. The quality of the blinking was, to my eye, distracting and somewhat unsettling. It would be analogous, I realized, to a person hitting me between the eyes at a regular frequency with a stick — not hard blows, of course, but noticeable enough to cause distraction and eventually create a sense of tension as the body begins to beg relief from a “mindless” sensory input. I say “mindless” because there was no principle to the blinking light, except as perceived within a very, very narrow context. It was blinking without regard to its environment, not aware at all. There was no effort to integrate this signal light with the human observer, except merely to proclaim its singular purpose, “This (vehicle) is turning right!”

In short, the turn signal was disturbing to my senses. Am I some kinda weeny or what? I don’t think so. It was not as if this was a major problem, at all. I could easily have simply ignored it, just as one normally does in one’s daily goings about in this busy world. Given the cacophony of the city streets, this was a subtle observation that could easily escape notice. But, is ignoring a subtle but disruptive sensory event enough to alchemize it’s effects into something innocuous, to say nothing of actually converting the experience into something comforting? This is actually a deep question, too deep for the scope of this article. So, suffice to say, that I think we find, just by the fact of how relaxing it is to visit the forest when one lives in the city, that in general individuals are distressed physically and mentally by sensory input that is not complimentary to the organic functioning of one’s body and beneficial to the mind’s capacity to appreciate order and purpose.

There’s a quote from a speech attributed to Chief Sealth (aka Chief Seattle), that was actually penned by a screenwriter in the sixties. Although it takes considerable license with the original speech (and here’s the most authentic version I could find of that: http://www.synaptic.bc.ca/ejournal/smith.htm), it does express the point I wish to make here rather well.

“The sight of your cities pains the eyes of the red man… There is no quiet place in the white man’s cities. No place to hear the unfurling of leaves in spring, or the rustle of an insect’s wings…

The clatter only seems to insult the ears. And what is there to life if a man cannot hear the lonely cry of the whippoorwill or the arguments of the frogs around a pond at night? …

The Indian prefers the soft sound of the wind darting over the face of a pond, and the smell of the wind itself, cleaned by a midday rain, or scented with the pinion pine.”

What I’d like to stress with this quote is that because we have become so accustomed to our “noisy lifestyle” we are less aware, perhaps, of how disturbing is the violent nature of energy flow associated with our “ways.” If you were to chart the energy patterns of our modern civilization and compare them to that of nature, it would look like a square compared to a circle. Or, perhaps a saw-tooth sine-wave, compared to the normal circular wave.

A dichotomy that, I think, helps illuminate the essential point here is that of violence versus salutary conduct. Violent behavior involves sudden, high-impact actions, without a flowing, sinusoidal motion*. Salutary actions, those which encourage natural processes, are much more evenly flowing, and tend to “add to” the sinusoidal movements of natural systems. In fact, they add to the wave, they do not subtract from it as would the harmful type of action described.

In other words, our modern idea of life, our present choices with regard to applications of science (i.e. the current technology), our social norms and customs, are in many cases not additive in nature, not supportive of natural energy flows, but rather compete and contradict them. In short, they are not loving, they are destructive.

Obviously, I’m not talking about everything we do. I’m no crank. This is about the subtler aspects of what we do, our use of words, our ways of treating each other, and very importantly the way one treats one’s own self. It’s about how we build our buildings, how we cut our streets, how we transport these bodies from place to place, how we walk, how we eat. It’s about not THAT we do these things, but HOW we do them. Do we do them with love and respect, with appreciation and gratitude towards life and the inexplicable majesty of the living world? Or, do we act without regard for the ways life’s gift is given to us?

This question has become fundamental to the present time. There is no way to proceed more harmoniously without close introspection on the part of the individual, and without open discourse in the public forum, as to whether we honor the nature of life through love or continue to pursue self-serving ideologies through aggressive denial — as if somehow we can chop out a section of the world within which our own ideal of an isolated palace of self-indulgence can be created.

There is no separation, at all. And the unity the mind can perceive, is a unity of its own making. True unity, true harmony, is beyond mental conception. Only love teaches us about that. And that’s beyond the capacity of words to elucidate. Nevertheless, I’ve found in the amazing words of Rumi, Hafiz, Jesus, and many great sages, some hints for myself as to the reality of love. Perhaps in such works there is expressed an actual promise, or at least a blueprint and a chart leading to a greater life for each, and consequently, for all, in time. If nothing else, it is, I believe, an excellent place to start toward love as the foundation of one’s action and perception. Ultimately, that is the only thing that could produce a world in which we find ourselves less in a position of exposure to products of industry and human endeavor that cause so much harm.

          
*It’s pertinent to this point that the sinusoidal motion is actually a “give-and-take” kind of movement. It’s exactly like the exercise “push-hands” used in Tai Chi to exemplify the ideal quality of the circular give and take of energy that must occur in a properly practiced Tai Chi exercise. You and your partner touch hands and the only rule is that you must never release that contact, whether you’re pushing, or being pushed. The result is a natural, smooth (non-disruptive) energy flow. Try it! You’ll be amazed by the experience.

(H)uman (R)ights (O)fficer (or, “HERO,” for short)

Every company should have an HRO. There needs to be an office that oversees employee complaints and employee welfare. Employees would be involved in its power-structure so that there could be no compromise that the employees were not willing to accept. Healthcare, chemicals, taxes, a constructive employee community, ergonomics and fitness, all of these would fall under the care of the office of the HRO. The HRO would prevent Management from getting top-heavy, and would keep the staff from becoming insensitive to the overall needs of the company or enterprise. Profit-sharing and other such investment-and-return scenarios would probably be a natural outcome of a balanced and effective HRO. The HRO would be responsible for converting companies patterned after totalitarian or dictatorial political structures into a constitutional republic (isn’t it amazing that in a constitutional republic we still run economics like we were living in a dictatorship or an empire?). This way there would be insurance of the company functioning as a conscious and pro-active whole, with all the parts constantly coming into agreement to create a marvelous synergy.

The HRO’s power-base would be the creation of agreement between Management and Staff.  In fact, the boundary between management and staff would be eliminated and all would be considered participants in the enterprise republic.  Management positions would be determined by election, the criteria of qualifications established by the HRO-facilitated constitutional compact.  The founders of the enterprise would release ownership and receive return-on-investment benefits similar to those which copyright holders receive, for a like period of time.  The founders could become part of the management-staff constituency, if qualified and if desired.  A good idea doesn’t make you a good boss.

There should be no law imposing this structure.  It would be something that willing companies would create for themselves, recognizing the inherent value of such arrangements.