Dreams-of-gnosis

static/content/blog/dreams-of-gnosis/dreams-of-gnosis.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+---
+path: "/posts/dreams-of-gnosis"
+date: "2021-05-20T23:19:51.246Z"
+title: "Dreams Of Gnosis"
+author: "Max Fowler"
+type: "blog"
+image: ""
+draft: "true"
+description: "a poem about sovereignty and gnosis"
+note: "Max Fowler"
+---
+
+
+<div style="height:120px"></div>
+
+Sovereignty isn’t the same as individualism or as selfishness. 
+
+Sovereignty isn't about the nature of a decision that you make, it’s about the process through which the decision was arrived at.
+
+Body Sovereignty, means “my body my choice”. Body Sovereignty doesn’t say whether a person should or should not get an abortion, it says that they should be the one to decide.
+
+Body Sovereignty doesn’t say wether or not two people should have sex. It says that sex should take place without coercion. 
+
+Body Sovereignty doesn’t say whether or not someone should get a vaccine, it says that each person needs to make their own decision about what goes into their body. 
+
+Someone may choose to get a vaccine because they’ve read the science and they know that getting a vaccine will help protect the vulnerable, and they choose to get vaccinated not to protect themselves, but out of love and care for the world. Body Sovereignty doesn’t say that each person is an island. 
+
+It says someone should make that choice not because they feel they have no other choice, but because it is what they believe and choose based on their best understanding of the world. Epistemology and power are deeply entwined, and body sovereignty asks for an epistemology of the people. Some call it gnosis. Some call it citizen science. Ayurveda calls it “adyharpa”. Body Sovereignty doesn’t say don’t seek the opinions of experts, it says you must decide for yourself who to trust.
+
+Some people may argue that disease is so dangerous and harmful, that disease is a special case which is more important than some theoretical principle of sovereignty. That freedom and safety are an axis which we make compromises between. Other people will argue that “people are dumb” and we need experts to make decisions for them. 
+
+My view is that sovereignty is separate from an axis of freedom and safety. It is my experience in life that true respect for sovereignty even when you disagree actually leads to safety and connection at a deeper level. It was also the (continued) colonial violation of indigenous sovereignty that has led to genocide and so much destruction of the earth which we all depend on. It was also the religious missionary violation of sovereignty that justified so much harm under the guise of salvation. Every missionary believes their cause is worth the means at the time.
+
+The idea that even suggesting sovereignty is a good principle, may be seen as a dangerous perspective, points to the level of coercion that is accepted as normal in our society. Perhaps this is to be expected in a world where we see advertisements against our will on a regular basis, and where platforms like instagram have a business model that relies on changing people's behavior to give their attention and resources to the companies that pay them.
+
+Coercion and manipulation are deeply rooted in our culture (advertisements, police, data tracking, prisons, dark UX), but I’m not really sure we can dismantle the masters house with the masters tools. 
+
+I have a lot of friends who are anti-colonial and anti-capitalist, but somehow see vaccination, medicine, and the pharmaceutical companies as exceptions from these systems. To me this feels dissonant.  As though pfizer didn't have 109 billion in past settlement fees. 
+
+Given the long history of connection between religion and medicine in cultures all around the world, freedom of religion, and medical freedom, seem deeply entwined. Given that the world is inherently uncertain, at what point does forcing a medical perspective on someone else become a sort of religious missionary activity? And who gets to draw that line? Do we want to live in a world where white billionaires make those decisions for everyone? Even if you approve of their decisions this time, what seeds do we sew when we outsource those decisions to them? Will “experts” always have the experience of marginalized people in mind? Have they in the past?
+
+A part of me feels these edge cases where we want to make an exception and throw sovereignty away, are actually the most important to pay extra attention to, to bring about deeper change, which is why I write this. 
+
+With many questions, 
+
+
+M

static/content/blog/plurality/plurality.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ title: "Plurality"
 author: "Max Fowler"
 type: "blog"
 image: ""
-draft: "true:
+draft: "true"
 description: "an essay on scientism, body sovereigny, platform capitalism and plurality"
 note: "Max Fowler"
 ---