Alla inlägg den 21 juni 2008

Av dennis hägglund - 21 juni 2008 09:04

We are conditioned to live in a landscape of the projected images of people who hide their private thinking behind these images. So how do the people themselves feel? We only see how the images feel, which is for show, and which is plain to the eye and ear. It is simple to find out. The feeling that comes to us, which is in the blood, is there in the blood because we are allowing the image of the other to refute where it actually is, which is where the other's thinking is cultivating it, in his own blood. Any feeling is by nature the other. Other-discovery is the value of perception. We are evolved with the power to find out what hormones are coursing through the other's veins by a universal technique that is the transcending of the sum of the senses.

This stifles progress. You are angry, for example, but you are cleverly hiding it from me to make some progress; but I discover your anger, not just that it is there but exactly what anger it is. Now you are not making progress as your thinking was sure you would. Now your anger toward me has nothing to do for you, and it vanishes.

Without this natural power of perception we are competing. Is my anger bigger than yours? Am I hiding mine better than you are yours? Am I making more progress than you? It is only when I understand that joy is my province (which is not an attitude adjustment, but something which must become true, and is only true as profound love of nature and the cosmos); I have no place to wish anger on myself, to become the killer, to grow the tusks, to taste the blood, to laugh at the pain, that I realise that this is only a cue that my perception has anger found, and then the feeble non-predatory anger that can come to a creature of joy has left my blood. If anger were in my blood it would blot out my perception of your anger, perception being something that does not need hormones of anger but hormones of perception.

Ironically, anger is far more intense as perception than as hormones. Discovery is a biological renovation project (perception is based in the molecular composition of the organism, and each discovery must be immortalised as perception gained, new eyes if you will), and needs perfect instructions, so to be angry is just anger, but to discover anger is encyclopaedic even though it lasts for only a second.

This is not respectable. If envy is the other, the one who has the thing, then there is a discovery: I am fortunate and he is courting senility. If ownership can be misfortune we all have to distrust gain, which again is no progress. If jealousy is the other: I am fortunate, they are congenitally unfaithful. The best I can find is congenitally unfaithful. No progress. A feeling as other blossoms into what no one has ever defined it as before, a definition alien to language. And it needs no translation. The feeling is meaning. The feeling does so much work in a second there is nothing to do as translating it. It is the only complete form of information. It is what reason exists to defy, thus making a world where destructive authority remains unchallenged authority.

How do trees know what flowers should look like and smell like, and what nectar and fruit and even leaves should taste like? Reason tells us they can't, but that is what reason is for, to make the world seem so insignificant that it is alright to destroy it. When we adopt this "philosophy" we become the victims of it, the prey. Could someone prey on you by making you rich? Normally only a masochist can become rich. Make a nearly sane person rich, which would be more by accident, and he does everything like a poor person. He lives in one room, cooks on a hotplate, watches cartoons, wears clothes until they wear out, etc. He wants to preserve his gifts, not confound them. He enjoys more who he was than who money could make him into. He wants to be the sting-less bee, not the raving one.

Trees do the impossible-to-reason; they know more about you than your family, or even yourself. By means no one has managed to catalogue. And this is manifestly so. No one who watches a tree through the seasons can have a reasonable doubt about it. There is a part of all of us to whom this is not supernatural or mysterious, but is the whole significance of this planet having evolved a little, a part of us which would not expect a tree to come to mind except as the tree itself joining us. This is the born part.

(This is also the part that makes people schizophrenic, an opening to the real profundity of the planet that is not compatible with a mind full of words (words being compatible only with the images of people in memory which hide those people's thinking from us). As long as there is thought schizophrenia is inevitable, and only dying can keep it from catching up to us. Thought is a job with a reward in mind, and ultimately we all retire, unless we die at the helm. Possibly, in the case of old-age schizophrenia, it is actually more diverting than thinking could be, a kind of wealth of mind in a senile perspective.)

To ask yourself what a tree is, could you ask or look back to your first encounter with one? What did your first encounter with a tree show you about trees? Experience diminishes the nature of reality. It boasts of itself. It boasts of progress. It boasts of thinking which leads to progress. It is a competition. The person who thought most and earliest had sex earliest and with the sexiest partner. The person who thought least and latest had sex last or never. There is no progress, no experience, without the distraction of thinking. And through this haze of thought there is no way to find out what a child perceives. You may ask a child, but he also perceives how you will berate him for his answer. Say, "Tell me the truth. I won't berate you for your answer if it's true.", and he perceives that you will, and your only way out of this quandary is to do more harm to his mind.

To lose feelings as the flower of discovery of other is to lose relationship itself. This is how predators hunt. Find the creature who relies on eyes, ears and nose; sight, sound and smell. That is the antisocial or asocial one.

Av dennis hägglund - 21 juni 2008 07:30

When the hearing and seeing are bent, how do we speak and show the repair? The repair needs to enter through the failing parts. The resistance at the bend speaks as reason and thought, and shows as imagined refutations. If you have read any of this, have you ever said, "Programming! I'm immune!", and yet here is the purest form of deprogramming ever seen. Find fault with the style; I'm a foreigner in six countries, all of them my own. But with the substance?

The damage to hearing and seeing must be undone through listening and seeing. If this were easy the damage would be small, and a bird could fix it.

Av dennis hägglund - 21 juni 2008 07:03

The one who says drugs are not acceptable contradicts many.

The one who says drink is not acceptable contradicts many more.

The one who says sex is not acceptable contradicts nearly all.

How does one say to the one who takes pleasure from drugs that there is joy in being free of them?

How does one say to the one who takes pleasure in drink that there is joy in being free of it?

How does one say to the one who takes pleasure in sex that there is joy in being free from it?

--when there is so much more to becoming free from it than just saying "no" to it; when the way to the freedom is not easy? The most they can imagine in each case is "I can give it up.", which is not this joy of being free of them.

No one did more harm than by seeing innocence as sexy, function as pleasure. Is God finger-lickin' good? That is the scale of the crime. God in the micro. Man is a creature always averse to hearing how much harm his version of success is doing. Tantalising deafness. Reason's machinery is deafening, and lubricant only makes it worse.

The notions "sexy" and "pleasure" say that innocence and function are lesser than sexy and pleasure. "Sexy" and "pleasure" are notions put on a pedestal, raised high above innocence and function. In truth innocence is sympathy with God, and function, when it is called upon innocently to perform, is Heaven on Earth.

And if it is not innocence one sees as sexy, why would one praise it?

Concealing desire makes a more vicious barb of it than demonstrating it. Reason refutes this, but here in this class we are learning what reason is made of. The way to freedom from reason's mischief is not easy, but it is well illuminated.

If concealing it is not making it innocent, then what remains but chastity or cruelty? Chastity is not something missing, but an acquired gracefulness like a bird's takeoff. It is to see the terrible distinction between what is naturally becoming, and what man has deemed becoming, in the behaviour of opposites in pairing. Innocence became this in man's destructive world, and needed a way made for becoming that in order to remain innocent in pairing. Why should pairing be less innocent, why "Virgin Mary"? Is it Judeo-Christianity, the notion of wild beasts, fifth day monsters and how man has the residual monster left in him despite sewers and churches?

Imagine, if you are a male, that you love a girl, and then she grows up a little and berates you for not lusting after her? Is this the girl you loved? This is "an artificial ingredient", a "chemical additive". The wonderful girl is still there, but will have little or no outlet for the rest of her lifetime, unless she gets help so serious it is perhaps not to be found on Earth, and the only way she can get it is if you discover that help.

Let us not make virtues in our own image, but accept that innocence is not beyond us, even if it has escaped us, so that we have no need to abandon the evolved virtues for contrived ones. A parrot of authority is not a teacher. A teacher is someone who has the job of saying, doing and being right where it counts most.

Tidigare månad - Senare månad
Skaffa en gratis