Senaste inläggen

Av dennis hägglund - 26 januari 2009 03:20


If we accept that evolution is an upgrading process, what is it that is not always remaining the same? Simple forms and niches are joined by more complex ones. Is the diversity of life becoming more beautiful, more graceful, more precious? And if so, how do emotions fit into it? Do emotions rise throughout the years of evolution? Do we begin with simple emotions and evolve profound emotions? And finally, what is a profound emotion? Is it profound to be ecstatic one minute and furiously angry the next, or is there only one profound emotion, one emotion that is as highly evolved as it is possible to be in the present day?

There is something dead about authority, where we ask a question and it is answered. How can any question be answered? Isn't the answer always old? An answer is like killing the question. The question must live on. That is what a mind does, keeps the question alive. No one can answer a question seriously enough. All he can do is join in the questioning process.

Why do we ask questions? Is it because we are tired of them, wanting for someone to put an end to them, to put us out of our misery? Or because we are thrilled to have them? Is it possible to have answers that only add fuel to the questions? Is it tiresome when questions are too small, too simple, so that they actually need a lot of fuel? Is the obligation to make the question burn hotter or to get rid of it, replace it with an answer, something inert?

If we approach the question as the wonderful thing we have together, and the answer as more fuel added to the question, then we eliminate authority. I don't know and you don't know. We will ask together. We will not fall into the trap of trying to get rid of the question, of having someone pose as the one with the answer. What is an answer, if it is any good, but something that suits the present only for the moment, and soon suits only the past?

When we are addicted to verbalization we tend to think the question only makes us question while we are making a statement of it. When we don't hear the question any more it seems to be gone, but only blind acceptance of the answer can make the question stop questioning. The mind questions in total silence. It is what it loves to do. This is why we dream and even why we must dream. The mind is using the time while we are sleeping to nurture the questions it holds dear.

If we are clinging to answers, can anyone add fuel to our questions? Or are they destined to burn with a pale little pilot light until we die? Look how society imposes authorities who answer all our questions once and for all. "I believe in God...", "The soul continues to reincarnate until it becomes worthy...", "Making the world safe for democracy...", and so on. Why does someone want to answer the questions with finality? Is it that perception and questioning are the same thing, so that if you want to hide something you have to hide everything? If I wear the robes of a priest, I don't want you to see past the robes, and so I don't want you looking past the answers.

If you graduate from enough schooling, what have you become? Maybe you have become a priest. Then you get to wear the robes. But who have you become? It is all ritual. Education can not make you devout or holy or wise. So what the graduate has to do is keep everyone focused on his certificate, his hat, the robes, his title or whatever, and this is the same thing as answers. Jesus is the son of God. Krishna is God. And if you dispute it you will surely go to hell when you die. It is the same surface no one is permitted to look beyond as the robe or the degree. You agree Jesus is this and that the way you agree not to drive over the speed limit. You don't want that ominous apparition of the law in your rear view mirror.

There is no answer. It may seem that there is, but it is only that the question has become quite profound while we were distracted by robes and answers. We unveil our question and immediately it just isn't new and fresh enough for the real enthusiasts, those who stoked the fire rather than putting it out with answers.


The composition of the human mind is the composition of events. Evolution makes a mind that is undivided from evolution, but man, some thousands of years ago, diverged from this evolving way of living and began doing something else with the time between birth and death. As this diversion is not evolution it does not give the same passion to living as the natural path, and this is the mind's division. There is a mind hungering to evolve, and a mind hungering for the things man's diversion from the natural path can provide.

So there are two paths. The one gives us great passion for living on it, and the other gives us some satisfaction if we work hard enough at it. In the view of the first, the evolved mind, we are only made destitute by the second. What do we call the second path? It is "conditioned response", because truthfully we have to be conned into living on it, conned into giving up the original one. And of course conditioning is answering, keeping the evolving mind from getting involved and providing us with an unfavorable comparison. The Judeo-Christian ethic, for example, "God made man in his own image.". This means the other species are there to be used in sacrificial rites. Can this become a passion for life's diversity? No, but it can get you an excess of food and sex, which is comparative worth: I have more of this stuff than you. If we shut ourselves off from the diversity of evolving life, as human habitats and human behavior do, we have only comparison, where we compare what we have gained by our service to authority with what other people have gained by their service to authority, to judge our lives by.

So, back to building up our original question. What is the emotion of conditioned response? Let's say there is a profound emotion related to living in an evolving diversity as part of the evolving diversity. We'll call it 'ecstasy'. The conditioned life will never give us this emotion. Instead it will give us decaying emotion. We begin with thwarted ecstasy when we are infants, and even before we can speak this has decayed to greed and rivalry (because we have been kept away from life's wild diversity, which is the only thing that can exercise our evolved gifts of perception/emotion). Gradually we adopt all the usual emotions of vice: envy, avarice, jealousy, anger, pride, contempt, and so on. So now we have divided the mind in a more colorful way. We have a mind of ecstasy, and a mind of crumbling emotional stability. And these are both living in the same person, because he is still evolved even though he is not living like it.

Perception, then, is when the evolved mind is the only mind being engaged by something, the only mind in attendance to something. What is going on when people are in conflict? Look at it with conditioned response and you have all kinds of ideas of what is going on and what ought to be done about it, but perceive it with the evolving mind and it becomes something utterly different than anything the conditioned response could conceive of, and all the conceivable solutions are clearly serving only as more fuel for the conflict.

The conditioned response is that conflict should not be there. This is self-flattery: "We fooled everyone perfectly with our titles and robes and answers and now there should be order.". But conflict is like gravity. You can't stop it. Just bring any two objects near enough to each other and they will crash into each other. And the planet is always shrinking, isn't it? Everything gets closer every day. The new concept is "Embassies are nuclear weapons on potential enemy soil." A nuke in every embassy. Conflict obeys natural laws, not ideas. The big money rides on the waves of conflict; the big money is in arms. Hire a billion peacemakers and your investment in arms will still be a sure thing. Why are all those politicians grinning?

Looking closer at conflict, what do we see? It is everywhere. Reason, rational behavior, polite society, is all a sham. Where the conditioned response falls under the spell of the sham the perception finds the conflict. How is this? Let's say the policeman is looking at a citizen. His face and manner suggest that he approves of the citizen, but in fact he is angry because he has no really safe way to get highhanded with this citizen the way he wants to. He is tired of bullying backwards people; he lusts to bully anyone he is being paid to protect. He wants to make some conquests, not serve and protect. Perversion is the only real liberation. I could love this job if only...

The conditioned response doesn't see the anger because it is the anger. As we said earlier conditioned response means perpetual emotional decay. This is glandular, like fear which is adrenaline-related. It is very distracting. You can't sense anger if you have this hormonal cocktail in your blood, coursing through your brain and nervous system. The hormone is blindness to the sense. And this is one of the keys to fraud. Anyone can be secretly angry if the observer is also secretly angry. Only the pure mind, the mind which lives in one emotional sphere, can have the sense of the lower emotions, which is the ability to see past the mask of civility.

If emotions can be sensed, or if it is the function of the mind to sense emotions, then what is the evolution of emotions? Obviously it is not what people are doing on the path of progress and its conditioned responses. It is the ecstasy that is evolving, and that is somewhere else on Earth. That is somewhere away from people's control. When we find ecstasy, do we want it to be our own? I am ecstatic? Or, the bird is ecstatic, and the flower is ecstatic? Which is the happier discovery? Let us say the cosmos is ecstatic: is there any consummation more profound. We could not find the cosmos ecstatic unless we have ceased to be a thorn in its side, so maybe it would be far more gratifying to find ecstasy as a sense than as a hormonal cocktail coursing through the body. Something is evolved and still evolving, and that is a wonderful thing to find.

Love is when others are the point of being.

Av dennis hägglund - 20 januari 2009 03:04

 Conscious is a conditioned inadequacy of mental outlook and perspicacity. And those who condition us with this inadequacy from the moment we are born are themselves conditioned, so that they condition us out of the same inadequacy.

What do we mean by an inadequacy? It means there is a reality, which is profoundly complex, having evolved in an infinite cosmos for nearly four billion years, and anything to do with this reality in realistic terms simply overwhelms the conscious. The conscious rebels, saying that this can't be right; it can't be this hard to see.

And you are now old enough to be conditioning others. How do you do it? Most of thinking is devoted to what to say to someone, and how to control your voice and expression so that the words are convincing, 'suspending disbelief' as the actors call it. This produces an alternate you for the person you are talking to. He meets, not you, but this character you have been inventing in your thoughts. And like any professional actor, you yourself are convinced that this character who is substituting for the real you is a good imitation of a living human being. This is the conditioned response! A living human being is an amount of encounter the conscious would find overwhelming. The conscious is put utterly out of its depth as it relates to meeting the real human being. A real person, your real self for example, can not be portrayed.

So the conscious is out of its depth in a real relationship or in a relationship with a real person, but it is not conscious of this discrepancy between what it is imitating and what is a real person. Look at the logic, the math, of it. People older than you have conditioned you. And now you are conditioning people. When these older people conditioned you they conditioned you to accept the invented characters as them, which is to say as real people. It is THESE "real people" you are contriving an imitation of for others to meet! These contrived people, these images you have had forced upon you since birth, are the whole population of your past, your memory and your experience. They are the sum population of conscious.

You think to make an image that other people will take for a real person, but your estimate of the real person is an image in the first place. The experience of images is an insulated and isolated mental compartment which assumes itself to be the sum of pertinent reality, and when you contrive to invent a person to pose as you are contriving to invent a pose to pose as, not a person. A person is something outside this insulated space, in the unconscious and the subconscious, things of mind that can't be conditioned, things waiting to be restored like your program files if you recognize that you have acquired a bug in your system.

Conscious can not exist in a real world. Anything that overwhelms the conscious by being too complex, to profound, in short too real, has to be pushed aside by conscious. It has to resist the urge to delve deeper when presented with the challenge. Realistic depth has no place in conscious, just like the latest version of Windows has no place in the first hard drive, when a megabyte seemed science fiction. Watch the conscious and you see that it can't be rushed, and so it can't get anywhere if the going is complicated. Reality has to be processed instantly. It can't take time. And the mind that does not take time is something the conscious has deposed, making it the subconscious and the unconscious.

In effect, then, conditioning, which is when we presume to be discovering the human world as the invented characters people think up to substitute in our experience for the scoundrels they have become, is a kind of sedative like the leaves the koala bear and the tree sloth eat. If you free yourself of the conditioning you wake up and process everything instantly, and your life resumes where it left off sometime in childhood.


To the conscious self (self being the illusion that conscious has real experience and therefore the experiencer or accumulator of the experience is a real creature or entity) man is something that was made by the man-made environment, made by progress. Man didn't exist before man had complex tools. But to the mind man has nearly four billion years of that living accumulating depth we have learned to call evolution. And this man of the mind has far more to be doing than the man of the conscious experience.

The sloth that is the essence of conscious has its reflection in everything else. Where man is a contrived or conditioned image all natural and wild species have no such image, and so they are nobodies in the conscious perspective. This means the conscious self can perpetrate any evil against these other species and it doesn't count, but not so according to the mind and its complete grasp of reality. So the conscious self does this, for example sacrifice the lamb on the altar to gain God's favor, and the mind does that, for example whack Abel with a big sharp hunk of flint fifty times. Then the conscious has a conniption fit. This is "obviously wrong": The bad boy has slain the good boy. God is asleep. We must all pray louder!

So the world fills up with wrongs that must be righted, and as long as conscious is substituting for mind these wrongs can only accumulate helplessly at an accelerating rate.

In the mind's perspective, which is in reality, man is as fond of any species as he is of man. Evolution is a process of diversification. Diversification is the first solution to the first problem. The first problem is being simple. How does one become complex? One diversifies! One generates estrangements! You are different; I don't get you so easily. Is the little bird neurotic? No. It merely lives faster! It experiences more hours per day than a larger bird, and a whole season in a day compared with our experience of time's passage. This is an aspect of "social distance". When you can cross a social distance you have become more complex, and so a more complex form becomes meaningful; and even a simple form becomes meaningful because it is different from complex ones.

Where we have the intelligence, in other words, we have the passion for life's natural diversity, because this diversity is what gave us or inspired in us the intelligence, and only this diversity can give us more intelligence when this amount has ceased to be a novelty.

If we did not provide social estrangement to each other we would not evolve, and so the diversity of life is sacred to the mind even as it is disdained by the conditioned conscious. We do not really have enemies; nature always has predators but has never had enemies. Conscious is our enemy, which is to say that we are our own enemies. The conscious provokes the mind. Acting out the lives of images provokes the real entities, entities that find out what to do by ways that are too overwhelmingly complex or profound for the conscious to follow or even suspect. You have to study for years to become an FBI agent, and yet that is simplistic compared to how real living things are moved to accomplish what passes for justice in the urgency to evolve.

This justice is not an eye for an eye, not a scale weighing pain out equally to perpetrators, not "fair", but a force that insists that the perpetrator must wake up to the natural or real consequence of the things he did as conditioned response or behavior. If one eye for one eye wakes him up, all the better, but when it does not... Which is usually the case even in nature; which is what inspires the forms of the predators. A tiger is not an antelope. An antelope could give another antelope an eye for an eye. When that is insufficient something built more along the lines of the apocalypse is required.

Waking up, acknowledging the summons to evolve, is the point of conflict and suffering. Not playing fair, cutting the pie into equal pieces. The conscious can't conceive of the mind's motivations. The world is like an egg. It has to hatch at a certain point in time. The conscious says that man has accomplished all the evolution God could possibly wish for us, and that man is a creature God should be pleased to see spreading throughout the cosmos. The mind says the egg will open up and the chick will not be fully developed, a lump of compost, if we do not get on the ball quickly.

The conscious view, the conditioned view, is that man left nature because he is too evolved to be part of anything so primitive. This was the voice of the Inquisition. Man needs to be purged of all that is animal in him. Animals are the beasts with demons instead of souls. And a child is susceptible to this gospel. He is convinced that he is incomplete, that he is like a chick in the nest whose only job is to open his beak, but that eventually he will have learned enough to be a full fledged person. It does not occur to a child that none of the adults have ever become full fledged, just as it doesn't occur to a well fed dog.

Few of us even notice a time somewhere close to middle age where we realize one day that there is a promise to ourselves we have not kept, and it is getting late, close to the point where the chance to actually mature has passed by. Always the fledgling; never the mentor. That's the normal lot. Because all the mentors were illusions!

Av dennis hägglund - 18 januari 2009 08:02


The most simple truth about oneself takes too many words to say. It is like cooking a meal every day that takes six hours to prepare and two seconds to eat. Meaning is instantaneous, so words are discourteous to it. It is hard to accept even benign discourtesies.


Meaning is profound. The significance of having something to call 'life' or 'soul' associated with organisms is that this 'life' or 'soul' is profound. Our question then is whether or not it is possible to raise human language, and hence even human knowledge, to profundity.

Language and knowledge must begin at zero, which is at having none of either thing. We add the first word, and after a few more words we can finally add the first and most simple knowledge. This is a separate skill; it is not a mind in itself any more than architecture, auto-mechanics or cooking constitutes a mind in itself. The mind is still functioning, but language and knowledge are not the mind. The mind remains exactly what it was before language and knowledge were added.

But what is the mind to begin with? It is what gives us the sense to do the right or the beautiful thing under a huge variety of circumstances. The mind keeps up with the evolution of life's diversity and its various niches and adapts us to fit into an available niche both physically and socially (socially here not meaning something separate and private as conscious self is, but something utterly immersed in and transparent to the lives of others) so that despite the changes represented by evolution, despite a perpetually new social environment, we maintain a delightful harmony (as does every species).

So if we add knowledge, is this competing with the mind? Knowledge also wants to be the thing telling us what to do. That is to say that it competes for the position of mind! And as man is retired from nature, which is from evolution and its utterly transparent relationships, this 'dark horse candidate' has a very good chance. So our question becomes rather a pertinent one: can language ever become profound? --can 'the new mind', the conscious, ever become a mind in reality, or will it perpetually underestimate the wonder of things created by evolution or the cosmos, and thus overestimate or over-prize (pardon if I am coining that word) the things invented and produced by man?

When we have a small vocabulary speaking is a game. You can tell your friends how to play new games with you. Even dogs can be trained to play dead, for example, but it takes longer than teaching a child who wields a bit of vocabulary. The child can learn several games while the dog is learning just the one, because the dog's vocabulary is more limited, perhaps because the dog will never speak a word of it. But at some point we are expected to grant language a greater role, and we seem to be assuming that this is the function of language, that eventually everyone has enough language and thus enough knowledge to be considered 'legally responsible' for his behavior and actions.

Does it happen like this: first we are divided, with the mind on the one hand and the conscious or the knowledge on the other hand? Do we weigh situations and circumstances with our minds and also with our accumulated conscious. But then authority figures always refer to the knowledge contained in conscious, so eventually, as we must defend our choices and decisions in the face of accusing authority figures, we come to rely more and more on the conscious.

Or is it more like this: language and the knowledge it imparts to us are a form of deceit. Authority figures claim to rely on this and that knowledge for arriving at their behavior and decisions, but only the original mind is helplessly true to what it perceives. The conscious self can claim to have God in its grasp and still permit itself every malignant manner and deed. So the more we wish to or need to conceal our true natures the more we apply to conscious for the law by which we should be living.

So the mind will not liberate us from strict adherence to the perceived, while the conscious will grant us any liberty no matter what knowledge regarding reality it contains. There is a liberty at stake, so that conscious does not ever really aspire to become profound like the mind.

The mind will not liberate us from strict adherence to the perceived because it is not divided into observer and observed. The observed IS the mind. The mind can not divide the observed into what it will care about and what it will disdain, but allows it all to inscribe itself into law, and with no divider of the observed there is no observer. The observer is the divider, existing only to divide and ceasing to exist when we will not divide, which is when we will not exploit.

Exploitation is a translation of the observed, implying a translator, the observer. Originally all of the observed worked as one (paradise is a myth founded on that time, before man left nature), and nothing exploited any of it. This is harmony, and harmony evolves. Harmony is prerequisite to evolving. To exploit means to become so alienated to the original purpose of life on Earth or anywhere else in the cosmos that one collects ideas of what it could be used for. Horses, for example, were never ridden before man rode them, but to the experienced or conditioned person a horse seems to be made for riding; it seems a motorized vehicle, a 'hay-burner'. This is not where horses fit into niches in a harmonious system. This is not where a horse's mind works.

If we lived with horses in harmony we would be emotionally uplifted by horses, to a degree modern people can not conceive of (because optimum diversity means optimum evolution, more radically new and newly wonderful days; diversity fulfills something like the desire to meet God). When we exploit horses, driving them from the life of their minds, we are no longer living in harmony with them and we are no longer emotionally uplifted by them (even if some children get fairly excited by them). So what is happening is emotional decay, an emotional crash. Everything uplifting becomes, through exploiting it, something merely gratifying. People become neurotic, because there is never enough gratification, just as water is never enough nutrition even if you can try to fill your belly with it. Your mind finds the uplift of emotions while your conscious finds only the gratification, and your conscious represses your awareness through the mind as demonstrated when one begins to call the conscious 'me' or 'I' or 'myself'. When the conscious has repressed the mind and its awareness you do not see any alternative to seeking a lifetime's saturation of gratification, and time becomes a powerful pressure to get enough crammed into it.

Av dennis hägglund - 15 januari 2009 20:52


The conscious is called that because it is consciously observable, and the subconscious is called that because it is not consciously observable. At one time even our species had a mind that operated without any aspect of the operation becoming observable. When we are asleep that mind resumes its work. Imagine a dream where you had to observe the process of conceiving and constructing the dream. It would lose that thing the actors call "suspension of disbelief". In other words the fact the process was observable would mean you couldn't really dream.

So let's say that you once found God, but you found God with the mind as it was before you adopted a conscious (which would imply that all animals have found God; that it has nothing to do with being human, or even that being human is what makes us uniquely unlikely to find God). Then your conscious would not be the mind that found God. As soon as you adopted a conscious you would not have found God, or to put it another way, you would be conscious of not having found God. This is where religion comes in. You found God, then you lost God because having found God is not in the conscious, and now religion is going to help your conscious to find God. It's a racket!

The conscious can not ever become aware of what the subconscious is aware of, because the subconscious has the true-to-life or universal version while the conscious is composed completely of uniquely human versions. If we make anything that is in the conscious into a true-to-life version it ceases to be conscious. This is the basis of meditation. Make everything in your conscious true-to-life or universal and your conscious is empty; it vanishes.

Av dennis hägglund - 14 januari 2009 20:59

Gullibility is an opiate. The one who tries to correct it will seem more cruel than kind this side of time's horizon.


Some thousands of years ago a nearly four billion year old process of evolution was interrupted in our species (and a few select other species we favored as pets and cattle) when we decided that the process of defying nature could be made more interesting than continuing to evolve. A means was invented for extending the range of our species, and improving upon this means, and thus extending our range perpetually, became a new star to follow, a new God perhaps. This precipitated a radical change in the mind, and especially in the human mind. On the one hand we had the mind as it was evolving, devoted utterly to evolution, which is to harmonizing with a growing and evolving diversity of living forms, and on the other we had the mental compartment, if we may call it that, which we would devote to what man could do for man if he established some order or regimen of allocating tasks which tasks taken together would produce a society with some potential for survival or coexistence with nature and with other societies.

In theory this was a practical development. Man seemed to himself an intelligent animal either way. He was an intelligent natural animal when he was living in nature, and he became an intelligent "person" when he devoted himself to human society. But has anyone ever questioned this theory seriously? Are there not some holes in it? Is it really possible to be intelligent in two ways: by behaving as if nature and its evolution is everything, "God's Plan" so to speak, and also in behaving as if nature and its evolution must make way for man and his "evolution". No doubt all of us have heard, from some people with respectable degrees from respectable schools, that man has been evolving since he abandoned nature; that leaving nature precipitated some extraordinary evolution in our species, while other people with equally respectable degrees from equally respectable schools have said that both man and nature have stopped evolving since man abandoned nature for a life as a rogue mammal, and that nature will resume evolving if man allows it to, releases it from bondage, while man is, as far as nature is concerned, an extinct ape and will never again evolve; that man is a mammal that can not be restored to nature, which is also true of the humble cow. In some species the pilot light of instinct has gone out, according to these less optimistic theorists (who have been taking into account the relatively recent discovery of "Eden Man", people who, while being exactly like us physically, have less in common with our ways of living than wild chimpanzees. The dictionary gives us: Homo sapiens 1. the species of bipedal primates to which modern humans belong, characterized by a brain capacity averaging 1400 cc (85 cubic in.) and by dependence upon language and the creation and utilization of complex tools. --while the chimps are more inclined to use language and tools than Eden Man, even though Eden Man does have this brain capacity. In short, remaining in the exact niche where evolution placed man to begin with, which is where he doesn't need or use clothes, shelters, words or tools of any kind did not keep his brain from growing big. The conscious has not made the brain grow. A big brain has more to do with how sensitive your skin is and how much of it is exposed than with how intelligent you are.).

Are there two perspectives: One where nature is looking at man's activities in disgust and another where man is looking at nature's activities with contempt. And if there are these two, is one of them intelligent, or are they both intelligent? And if one is intelligent, which one is it? (Certainly we don't believe that nature watches man's activities with approval! "Hurray! I'm extinct! Wonderful! Man is making my lungs bleed!") This is a question regarding the division of the human mind. The conscious precipitates the effect that the natural intelligence becomes subconscious. The new perspective precipitates the effect that the old comes into disuse. Contradictory perspectives do not coexist within the conscious ken.

How does a creature of nature get along? He applies an intelligence, but what is this intelligence; what is its medium? The conscious, which is man's way of getting along in human society, applies knowledge, experience and words. The adult conscious actually immerses him in a sea of words for all his waking hours. We can not seriously expect that the natural creature has anything akin to words in its processes, and so its processes are not sluggish. That is simple enough to understand. It needs words to slow the processes down, words that are being acted out, spoken for effect rather than because they are true or cogent. What is harder to understand is what knowledge and experience do to processes. If there is no knowledge and experience, is the subconscious process remotely related or similar to the conscious process? Knowledge and experience are introverted effects. We must collect them and refer to them, which means we must distract ourselves from the present to find out what we need to do, like a person who must look something up on a website or in a reference book. Without knowledge and experience there is no distraction from the present, and this is what is unimaginable to the conscious process, a mind that processes without distracting one from the present.

How can the present and the processing not conflict with each other? It may appear that there must be both and that the one must distract and detract from the observation of the other. But look at a recent science, a science in its infancy, 'body language'. There are two ways to deal with body language. One way, the conscious way, is to remember what each known posture of the body means, which means the observer must look at the posture and then refer what he observes to his memory, and the other is where there is an instantaneous perception of what the posture means so that observing the posture is not interrupted for even an instant while the observation is being processed. Looking at this rationally, the observed person is making a posture without trying to, and so the observer should be understanding its meaning without trying to. After all, the person doing the observing is also making body language all the time, and he is not conscious of it. Apparently it is the conscious that is the distraction. Get rid of that and everything is working smoothly...

...except for one thing: the subconscious is extremely critical of man's activities.

Is this clear? I am making body language all the time and so are you. Does this mean we both know how to make it but neither of us know how to read it? Or is reading it just as natural and unconsciously done as making it? Why this new science then, if we are already reading it subconsciously? Why does it belong in the conscious, as well as in the subconscious? Next we will be posturing consciously as well, which will defeat the whole purpose, like a veracity testing machine that lies.

What we are sure of is that body language, when it is not studied for effect, is being truthful. I say I love my mother but my body language testifies that I abhor her. It is true that I abhor her. We can rely on it. When we die we are reincarnated in hell, which is in our mother's care. Being afraid to die is being afraid of mothers, which is quite rational. So what we have to determine is if it is possible to have an intelligence that lies, or if it is a prerequisite of intelligence that it is truthful in the very best sense, a sense of not even being naïve.

Is it possible to make the conscious truthful? This is where knowledge and experience come in. Is knowledge true? Is experience true? Can we suspect all knowledge? Can we suspect all experience? Can the phenomenon of input itself be false, so that if it requires us to look inward, into memory, into the past, into the idea, then it is false? Consider astronomy, for example. If I distrust what I was taught about religion, this does not mean I necessarily distrust what I was taught about astronomy. I put religion down as superstition, and astronomy as science. But they are both input. So where is the lie of astronomy? It is simple. There is a cosmos above us. It gave us an evolving sense of its presence for nearly four billion years. Astronomy disregards this sense, and gives us a new cosmos, a cosmos that is appropriate to study as if it never made any better sense to us than it does to the scientists who are assembling the puzzle of cosmic parts and generating the new ideas from these structures as if nature were oblivious to the cosmos and science is the chore of generously enlightening the only species that can be enlightened.

Conscious is something dead giving us the dead version of everything else.

If only man can make sense of the cosmos then only man deserves to live on, and any other planet in the cosmos that does not have man on it deserves to be plundered to death. Science is destroying the bond between man and nature, as if man's evolution were some sort of primordial larval stage. Like Adam from the Old Testament (Judeo-Christian scriptures), science gives us a nature that is scarcely worthy to be sacrificed on an altar. This again has to do with what is instantaneously perceived. If we instantaneously perceive that nature is profound and inspired we can not make ourselves conscious of it, and if what is profound and inspired about ourselves is what nature evolved us to be rather than what man has conditioned us to be we can not make ourselves conscious of it. Conscious can not regard life in an unconditioned perspective. Conscious is purely an invention of our authorities. We are tailor made to serve older generations, like dogs made to herd sheep.

How is experience like knowledge? If you see me and I am making a face that seems nonchalant, what do you see as far as what lodges in your conscious or memory? You see a man who is nonchalant. But why am I consciously making you see me as nonchalant? It is because I am actually quite perturbed! I have reasoned out that to show you how perturbed I am would place me at a disadvantage. So now your experience tells you that I was not perturbed. This is a gullible conclusion. And your power to get past this is subconscious. You can not make your conscious less gullible. You can not accumulate less gullible input. Like body language, you can only do it truthfully from your subconscious, which is from evolution, from being a wild animal. The truth is told or expressed only subconsciously, and it is heard or seen, perceived in short, only subconsciously. Why is this animal gift subconscious? Because we are no use to authority if we are still functioning on all cylinders. We are not exactly cattle, because our ingenuity is our greatest gift, and we will not apply that unless we believe we are serving ourselves.

There is a great celebrity in the music branch. An idol. All the budding teens adore him, except those few who have spent some time with him. The ones who know him too intimately hate him, grew disgusted with him. Why? Because he is a monster, of course. And they made him a monster. They took an ordinary brat and made a monster of him. How much would it be worth to love someone and find that no matter how intimately you knew him and no matter for how long, your love would only grow? Only the subconscious has this gift. Only the subconscious knows who this is and why it is this way; why it has to be just those, and not the ones in the spotlight.

The old adage is that familiarity inevitably breeds contempt. And what is the opposite of familiarity? Besides novelty! Since novelty relies too heavily on naivety. It is evolution. No one is ever the same. Not only are they consistently good; they are always better. The best any person, cat or dog could ever be is consistent. Not so the wild creatures.

And why just the wild creatures? Because one law applies. Diversity challenges the social intelligence. If we are the same we do not provide the gift of challenge. Harmony and order are actually opposites. Same things can develop order, while only diversity can develop harmony. We love things because they refuse to become more like us; they insist on becoming less like us. Love exists because it is never the same. It is always challenged. When people love each other it is because, together, they love the other species.

Conditioning takes time. We have to meet authority. We have to imprint upon authority. We have to be instructed in how to serve. So there is a time in life when we are less conditioned, almost unconditioned. And how does one agree with an unconditioned person, a baby? It is as simple as this: love the other species. It is what babies do. A baby may hate that it is hungry for too long, or thirsty, or itchy or generally uncomfortable, but what it hates more than anything is that it hears, in ways we can not be conscious of, an invitation to encounter other species, or perhaps the cosmos, and its feet will not move it. Mother is the baby's feet! Like being cut in half, the lower half having died in the process.

The conscious has no real past. It is something that exists through authority's trickery. There is a real past. We begin whole and diminish. The real past is to recover the whole through penetrating the trickery. The trickery can not penetrate itself. Look at modern psychology. It is all about how the conscious will come to understand the unconscious and the subconscious. The fact is the subconscious is an ocean of perception. Putting drops of pseudo-understanding into a bucket is futile when there is already an ocean of perception waiting for a small upgrade.


Fråga mig

0 besvarade frågor


Ti On To Fr
14 15
Januari 2009

Sök i bloggen

Senaste inläggen





Följ bloggen

Följ The Universal Sense of Reality med Blogkeen
Följ The Universal Sense of Reality med Bloglovin'

Skaffa en gratis