Alla inlägg under juni 2008

Av dennis hägglund - 30 juni 2008 08:20

"One loves as perceiving all the love on Earth as other together."

The division of labor and responsibility idealised in human social theory (where it has been compared to the division within a nest of ants that has always worked out so well) has a very obvious and basic flaw: People of working age are thinking the whole time they are awake.

What is thinking? Thinking is to have abandoned relationships in favor of services surreptitiously acquired. Since thinking is hidden, and is about acquiring services, the services are not openly acquired. Thinking, in other words, is to lay a trap for people. Thus, when you say that your job is this and mine is that, you have made the blunder of assuming that when I know what you don't know I won't use this advantage against you (in a way you can't watch: thinking).

Now, let's say that you want my help, because my work has brought me some very unique understanding about the human mentality. What you are conditioned to expect is that I do my job and you continue doing yours. That's what you would get if you went to get therapy, or if you went and studied traditional human psychology. So you are not primed for me to say, "Intelligence must become completely mutual. We must have an intelligent species, not an intelligent doctor and an ignorant school-teacher or whatever.". You are not primed for me to make you work as hard as I do at what I do.

How do you know that every adult is thinking? Is it because you are thinking, and you know you are more or less normal? Is it an estimate, a guess, a suspicion, a certainty, a deduction? It doesn't matter how certain one is; it is still merely a conviction; it still satisfies only reason, and reason has no nourishment but lies and facts (facts being things taken out of context, thus making them facts placed on a pedestal, facts glorified for profit).

The only way to actually live with people as they are thinking is to find thinking and its emotional environment (privacy/opportunism/and abandoning of all relationships, except as manipulation may be called relationship) as other. We can not think, can not have privacy of thinking, can not have abandoned relationship, and also find them as other, since to discover the whole of other is in fact relationship, and is a complete substitute for what goes on in the head, so that in doing this there is nothing left ever to be doing in ones head.

As the other thinking is having been abandoned, having been conned and manipulated.

As other opportunism is a spark of feeling that sets of the next thought in the chain which only ends with sleep, and the reason for the opportunism in the other is that you are not watching thought as other, which is because you are thinking. In other words, your thinking makes you as the trusting mouse in the cat's eyes. You are thinking, and this distraction provides him with the opportunities that drive his thoughts.

As other privacy is his delusion that what he hides his thinking from is a person, you, and not a mere thinking process which tricks him into believing there is this person, "you".

As a child we heard of thinking as a respectable process, never as a brutal process. We were deceived into expecting that thought was hidden even though it was not private. People who thought often asked us what we thought, and we could conceive of replies to that, since things did in fact impinge on our minds most of the time adults were about. We have no idea that adult thinking was lurking, and that it was reflected in utter oblivion to the present world. So going from childhood's idea of thinking, into actually thinking, leaves out this one simple step of discovery: other adults are thinking. Their thinking is not that things do impinge on their minds now and then. It is not an escapable distraction, not a problem of responsibility or confusion haunting one a little now and again. Their thinking is an alternative to living in the world, a way to permanently put the living animal into the trunk or boot of the vehicle and take over the wheel of its vehicle.

Thinking as a grown child or young teen doesit is not a self in itself. There is no thinker of these little distractions from the present. The distractions are not a place, but just attention sacrificed that could otherwise be making the environment more enchanting. There is less or no control over these distractions, so that some psychologists have called them "childhood schizophrenia" when the child admits to them, even though the words of such thinking are few and far between. There is no effort in this thinking to contrive a way to deceive someone. There is no rehearsal for the next meeting. Adult thinking can be as mad as schizophrenia, where the person starts rehearsing aloud, or while moving the lips, even in public, oblivious to those who notice it.

So from the nearly benevolent idea of adult thinking (which was that adults thought like we thought) to thinking like an adult, can only happen if we don't first discover how the adult thinks. Step 1 to step 3, neglecting step 2, leads to 3. And this mistake can be corrected. We can find out even at this later date that the adult thinks in a way that does not fit the idea we were originally provided with. This can not be done by helping reason, or what Freud defines as conscious, to find the other adults' thinking, since reason and conscious are the environment of thinking. One has to show a more complete aspect, the animal, this other thinking, and this amounts to the animal showing itself the other thinking. This happens if you just let thinking be there, but not as yours; Let opportunism be there, but not as yours; Let abandoning relationships be there, but don't abandon the relationship.

Look how irrational it is to ask another, "How do you feel? What are your feelings?". Is a feeling a fact? It is like asking what is your song. Oh, it's a Mozart, it's a Smashing Pumpkins, it's an Aria. If it is your song, the only way to show it to someone is to sing it. And if we can not find each other's feelings we are far more lost than that. No one's conscious control of his voice, words and expression or manner is so complete that the animal is distracted for a second. Feeling is always reliable, until we assume the role of the feeler. We have a feeling (other than intense awareness) as ourselves, only when we are falling for the cover something is hiding behind. This is why we can't love on demand like the Christians tell us to do. One loves what perceives all the love there is on Earth as other. One loves as perceiving all the love on Earth as other together.

Av dennis hägglund - 28 juni 2008 12:26

1. You can check your own health by biting your fingernail clippings. The softer they are (when dry) the worse your health. The lighter areas at the base, under the cuticles if you have any, show the progression of your decay. The more and bigger these areas are the more desperately your flesh is leaching your skeleton for what it is missing. Your flesh becomes desperate if you don't give it enough of what it needs, and if you give it enough but then put in the opposite, like flushing it out or counteracting it. See Yin and Yang in your healthfood store.

2. Buy a cheap dental mirror. Check each other's teeth before going to a dentist. Take macro pictures using the mirror, and bring them to the dentist office. Capitalism is spreading. The cheaper tricks are:

To hollow out and fill each of your molars as quickly as possible, just because it's quick and easy to do.

To con you into trying to get the bristles of your brush between the gums and the teeth, creating a need for cosmetic dentistry when your gums recede.

Always demand a copy of any x-ray that is made, dental or other, and make sure you have it safely stashed before you let anyone do anything to you based upon it. Can you think of a more important picture of you than one that an important decision is based upon?

3. If you have to own a car, make sure there is a self-diagnostic center available to you for that model. One of the more common problems with driving a petrol driven car is monoxide, which is like nicotine in that you don't have to smell the smoke to get the toxin. The toxin is a gold medal sprinter.

Most monoxide related accidents are not called anything but driver error, since the drivers themselves don't know what monoxide is like. Having a smoker in the car increases the monoxide problem from a slightly faulty exhaust many times. You should specify, when seeking a self-diagnostic center, that you want the latest in CO detection. Cheap CO detectors for your garage won't tell you what you need to know.

4. Earplugs are a solution many people fail to think about. Ear plugs and ear phones are friendly solutions to living close together. With the big sound attenuators used at airfields and in construction you can use small earphones to listen to soft music from your mp3 player at low volumes. You might find that silence is often better than music, that quiet is what you were really looking for.

5. Even schizophrenia (which effects over one per hundred, so that many of us know someone) is significantly less painful using ear plugs, hence less medication is required. The noise in the brain competes with external noise. The schizophrenic may also find it useful to study up on Nitrous Oxide and Poppers as another way to reduce more hazardous medication, since these are available and legal in many countries. There is a lot of info plus where to buy. Dogpile, which I have a link to, may be your best search tool. (I personally would not class amyl nitrate as harmless, but I'm not going to elaborate. You'll have to do your own research, and the web is bristling with info on it.)

6. Bicycles and most footwear are incompatible with bulletin boards that encourage the use of thumb tacks. If you don't have the clout or cooperation to get these things changed to metal, you need to learn and to teach your children where every one of them is, so you can avoid them. It is illegal to get a refund for shoes that are leaking the first time you use them, if it is not a defect.

I have merely learned where they are in my favourite haunts, and I get a flat tire about once every 400 hours of biking at about 7 hours per week averaging the year out. But I do use very good tires as well. Not Kevlar, but good.

7. Dance and gymnastics corrective surgery blossoms out with capitalism. Suspect it. Everyone wants a miracle. I have one for you: take my class!

8. Photography: a digital camera should have 2 levels in it, portrait and landscape. Having to rotate a single degree screws up your res. Until then, watch your levelling, or better, bring a small level. Gravity and relationship to it is a message you rarely disregard to good effect. I think it's more frustration with digital cameras than art that makes people exaggerate the effect, as if they meant it that way all along.

2 polaroid filters held perpendicular to each other will be opaque, but place one on your flash or lightsource and the other on your lens and all you lose is the glare. You can take pictures of glossy pictures or items with your camera's little flash. Source, Ansel Adams. A small piece of polaroid filter film will go a long way, if you have friends who want to try it. It's hard to buy two square inches.

With a model turntable, even a rotating stool, you can, with care about placement (u can dangle a weight from the ceiling to show center of spin), make a sort of 3D picture, which is great for these new frames you plug a memory stick or USB into. The background often needs to be plain so there is no comparison between object or model and background.

Av dennis hägglund - 28 juni 2008 09:57

1. He was born the usual marvellous child. He told his mother they lived with the boogey man. Other kids and their moms didn't have to live with the boogey man! The father wouldn't stand for a child who knew how to criticise him. He sodomized the boy, out of sheer hate for his marvellous normalcy, as his father had done to him. When the boy later confronted him with the crime he told the boy it had been his mother's father who had done it; that he would cut off his arm before.., etc. He also told the boy that during his infancy he had only cried when his mother held him; that it had been hard to keep her from touching him and making him cry. Home-made misogyny. Some months later the father resumed having sex with the boy, each time given him enough alcohol that he would laugh while being sodomized, and saying that it was good for him, that it would eventually heal the injury from the rape. He established other reward patterns besides the alcohol, so the boy would look forward to the sessions. As he grew the boy learned to exert extortion pressure, and did fairly well at it despite the alcoholism. The father learned to predict his demands and fulfil them before any threat was applied. Love meant to give before he was forced to, which kept him broke. The boy started a little band, but the drinking and a volatile temperment kept it from developing more than local recognition. All this came to light when he was found molesting a much smaller boy who thought he was a rock-star.

2. Her obese, self-prescribing, mother walked around like a General inspecting the worst of the troops, grumbling and growling, glaring at everyone. Everyone made way for her imperious disposition, parting like a sea before an ocean liner, putting it down as 'a mere psychological disorder', not wanting to interfere in her therapy. The girl was very impressed by this apparent command of respect from absolutely everyone. The behaviour of the mother was simple to explain: she had told the girl that she was a queen, and ruled over all the people. "The buck stops here!" Everywhere they went mother had to stay in character so the girl wouldn't think there was anyone she could tell about her unpleasant experiences as mother's sex-slave.

3. A boy had a father who actually was an officer in the police. He had the idea that all the police stood by each other no matter what they had done. He was regaled with stories of the crimes each cop had committed and they were all keeping quiet about. Getting paid for sex with his father was just a perk; he really had nothing to do about it. This same cop also had a list of people whose children he had sex with as a bribe to keep them out of jail. None of this would ever have been discovered if the cop in question hadn't been hurt in an auto accident and taken to a hospital where a doctor, trying to determine who to notify, noticed his little phone book had some very peculiar entries.

4. Another obese woman who self-prescribed (and had a key-machine so she could burgle the local grannies she had visited perfunctorily, grannies who had the tablets legitimately) sent her two retarded children out to invite other children to stay the night, tempting them with promises of all kinds of sweets. Gradually about a dozen children began to suffer varying degrees of retardation, according to how often they overnighted with the lurid family. She was respectable enough in dress, housekeeping and manner that not many thought her anything but unfortunate to have two retarded kids, but her sex-life was composed of drugging children into unconsciousness and having sex with them.

5. A girl had sex with her obese alcoholic father, mostly oral at first, so early she couldn't say when it began. He used her like some male version of the vibrator. Once she could speak he used rewards and threats, the most effective threat being that if everyone knew about her "whoring" she would become an outcast just like he would. She wasn't all that inclined to tell anyone in any case, since she was actually accustomed to and inured to the abuse, although she really did believe that the abuse would only get worse if she were put in some institution. (Her experience was that everyone had sex with kids.) He also promised her that having learned sex meant she could get rich, since rich men wanted sex with her as well. In the circles he travelled she learned that this was so, except that none of them were very rich. She developed an expensive taste in drugs and had a lot of customers, and a lot of diseases. People who want sex with children seem often to know each other and each other's predilection, perhaps because they do a lot of drinking together, drink being a sort of lubricant that makes people say more than they would otherwise.

6. A very ugly and somewhat slow woman, on some pharmaceutical program which she supplemented with cheap wine, had a very ugly baby boy. About a year later she went out and kidnapped a lovely little girl the same age. She had named her boy Erik, apparently planning to make this switch. She adjusted the birth-certificate she had to say Erika. No one got her to say how she disposed of the boy. The girl was poisoned in her crib with solvents and became retarded to the point where she didn't have to go to school. The woman collected a pension for the child, and was only found out to be a pedophile when she started picking up other children of an unlikely age and masturbating herself with them. She seemed under the impression that this was what the neighbors sent their children outside for.

Av dennis hägglund - 28 juni 2008 07:48

If we appreciate the relationship between feelings (genuine glandular events) and perception, as per earlier instalments, we realise that ego is not a love for oneself as popular theory has it, but a belief in the lies others have told us. Ego is about how many and what kind of lies we have accumulated (lies accumulate as belief and trust), and how early, or how close to utterly devoid of suspicion we were at the time.

Therefore Catholics have frightening egos, as do Tibetan Buddhists, Radical Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and others who fit the pattern where parents have allowed very early and severe brainwashing. George Bush has asked that schools reinstate the policy of turning out US patriots, who have begun every day by putting their hands over their hearts and pledging allegiance to the flag of the only people fit to rule the world. For patriot, read "hooligan". GW was very disappointed at the turnout for the 'let's exterminate the Muslims' campaign. A blow like 9/11 should have generated a lot more racial hatred (especially when he had inflated the figure to 9 or 10 thousand dead) in the Republican estimate.

In other words, if one is raised a Catholic Christian, for example, and one discovers how very human and corrupt Catholic priests and popes are in general, then the greater majority of one's ego has vanished. Ego is drive, and so traditional psychology says that this is a bad idea; but it becomes an excellent adjustment if it leads to inspiration, which is a natural driving force. Inspiration opposes the products of the ego force, products everyone knows how to produce, and so it is not going to become popular overnight.

One of the most special cases of egotism is when incest leads to prostitution and extortion, and from there to great power and wealth. Is incest right, actual sex with ones children and grandchildren? Any normal person understands that incest is terrorism, but these "successful" victims are far from victims in their own minds, and manage to actually pass on to their children that incest is a gift from God. Incest fundamentalist, a term for our times. This confusion is just as "natural" as Catholicism. And we can add it to any of the others: Catholic Incest Fundamentalist, for example, producing a very "natural" leader concealing strictly demonic ambitions from "the extremely inferior masses".

How does this switching of roles work? Why isn't your ego you? Let's say I'm a priest. I teach you that those who don't accept what I say, and follow the rituals I provide, which I say is what Jesus said to do, and what God told Moses to do, are going to hell. "Lucky you, who doesn't have to go to hell, because you are listening to me and following my rituals, which is listening to Jesus and God." You, at this time, are too young to question this. Church is holier than home. Without it mother and father would be going to hell. So doubt is not an option; you become Catholic. This is like inflating a tire. Your ego gets so inflated it will pop. And the only pressure this is about is deceit. Let out the deceit, which is so hard to do because you were so young at the time, and you become more humble, more prepared to see things as mere diversity, and as your own responsibility rather than as divided into good people and evil people, well-meaning and ill-meaning ideals.

To let the pressure out you have to discover what belief is as other, which an uninstructed child can not do, which is why we are having this class. When conceit washes over innocence, accepted by this innocence as more innocence, it becomes belief, the innocent form of conceit. When conceit washes over innocence as other it remains conceit.

As other (as discovery), the belief becomes conceit, which is the other's faith in his skill as a liar, a long history of not being questioned because he chooses to address only preconditioned audiences. What is Dalai Lama's problem today? He is being kept apart from the preconditioned people. He is like a surfer with only a wading pool left to work with. He would do and say anything to get back on the sea. He would swear, sign, confess, humble himself (he says that in his dreams he is only a Buddhist monk, not the Dalai Lama, which is a very well conceived fabrication: 'I'm not a surfer; I'd just like to wade in the deeper water'. He has been laboring with the problem of conning the Chinese into letting him have his audience back, like Mick Jagger trying to get himself knighted despite all the bizarre things he has published and recorded), or recruit the devil himself. One of the most malevolent men on the planet, so that belief in him and his rituals is generating one of the most dangerous mass egos on the planet.

The priest, in the eyes of the child, is holy as he says he is, and as the parents and neighbours say he is. This is a mask, a disguise, but the child sees it as the whole truth, as a man who is nothing else but holy, like the reverse of being scared of a monster Halloween costume. The conceit, then, is private, secret, invisible to the child. It washes over the child, but only as himself, because he has not made other of it. As himself, his best version of conceit is belief. This is the same as when a pedophile lusts after him, while pretending to be a nice guy. The child's best version of lusting is having to pee in his pants, so he squirms and tries to tie a knot in his legs.

We may think that to help a child confront the rude realities, like that of the pedophile's lust for children, not as a fact but as perception of the lust itself, is too crude, but it is only as crude as a buffalo calf understanding that the lion kill for food, which no buffalo has to learn to do. There is no dwelling on the discovery when the discovery is of this kind. It is only a discovery of the mistakes people are prone to making, the traps they are prone to triggering. A child who is pushing pedophiles out of his environment at a single glance is a healthier child. It is the lust that lingers; the discovery of the lust is complete and over instantly. An unexposed pedophile lusts all day and all night. He is safely ensconced in the lusting niche. An exposed pedophile has other things on his mind.

Av dennis hägglund - 27 juni 2008 11:26

When we deceive a child for the first time in its life, we actually create a part of the mind that has never existed in any creature. It is called "memory" (because it can also hold facts, facts being a form of deceit like vitamin tablets), a misnomer.

Thought is to prey on memory, and everyone can do it (make the other believe!) by the age of twenty, but despite this skill no one can prevent himself believing everyone else. This means thought and believing are preferences. We prefer believing to the only other thing man can inspire, which then, by inference, must be APATHY.

Want a third option? That takes longer.

Av dennis hägglund - 27 juni 2008 11:02

Where should people be living on this planet, and where should they be discouraged from living? Can we make a map of the varying degrees of safety from natural disasters?

Can we subsidise moving people from less safe to more safe places? Would this cost more or less than to send help, which for so many people comes far too late in any case? Is there an age ahead of us, of global reasoning, global planning? And if so, isn't it time for that age? Don't we have enough videos of how Mother Earth behaves? Isn't it brutal to sit and watch the world suffer on the news, and then send inadequate care packages that rarely arrive, and condolences?

We also need a map of the varying degrees of safety for many projects, like dams and the regrettable nuclear waste repositories which are going to plague all foreseeable future generations who will have the sense not to be making any. China reported almost having a wild nuke from their recent problems. Call it sheer luck; certainly not global planning. (What do you call a China Syndrome in China?)

Isn't our approach to the world's problems a little like an insurance company that tells half the people to 'take great risks; the other half can afford it'? When is politics going to become a science instead of a circus of superstars, an aristocracy? Doesn't it sicken you that people make a game of the very thing that is urgently needed, like making a carnival ride of the fire-department?

Av dennis hägglund - 26 juni 2008 13:16

Which of the following options is closest to how you feel:

1. I want to save the world, if I can get rich in the process!

2. I want to save the world and will accept substantial losses to my lifestyle.

3. I want someone else to save the world, and he's to keep his hands off my lifestyle while he's doing it.

4. You never know what's true. Maybe the world does, and maybe it doesn't, need saving. If my lifestyle suffers any losses it won't be because I'm saving the world, but because I can't prevent those losses.

Av dennis hägglund - 25 juni 2008 12:29

Violence is there when what we do is not violent in our own estimate. Bigotry is when we see the violence of other peoples that is not violent in their estimate, while we do not see the violence in ourselves that is not violent in our own estimate. We see theirs; they see ours; but we don't see together.

"How can anyone say they are victimised by me? The only violence I seek is justice!" That is a conditioned perspective. "If you don't love us (Americans) you're crazy!", a rock star proclaimed in song. In capitalism the governing body first conditions the masses, and then they ask the conditioned masses to make themselves heard. Like asking your parrot to say, "I adore you!".

Peace is a mind of peace and a mind at peace. What is actually sacred? If you don't see what is sacred you can't see what will bring peace, or what is bringing strife and pain. You can't tell that by protecting what can only be coveted you destroy what can be adored. There was something sacred about each of us when we were born, while we were small. (If we were born to pedophiles this thing lasted for a very short time. We could barely speak when it was ripped from us. And the pedophiles version of this crime is that their children are the most mature. They actually lobby with this message. Sex with adults sets the stage for success.) But the business of life took over control of us, ushering out the love of life. No matter who our parents were, this sacred thing was not even noticed. Traditional psychology has declared children "empty shells waiting to be filled by adults", the only question then being what is right to fill them with.

The only empty part of a child is the part where lies are believed. That is rational psychology, complete psychology.

And today we who were treated in this abysmal fashion normally do not find fault with a system that disregarded what was sacred in us. That is programming. Adopt what molests you, be it sodomy or reasoning. Even a domestic cat will bring the baby squirrels from the trees for the master to raise; rescuing babies from the imagined hell of a natural parent's ministrations. Putting them back will really confuse the poor kitty, as will unwittingly causing them to perish.

Reason is the enemy of perception. We are trained to reason away what is sacred. Fewer and fewer things become sacred as reason develops, which means more and more violence is not violence in our way of reasoning about it. We see sacred, but as reason supplants seeing we reason away the sacred, which reasons away any harm we have done to what is sacred.

You can not use the word God in your reason and get a God out of it, because you can not find what is sacred in reason. Reason happens in a space that is too limited for anything sacred or profound. There is space for a technical description of God, but there is no technical description of God that makes a meaning "God". If you make a meaning of the word Sun, is it technical? Nothing we can name is technical in its own presence. God becomes a technical description only in God's absence, and a God who can be absent is not God.

Atheism is to remove the technical description of God from reason; why bother? Three pixels from thirteen billion light-years away through a telescope have more presence than the technical description of God which the word God means to reason, and the debate surrounding these pixels has more meaning.

You can reason only because what fits into reason is not profound; add something profound, something sacred, and you must remove it from this slum-dimension called reason. God is a dead word when reason indulges in it, which is why people are so free with it. They can use it or not; it makes no difference. Thus using it has become a gimmick, a way to bring tears to a child's eyes because to the child the word still has some meaning. ---"Has your trust in God's servant ever wavered? Ask him to forgive you now, right now! Prodigal child, welcome back to the fold!". A tearstained Kodak Moment. My little boy is Saved.--- Religion is a gimmick. Any retard can learn the ropes. There is no less sincere way to encounter an audience.

The sanctity of what is sacred is the joy of life. It is to see God. To fail to make this distinction, so that those things and actions which destroy or damage what is sacred are not perverse things and actions to us, is the sum total of blindness. It is the most perverse distinction in the cosmos to not need to see God. To not need light is not nearly as queer. Nor to not need food or not need water, or to not ever need a mother. To see what is sacred is to see God's reflection, which is as close as anyone could want to get this early in evolution. Even a crow has no way to utter something without including God in the utterance. Crows are wonderful, even if they often get escorted from the premises by cautious parents. God is the context one must see everything in to be actually living.

We have been working on how emotions are found as other. Consider the emotion of seeing God's reflection, feeling what is sacred. Is it anger, jealousy, contempt, disdain, apathy? It is only joy (joy is actually psychology, even if you have not felt it since you were little). There is a constantly new joy and nothing else. Where does this leave anger? You can not indulge in such a broad spectrum, from joy to anger. You have to be insane, as we all have seen illustrated today, to say, 'I am angry because I am helping God!'. One is only angry because the ease with which one becomes angry angers the other. How often haven't we been angry with Bill Gates during the last twenty years? The man has generated more tears from modern men than all the women in history generated from all the men. Put yourself in his place. "What do you want from me?", he asks. "Who do you think I am?", "For my next miracle...!". He is angry that you become angry with him. He's just a man, after all. Would you have done better or more?

If your airplane is crashing maybe you have time to get angry, but do you? You might get angry because you can't make your new cell phone work, especially when the kids make it work without even reading the manual. Anger contests accepted liberties, which is part of senility, part of failing to belong.

Find who you anger, which you can not do while the anger is your own, in your own veins (not meaning one should suppress it; the discovery of anger as other does not happen if one tries to control ones own anger, but only when one sees the need to find out what anger means as the other, which is compassion, even if he reasons that he should hide it), and the anger shows you infinitely more than anger as yourself can do; it shows you how you anger the other. Any feeling as other is encyclopaedic in its content.

"How did I do it to myself?". What is God if I had it done to me by another? Only reason could invent a God compatible or consistent with harm we didn't do to ourselves. In nature "I did it to myself!" is a sacred understanding, unquestioned by all but the immediate prey, death row. To see the world this universal way one must first resurrect complete perception, perception that can be responsible, perception that does not need to ask to trust anyone. If we say we should be able to trust people, how much right to ignore them is implied by this? Is it like traffic on the freeway: you stay in your lane and I won't even see you there? But threaten me and I'll notice you. I didn't see you; I was busy looking out for police cars. I trust you, so I don't need to understand you. I trust you, so whatever is sacred about you is none of my concern.

There is no benign trusting, no trusting where we don't adopt a right to not bother about the other to just that degree to which we trust him. And if you and I can resist preying in that blind-spot the world will find someone who can't, perhaps an understandably volatile child of sodomy.

Trust is to economize the senses. If we economize them enough we can live inside our heads. This is violence. I say, "I believe in democracy.", but I have economized my senses so that I can live a life of opportunism, thinking how to get spurts of reward or pleasure by conning everyone into believing that I live in the present, that they can trust what they recognise on my face, in my words and my voice. Locked inside my head, where am I going to perceive right from wrong so I can vote for the right? In my reason? Reason contains only conditioned response. I might as well tell the rulers to do as they please, "Indulge your ambitions, gentlemen (and a few ladies), since that's how you got this far up the ladder in any case. It's all momentum, isn't it? The momentum of weakening one kind of resolve to bolster the other."

How often in a democracy are we asked to tell right from wrong? Who has ever voted for anything except by eliminating the options most evil to his reason, thus accepting the remaining by process of elimination? No one ever voted for good; good was not in the running. Did you vote to liberate homosexuals? There are just as many or more still lurking in the showers and bathhouses. In there they don't want to be recognized. You couldn't have voted to also repair the environment (the architecture) to eliminate such lurking, making homosexuals more normal (which would have been good because then homosexuals would have a normal amount of dignity), simply because it was not on the ballot. Think what a joke it is to the homosexual in the shower with the boys, that a man was prosecuted for secreting a video camera in a girl's locker room. If that's a crime, then what is it to actually bring your lust into the shower physically?

Perception has to be complete. If I find a few faults with something presumed to be right, this proves it is not perception that has declared it right. Perception is not this faultfinding process either. If we add the factor I mentioned to the ballot we probably still have some issues with homosexuals, and they with us. Perception is something utterly alien to reason. It is to find out in a way that, to reason, does not seem to fit the bill: feeling as other, feeling as finding out. Reason can't accept that it has competition for the job of finding out, competition that is constantly flawless and whole, and that was born on the throne.

If the heterosexual finds out how it feels to be homosexual, what happens to his heterosexuality? He finds out it is the same thing. His revulsion, then, if he felt any, becomes revulsion for those he encouraged as well as those he didn't. It is not just that some roles do not suit males or do not suit females; they do not suit anyone. Perception brings chastity.

We who were conditioned to be heterosexual males thought that the girl role is ugly on a boy but pretty on a girl. Homophobia is a defensive reaction. Once you have someone to have sex with when it is devoid of sacred function, devoid of nature's call, you have made it as strange as it can be made, and seemingly stranger ways are not really stranger (which is why they can happen, why a hetero- is not more human than a homo-sexual).

Nature resists the pleasure of sex because pleasure is a nonsensible diminution of the real thing. Pleasure is not to commune with the sacred. Pleasure is not empathy with our star bringing life to our planet. Sensitivity of the reproductive organs has an origin, like all feelings. It had to be there to make something work in a sacred way. No successful parent of the wild ever said, "Honey, I really enjoyed that!". There was no two, not even three, not even four including God, but everything on Earth was there in that moment hailing the coming child or children as blessedness that blesses all.

Where life is evolving only messiahs and food are born, someone for all, or something for the crows. Finding a partner is the elaborate art of keeping the crow-population low.

Skaffa en gratis