In thinking you design to make the other alone. You substitute some thing he will accept as you, so that you will have the place behind this "you” to shelter behind. In shelter you can think while affecting to be having a relationship.

Since you were born you have been surrounded by this phenomenon. Everyone who had anything to teach you or imprint upon you was actually not there. You were orphaned, with an image of others to serve as nanny.

And as you grew your friends fell into the same pattern, one by one they started to think, to substitute images (like those the adults made) for a part in relationships with you. So eventually you were abandoned also by your friends, without ever knowing they were not there, that you were looking at and talking to substitutes concocted by their thinking.

This is the irony of human development. We become utterly alone, but we don’t know it, because other people's thinking has manufactured "someone” who seems to us to be there. So, when we feel alone, what do we make of it? We make of it that we ourselves have elected this aloneness, which makes it privacy.

And privacy is what thinks.

Reality version: Find how you are abandoned, which is how you are alone with everyone you think you know.

Fantasy, or Ego version: Find yourself being so clever you have made yourself a private place in your mind.

One version can not sustain itself in the presence of the other.

When privacy is other, in other words, it becomes dismissive. You think, thus dismissing me.

Privacy in self-oblivion is other. He thinks, thus dismissing you, no matter how busy he keeps you.

Self-oblivion is sanity, the original state, the state which makes all life intensely present, the state of the child before he understands most common sentences, sentences being an involvement in the contradiction of the real, thus of perception.

To teach a child something creative we must first get rid of the nature of our own destruction, finding the way we have participated in our own destruction. In nature it is not merely philosophical to say, "The antelope persecuted and then ate itself with the lion.”. It is just how everything sees it. Total sanity is the total elimination of the paranoid "they” who did it to us, which therapist are so fond of hearing about from schizos. We become paranoid when feelings are not other, which is when we have become blind (when feelings assume the role of self, my feeling, they have ceased to serve as discovery, hence "blind"). This happens when the idea of security as what the bars on "the cage” of our lives represents begins to take effect: if I am secure, why am I bothering to see? Find out that authority preys, and there is nothing for the bars to mean but what they mean to the authority, and then you can get out of "the cage”.

A little quote: "People who protest war don’t know a thing about business. Getting people to kill each other is one of the nicer ways to make a lot of money.”

This version Tainted_Sadie.jpg is easier to read and see.

Revolutionary education begins with the infant. He is not lied to; he is not told that things are or were so just because that is how they have been said to be or to have been traditionally; he is not conned or manipulated by parents, teachers and the media. In short, his natural complexity of mind, which is innately exactly the complexity of reality (no contradictions), is not tampered with. And this is partly what we are lacking; we have no educational courses that do not make things synthetically simple.

Violence is the problem. Man has contrived a way of seeing things where violence becomes a game, where someone wins while another loses. Add men to Custer's side of the battle and the Injuns lose. This is not nature; nature generated its own predators. Not regrettably. Nature is the ultimate democracy. Life votes to live with cruel death. Life made the fox and the pheasant as a harmony, and in this harmony the pheasant is not in sympathy with any pheasant the fox may catch because the fox can't catch a good pheasant; it wouldn't want to evolve any such facility. To this mix man added a coop full of chickens where there is no harmony if the fox gets in. In the coop there are no voters from the original party. The new party, the members of the coop, votes for order (no foxes! simple minds welcome!), which is a privilege of the corrupt. And people, like it or not, are in the coop, which is what we can change!

If we eliminate what is not deep enough to be real we eliminate a contrived function of the human mind: memory. Of course the mind has various memories, but this one is the one that reasons and thinks (or, worst case scenario, feeds material to the voices in schizophrenia). This is the conscious memory, the memory that, in time, distracts people to the degree that they establish a kind of life in it, and begin to resent intrusions from the world or the present, the present being, to this occupant or occupation, merely a line dividing past from future, dividing what has been done and hence serves merely as lessons (and reminiscences), from what can be done and indulged in thanks to these lessons.

We must ourselves become educated in this revolutionary fashion, in order that we may educate new generations this way. But this is an instantaneous change, so it is not a question of surrendering to the rigors of the system to put in another twelve to twenty years. We must redeem what we have as that which is to be transcended, that which is too simple for the mind/perception and hence has become the province of said memory.

If we understand that memory contains only what is so simple it contradicts evolved comprehension, then we see that there is no output from evolved comprehension similar to the output from memory; no conclusions, estimates, judgements, reactions or ideas. The evolved comprehension discovers flawlessly. When we adopted the memory and its forms of output we supplanted the natural form of grasping what is happening or has happened, and in the estimate of the memory and its self or occupant this natural form never was and cannot become a form of grasping things, flawlessly or otherwise.

Emotions are a set to the memory, because they become a decaying set of emotions when they are contradicted by the memory and its processes, which is when they are rendered mute and relegated to the blood (the way seeing is relegated to memory by the logic of lenses: the picture must be behind the lens). If a person shows us on his face that he is not angry, then the memory informs us that anger has another explanation: we are angry. It is too complex to work out that he is compelled by political motives to control his face anytime there are human witnesses about, and that anger is a perception of his present political urgency. This is just like a zebra who is biting and kicking his fellow zebras because it seems to him there is no lion in the bushes. He sees no lion, smells no lion, hears no lion; conclusion: it is the zebra himself who is going to kill someone. The other zebras know the syndrome; it has been with them forever. Over a billion sold, is what they say to each other without bothering to look up.

Evolution is emotional. It takes steps, and these are emotions. An emotion tells the organism what new senses it has; it shows the organism how to build its new version, how to upgrade. We know emotions are a glandular excretion cocktail, but what we have forgotten, because we are always headed for senility, is how profoundly specific and versatile these cocktails can be.

When emotion becomes perception there is no self who is feeling it. It is no longer emotion in the body. The body finishes its work, and signals the completion by abolishing the emotion from itself so that it flowers as complete awareness of the other, which is perception.

Take this class; finish it, and you will connect your innocence (the whole mind/perception) together, which means your childhood will become as real now as it was then (not a memory), and children and creatures will be, to you, what they are to each other.

If your lookin' for trouble!

check out the UcantB2seriS blog under links.

Where I put all the arguments I've been dealing out at politikerbloggen in one neat package. No pictures, as yet.

To be believed is the most terrible thing. If we are understood, this is wonderful, but when we are believed something ugly must come of it.

Even a serious person, one speaking in terms of realistic complexity, can be believed. People do not have to have a grasp on what someone is saying to begin believing him. When they believe him they begin to do something in some way that reminds them of him, and then they presume to be doing something that is absurd for a profound reason. Yes, the one who is believed, even when he is serious, so that he is doing something amazing for a profound reason, soon has company from those who are sure they are doing something absurd for the same profound reason. Take a look at www.kinfonet.org/, a prime example (you may notice I do not link to it; believers are grotesque, and K's work leaves his serious audience floundering for years in a sea of more and more words that were the deepest in his time, but never deeper than the first ones, never building from start to a real finish, a point where it is all done and it works unceasingly).

Fortunately Krishnamurti does not inspire a wide movement, the way the popes and the Dalai lama do. Being a difficult study does reduce the number and impact of those who break the given rule and believe.

What exactly is belief? It is egotism, certainly. We want to say that we are capable of understanding something profound, and someone says to us, "This is profound politics!”, or, "This is profound wisdom!”, or, "This is profound spiritual guidance!”, and we grasp at it as proof that we have profound minds. Then we are relieved of the burden of having to become profound; we are already profound and can become other things. We can get a job, take a holiday, etc. God or our planet wants our lives, perhaps, but all we really owe (according to our experts) is an hour a week, a short guided tour of moral rectitude which barely requires our participation (they used to have someone to wake people up during religious services, to make sure they wouldn’t miss the boat to heaven).

Belief is when we nod sincerely. Someone says the world needs democracy, and we nod, signifying it makes perfect sense to us that we should take the helm of the planet's fate. Where is the sense of it? We are the planet's wrecking ball, always growing by leaps and bounds! Take a survey of the accomplished scientists who are certain that we are presently living in the last century, the Armageddon century. They ought to know!

In a democracy people have to sway us before they can do what they want, and swaying us becomes a science. They arrive in political office with a terabyte of private conspiratorial agendas, and nothing is going to stop them once they have pressed enter, until they are forced out of office. People who hate their jobs are swayed to give up their vacations. People who hate to drive are swayed to give up their trains. Someone holds out a carrot of promises he has no intention of keeping, and everyone fights against themselves, weighing the promises against the losses, and predictably agreeing to lose so they can take the promises home with them. It isn't strange that a drunkard is the most compelling candidate. Drunkards are practiced at strewing empty sentences about the pubs and collecting approval for them. A drunkard radiates unanimous approval between pubs (if the distances are kept to a minimum).

The opposite of believing something is not disbelieving it, but realising that if something is simple, then it can't be real, and hence it has to be a show covering an ugly reality. When something is complex there is some depth of perception required, and if something is true then this depth is the total of our perception. If we look up the photon in physics we find something very complex, because it has been a subject of costly study by many for a very long time, but even so it is not true. The truth about it has far more grace, and requires far fewer pay-checks.

But what we need to understand in radical psychology is already a complete science before you hear of it. You don’t have to begin the search for it, piece the bits together, form theories and test them, etc. All you have to do is appreciate that depth is the only virtue: depth of reality, and depth of its perception. Then you will not be saying, "Oh, this is too hard for me.”. You will be saying, "It's really difficult, but is it difficult enough?”.

Belief will raise a mob. A person who thrives on other’s belief in himself will produce more violence than a nuclear war. It is curious that there can be a hell on Earth without a war or a disaster of any kind but the arrival of a person who is believed by too many. Able to destroy the world by himself, he is like a nuclear warship, except in one respect: he can not refrain from destroying it because just by moving around to harvest the praises he has seeded he is destroying it.

Education that was not a part of required education may seem difficult to us. The intelligence challenges the ignorance, and the ignorance shrugs it off; which is stupid, but what is ignorance if not stupid. The ignorance accepts the Capitalist Carnival Of Joyrides as our right, and doesn’t want to go to school any more.

If we renew our efforts to understand the psychology of human development and the loss of the feeling mind we will finish with it, and soon be basking in the delightful love all natural creatures, including little children, feel for the sum of nature on Earth and above.

It may seem contrary to say, "Feel the meaning of the words.”, but that is just what we did as little children. If we did not feel the meaning we could not find a meaning. As we become intellectual and reasoning, emotions become a simple set, to suit the simple set of words for them. Then, as compensation, we have poets exploiting the loss by giving us back the passion, without the passion:

"And now the brief peace she had known was broken.

The serpent had reared its ugly head amid her roses;

it could be Paradise to her no more.”

Experiment:

We collect various dung samples from the wild, and also samples from cows, dogs and people on a Western diet. We arrange these samples at random and introduce the eggs of the same species of fly to each so that they will hatch one very generous batch per day. The fly species was selected to find all the samples acceptable. This means that each day we have a large number of flies from only one dung sample.

When each batch of flies was ready it was tested by putting part of it in a room with students, part in a room with dogs, part in a busy petting zoo and part in a picnic outdoors. The videos were compared.

Result: the flies that grew to maturity in the wild dung consistently proved benign to all concerned compared to the flies grown in the other three.

Conclusion: flies have emotions, and are disturbed if they have been cultivated in unnatural dung, dung from creatures who deviate from their niches. They transmit these emotions to those they socialise with. We further conclude that the same will prove true using bacteria.

Experiment:

Preschoolers are selected who have never used a pair of binoculars, and whose vision seems normal in both eyes. They are taken to a field where they can see their friends, who they have not seen all that day, playing, but at a distance where they can only recognise them through the binoculars so that at first they are not aware of them. The binoculars are set up, pointed, focused and adjusted for the child so that all he has to do is set his eyes to them to find his friends.

Result: The children see their friends and forget they are seeing them through the binoculars, so that they call to them in a normal voice, a voice designed to reach about a tenth of the distance. Usually they then look inquiringly at us, as if finding it inexplicable that their friends don’t answer, wondering if we would explain it. Some of them do the same thing three times in a row.

Conclusion: we presume it is reasonable to equate binocular-obliviousness with self-obliviousness, a tendency to ignore that perception is rooted in the body, which derives from an intensity of perception peculiar to the earliest years of human development (and to people who have had LSD-like drugs administered to them as done in Germany for curing addiction).