Direktlänk till inlägg 25 juni 2008

Hiding violence from oneself.

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.

 
ANNONS

Från
    Kom ihåg mig
URL

Säkerhetskod
   Spamskydd  

Kommentar

Av dennis hägglund - 18 januari 2009 08:31

Go to: http://seriouslyfolks.bloggagratis.se/   or http://dhagglund.wordpress.com/    if you want to see my new blogs. I warn you before you click that these are purely holistic psychology blogs, and the reading will require some concentrated effort ...

Av dennis hägglund - 15 januari 2009 20:15

  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 obse...

Av dennis hägglund - 12 januari 2009 21:42

  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 evoluti...

Av dennis hägglund - 7 november 2008 06:11

I find that writing Knols ("units of knowledge") more practical at the moment. Blogs are more for people who follow them. New readers are disinclined to go back to the beginning. So you might consider this: http://knol.google.com/k/dennis-hgglund/med...

Av dennis hägglund - 23 september 2008 05:09

  How evolved is life on Earth? This is a question regarding the depth of evolution, and it must be fairly obvious to anyone who asks the question earnestly that an evolved awareness is aware of the exact depth of life's evolution. The awareness ...

Skaffa en gratis bloggwww.bloggplatsen.se