Akbar’s Maxim – A genuine philosophical truth.

Posted by on May 28, 2009 in Akbar Lightning, Laws, Philosophy

5nhdutffwnumix6wxdhvuyxno1_500

Dear Globatron readers,  After many many months of tirelessly (or tiresomely) engaging in a discussion of truth, ideals, philosophy, art, etc. I have stumbled upon a most extraordinary insight.  This very well could be the most important thing I’ve ever done with my life!  I owe some thanks to Frank R., who has been engaged with me in a debate over censorship.  It was in trying to understand that mysterious unknown bond that connected us in conflict that my mind revealed for me, just today, what I can only call a revelation, a genuine liberating idea that is truthful and powerful in its implications.  Prepare yourself for a whole new way of seeing the world, brought to you from the thunder and tumult of Globatron, the Akbar Lightning strikes!

Akbar’s Maxim –

When two people are engaged in a debate there are only two possible truths.  One, there is a solution  to the problem or two, there is not.  If there is a solution then the two people are joined in their desire for it and are thus allies, and if there is no solution the two people are joined by their suffering from the problem.

Akbar’s Maxim (long version) –  When two entities are engaged in a debate or conflict there are only two possible truths.  One, there is a solution to the problem.  If this is the case, the two entities share a desire for that solution and are therefore allies, as the solution would solve that which brings them together, which is the problem, thus setting them free, liberating them in how they perceive the other.  Two, it is possible there is no solution to their problem.  In this case, the more difficult one to discern, each party is common to one another in that they suffer from the problem, from an internal force to which there is no end.  In this way they are the same, and that sameness is directly tied to the unsolvable problem that they are fixated upon.

Implications are obvious.  When engaged in a debate it is best to assume that the other party is your ally, because like it or not you share a desire for a solution or you share a tragic fate of being attached to a problem for which there is no solution.  All debate therefore is a mirror into which you shall look if you wish to see yourself.  If you wish therefore to love yourself, you ought love those who face you in that mirror.  This is hard, but it is the truth, and the truth shall set you free.  (that last bit is a bit of a cut and paste idea).

Lastly, I have been thinking lately of the ease with which people talk about the elusive nature of truth, and I thought is it not convenient that we all think that?  Is it not convenient that human beings see the truth as something so vastly out of their reach, and I thought what if we changed, by a matter of choice, how we talked about truth, by at least being open to the possibility that the very attitude with which we approach it might nurture the difficulty we find in attaining it.  Is it not possible that by changing our attitude about the truth, that by assuming truth to be ubiquitous and glorious and liberating and lovely and wonderful and exhilerating and in every little action of my choice vs. fate-filled fingers and toes, that this action might shake it free from the high branches and allow us to taste it, to share it, to revel in it, to live free from the shadow of that kind of skepticism that insists we remain forever apart from one another.

I present my Maxim to your scrutiny Globatron community.  I don’t see any other way, that for two people to engage around a problem, it must have within it something they share or wish to share.  Every argument over this Maxim will be replete with its own echoes.  I want to thank the planet of Globatron, its website, the university, and its founder and acting God, all hail Globatron! for granting me this garden whereby I might discover such things in the freedom that it affords.

Akbar Lightning

Share

7 Comments

  1. globatron
    May 28, 2009

    I’ll go first. I hope others will follow. I agree with you. Imagine that. I especially love your new writing style too.

    I think that this is a great point too as it seems to have eluded many, me included, in many of the debates on this site.

    Through debate we are looking at a mirror image of ourselves either way, pro or con. So to approach a debate without having love for one’s self might be an issue many approach debates with.

    I’m glad you illuminated this as I will try and remember this when looking into the mirror of debate. I might not agree but I’m looking at the exact opposite image of myself and how could I not but love that image?

    I also think this has implications outside of globatron, obviously, and can and should be applied to our democracy. We so often categorize the opposing side as the other or have a tendency to demonize them. Both parties are guilty of this. It’d be best to come at it, as you suggest from a place of love and understanding. I believe our founding fathers understood this most and I believe that’s why they were able to write such declarative documents in such a short period of time.

    The last bit about truth is quite a challenge. But after reading this simple but profound maxim that you have presented I think possibly you might be onto something there too. Maybe it is attainable. I might need to see Star Trek though, to fully understand your present optimism.

    Reply
  2. Globatron
    May 28, 2009

    I forgot to mention, nice photo. Who is that good looking ski masked man with three eyes and two mouths?

    Visit http://www.globatron.tumblr.com for more pics folks. It’s a daily obsession now.

    Reply
  3. Akbar Lightning
    May 28, 2009

    That good looking man in the ski mask is Globatron, and his daily pics can be seen on the lower right side of Globatron every day. He does not know it yet, but a few weeks ago I set a spell on him, the Narcissus spell, and under it he must take images of himself every day, here’s how i made the potion.

    The Narcissus spell

    Take large wooden bowl.

    put in 1 pinch of extracted cancerous cells
    throw in Willem Defoe’s detached testicles, no scrotum.
    throw in one art law, two if you wish to make the spell last forever.
    3 teaspoons of university of Iowa art faculty urine
    1 square inch of fine artist’s linen
    and of course, an eye of newt

    mix together, dry and crush into a powder, then toss into the air on a dry cool day saying the name of the person who you wish to enchant.

    The only remedy for the Narcissus spell is a relativity spell, but I will let Globatron look for that himself, if he can ever tear himself away from the screen.

    HA HAH HAHHAHH HAHAHA HHAAAA! (evil laugh)

    Akbar Lightning strikes again

    Reply
  4. t
    June 3, 2009

    Mr. Lightning,

    I would like to add, or subtract, that the mirror image idea, while lovely and lively, only applies to opposite positions, which are rare. Or not rare. See, the mirror idea is causing me to write opposites. Or samesites. My point is that people can debate from different angles, not directly opposite. So maybe some sort of distorted masked face, with slices and inverse bulges would, maybe, be closer to the mark. Or further away. Depending on which side you’re on. This is where one of those clown mirrors that distorts everything would come in real handy.

    t

    Reply
  5. Akbar Lightning
    June 3, 2009

    yo t, that is exactly the point, that the opposition is an impermanent state. the overarching truth is unavailable to those engaged in the debate, so the position, the angles, are not something you can really argue about, since you only have access to the one thing, which is the tension.

    in other words, there is no difference between an opposite angle, and a tangential angle, in terms of the relational importance of the concept. it is inevitable, if the people are passionate about the debate that the angles would become more perpendicular to the concept, that they would face each other squarely. otherwise, the person engaged with who becomes more and more acute or obtuse would be merely distracting his opponent, and that is not really a debate, it is a manipulation.

    in this way i might have discovered another maxim, that all true debate requires the openness to being wrong. feel me? if one runs from the mirror, in order to remain at obscure angles, then one has not really decided to be engaged, and therefore is not willing to put up their idea to the test.

    akbar

    Reply
  6. t
    June 3, 2009

    Mr. Lightning,

    Well put. I couldn’t agree less perpendicularly. At least not without some peyote button soup. Thanks.

    Reply
  7. Akbar Lightning
    June 3, 2009

    wow, agreement t! what a wonderful rarity.

    it was good for me too, clarifying. so thanks back at ya, for giving the idea some thought.

    akbar the pleased

    Reply

Leave a Reply