Alla inlägg under juli 2008

Av dennis hägglund - 28 juli 2008 10:58

What goes on in ones head as an adult is something that added itself since childhood, suppressing the original mind. Even how we look back into the past is something added, something not of the child's mind.

These two things, the child's mind and the things added since childhood, represent two ways to move, two ways to have arrived where one is. And peace of mind is when we have arrived where we are by that way of the mind that existed only before something added itself to the child's mind.

Peace of mind is when we have arrived where we are by the child's mind. Look around you in nature: every creature you see there has arrived where you see it in this way. You once possessed this art.


"Is it the human social theory that man has evolved so much further than nature that he alone grows bored with mere more days of mere nature?"

There is a large difference between the intelligence required to care about oneself and that required to care about the world. When it is suggested to us that we must care unselfishly there is a powerful resistance of ignorance. Ignorance is very comfortable. Narrowness is easy to attain, easy to accept as it grows narrower each day. For me to care about me, and to care about my lifespan, is very narrow, hence very easy. To care about lives and times beyond my own is not easy. It requires an alertness to things most people seem to do quite well for themselves without.

If I measure myself by the common narrow standard of gains and rewards I find that I would do much more for myself if I cared less about others. But there is a fetish behind these measurements. What form would my excesses take? Some have eaten more. Some have driven more cars. Some have visited more tourist traps. Some have had more sexual partners, or more exotic ones. Etc.

The illusion of control is the illusion of being effectively deceptive. There is a whole human world confusing each of us since the moment we are born, and when we assume to be in charge of confusing others, this is the ultimate confusion. Others are in control of each person's confusion, and our effort to deceive them reflects how perfect their control is.

When we are confused about the value of the things man can grant us we have a comparison problem, a rivalry problem. Look at nature, how every day each creature is as enthusiastic about it's livelihood as the previous days. Why do they never get used to it? Isn't it true that each day is much like the previous one?

Is it the human social theory that man has evolved so much further than nature that he alone grows bored with mere more days of mere nature? Are we a species so gifted that we lust after our own accomplishments because these are higher than evolution's accomplishments? Look at the planet. What is happening all day long? Man is replacing nature's work with man's!

If this process is not due to man's transcendent evolution, but to his laziness, where it is so comfortable and easy to care about oneself, and so strenuous to recover the sense to love in the universal and original way, then what we have lost is what makes man's accomplishments seem so attractive. This is the ultimate confusion: to replace love with lust, because lust is easy to serve. We are born with love, and gradually man confuses us because he has what must be lusted after for sale.


When we say something is psychology we usually mean it is simple. If we add things like love, joy, universal agreement, the childhood mind, etc. someone wants to call it philosophy or metaphysics because psychology has to stay within the frame of selfishness. This is a conditioned predjudice, not a law of science. The law of science is completeness. No psychology is complete if it does not include what is lost.

Av dennis hägglund - 12 juli 2008 18:53

Schizophrenia is an example of an illness of the intelligence, and thus it is incurable when approached as an illness of the intellect.

Imagine something that is wrong with your mind, and yet there is no cure for it! How can this be? If we say there is no cure for it we are saying there is no illness. Any time there is an illness in a person who was born normal there is a cure, excepting of course when there are only charlatans bidding on the project.

Do you want to understand the distinction between approaching problems with intelligence and approaching them with intellect? Do you want to cease being duped into relying on those whose only approach is through the intellect, the traditional, money-making, approach? If so, you've come to the right class.


Intelligence evolved; intellect is adopted. We adopt intellect by collecting it where intelligence is lacking, where there is a vacuum of intelligence. As we change the world we take intelligence out of its depth, and this makes room for intellect. Thus, wherever there is intellect providing a solution there is a need for new intelligence. Get the related new intelligence and you have evicted the related intellect.

Just the simple process of changing the world generates the opportunity to supply intellect, which is a gold-mine. Let's take language, one of the most ancient and effective changes. What was truth, truth being the very essence of communication, before language was developed? When we are being taught to speak and taught what to say, are we being taught a new way to communicate, or a new way that is not communicating at all? It is a question of an established standard. We are told that language sets a new and higher standard, but this is far from true; this is brutal charlatanism, quackery.

In language we even adopt a God who is pure nonsense, utterly lifeless; incredible mischief, and in all history perhaps three people we know of have ever recovered from it.

Communication has evolved, and so it is in its present form (before language) an absolute, and language has never attempted to conform to this absolute. Language has always assumed itself to be rooted in the utterly separate ideal of a new and safe environment, like a cage for mice, where evolution is obsolete and everything man has become through evolution now serves him solely as a variety of vehicles for a variety of self-indulgences. That we see so well, for example, has come to mean that we can indulge in pornography; and the backlash of this is that vision devolves, no longer having its original status (which is good for business, with its own branch of medicine).

Av dennis hägglund - 4 juli 2008 20:33

Have produced the .exe for the study of things that result from centrifugal force. Click to download. If it were booby-trapped I don't think anything would happen until you opened it, so you can check it on your desktop. You navigate through the 90 plus images using your space bar and your back bar, the one with the left-arrow, upper right. The slide-show loops. Meaning doesn't stop when it's at the end.

There are still only 24 drawings/paintings in the other Discovery Moment file, but I'm working on it.

Av dennis hägglund - 2 juli 2008 11:42

Apathy is one of the feelings. We will look at several feelings one at a time as a supplement to the class below.

If man produced an environment, placed you inside it, and you felt apathy for this existence, what would be the problem? It would be a problem with the environment, and a problem of you being too evolved for the environment. If this were done, could you be conditioned to accept the environment, even to admire it? Could you be brought to lower your demands to mere, "No pain.". With applied pain, of course, you could. It feels so good when they stop torturing you. Painkiller addiction works that way. No pain is ecstasy.

We are born highly critical of the human environment (as noted earlier, almost all mothers tell us we were serene babies to cover their negligence and win our devotion), but the criticism fades away so that by the time we have become authorities over our own children we have more or less abandoned the rebel cause entirely. This does not mean the apathy has vanished, but that a force has been conjured called conscious which makes apathy unconscious.

Apathy is a painful process of having to be forced to do anything except survive. The edge between apathy and suicide is very sharp, so that one day a child may feel forced to do what survival dictates, and the next day he laughs at the idea that he wants to survive. A child who has stepped off this edge rarely confides in us, because he knows we will stop him. But most of us cling to life; most of us understand instinctively that this is our problem to solve, not someone else's, and that solving it, even if it seems impossible to do, is not a waste of a lifetime but the very essence of living. This is where no creature has been before. The utterly alien.

From our parents we all become convinced that apathy is a problem that can be solved by some contrivance. We become certain it's a competition, that we all have to spend a lot of money to get rid of apathy, for example, but it is mother's money; mother always wins. And it worsens when mother wants to remain the star of the strip show (as well as the winner of the money), and the daughter grows into that slot as mother ages out of it. Then the daughter has to play father against mother; she has to acquire a heterosexual skill, making contempt for a man seem devotion to him (which mean pretending she thinks him having assigned her a slot as his sex-object is not an exhibition of his contempt for her).

The granddaughter enters as a natural born victim. Grandmothers all but put the big kettle on the fire. But somehow apathy doesn't return even in old age; apathy is a realm of the young. This phenomenon is called "authority", a synthesized immunity to the manmade environment. Authority has us all convinced that it is winning the game to evade apathy by winning the game of living better or more securely in this manmade environment, while in fact it is only better at getting senile than we are.

Where can one distance oneself from reality? In a mental storage space! In this space one labels things past, although they are not taken from past reality. A small girl with makeup on, for example, expects everyone to see the makeup, because she certainly would. She doesn't know that the men who react didn't even know there was any makeup; that they just responded to a cue without actually recognising it. They put her into memory, assuming that what they put into memory is actually her. She is in their memory as erotic, but she is not remembered with makeup, or as erotic solely due to the makeup. So we have a distance: a girl who is not erotic to a man has been collected into his erotica. (Reality does not go through the eyes' lenses into the head. There is a science where we know reflected light goes through the lenses making an image, but this is not the science of seeing, just the science of eyes as organs. Only if a person is dead do the eyes work this way.)

Now memory has someone in it, but the image is synthesized, not even a direct optical projection. Why is this person in memory? Because this memory is useful; this memory will, for example, be used as erotica. This usefulness is a future. This future is also not a real time, not a real other.

Sex is an escape into the not real. The physical stimulation is in the present, but the driving force is not real. The pleasure has been put above the realism. The realism would invade as apathy; apathy arrives with reality or the present, because it is our real feeling for what man has wrought. In memory the habit of pleasure has decided what is real to it, instead of the real deciding what something is worth.

Sex and sweets are intense. Intensity crosses the distance between the present and the preoccupation called self in the memory. Something so intense is like pain. No matter how you concentrate or fixate it is still there. You want to stay away from the present, because apathy is there, but the pleasure gets through to you even though you are not there in the present, like a perfumed letter from a girlfriend to a soldier at the front. All you can want is more pleasure.


When a feeling is comparatively higher, what is the zero? If I say something is higher, I must define the zero, the higher-than-what.

So when I say that sex is higher, what is it higher than? The problem here is that there are two of these zeros, just like on thermometers. The one is man-made, and the other was there before man started to make things, to make an environment of his things.

The act of conceiving in nature produces a higher feeling which is higher than joy. But when man is having sex it produces a higher feeling which is only higher than apathy.

Man is perpetually haunted by this problem. Man has changed the world, and man needs man in order to make and maintain these changes, but all that these changes can offer man is apathy. Even those who drive man because man is making them rich have nothing to put them beyond apathy's constant grip. This is why man moves his life into his head. In his head he is no longer the slave of reality, no longer evolved and burdened with evolved expectations. In his head he can indulge in belief in all the lies and promises he has been given. In his head he can consider the masks others wear, all the feelings they register (like in acting: to register mournfulness at the fake gravesite), as genuine experience.

Finding apathy as other, we find authority. Is there a decent way to get authority? Does anyone have authority decently? There is no way to find out except to find what has become of apathy where it is being expertly managed. (This is like the one about the zebra who can't feel the real predator lurking behind some cover, because he assumes the killer feeling as his own.)

Is it a crime to steal into your toddler's room while he is asleep and rob him of the little coin his father gave him? And then berate him for losing it the next morning? If it seems so you are naive about marriage, motherhood...

There's a fair chance you can find out what authority is if you take this class from the start.

Av dennis hägglund - 1 juli 2008 09:21

Warning! Your system has encountered a problem, and will REBOOT! All information that is not SAVED! will be lost!

What is evolution? It is something that can be read from DNA like a barcode. DNA has a beginning. When it began it was not a strand; it was just a fleck. That fleck is when the immortal thing was born. So if we want to say that something is immortal about us we have to say that it is whatever is saved as DNA. We are born as a reading of DNA. There is nothing else there at birth but this reading.

So if we wanted to say, "Let us save THIS thing of ourselves so that it will come back as a baby.", we would mean that we want to put THIS thing into the DNA. The question, then, is: What is it that can be put into the DNA? Some geneticists are saying that everything is in the DNA. It gives us that we are homo or hetero, that we are intellectually bright or slow, that we are cautious or risk-takers, that we are sickly or immune, etc. But! It does not give us anything to think with! It puts nothing into memory! There may be something in the DNA that determines the memory's susceptibilities to various input, but nothing in the DNA makes conscious memory. So we can safely say that if there is something we treasure in memory, we will have to convert it into something that will SAVE to the DNA, or it will die when the body dies.

Popular science gives us a crude idea of where our DNA comes from. Mother and father pool some genetic resources, and some of these select themselves in combination, perhaps through a very smart system that eliminates conflicting attributes. It sounds very much like gambling. So how could this become an individual who has already lived previous lifetimes? It sounds like the making of a random individual, and random individuals will not return. It is a problem in reasoning. In reality every event in the world is impossible, because it is significant. How can all these people and creatures living together actually perpetually mean something to each other every time? Especially since we try to maintain order. Order obviously eliminates spontaneity. As reason we have to discount that it can happen. It can only happen when something far more perceptive than reason is at the helm of every living (including every thinking) being (Thinking makes trouble, and there is need in the world for a lot of trouble, trouble to bring to those who have brought us all trouble.). Today science is actually coming around to admitting that this is so, that whatever people think they are doing, it is instinct that is doing something. The difficult place to achieve socially, then, is where what you are doing instinctively is good and fun, eliminating the bipolar nature of "getting along". (Am I digressing? Where were we?)

To save what is in memory is what we have been studying here in this class. You remember how your infancy was so serene, for example, but you discover that your mother was and is a liar; that your memory of infancy is simply victimisation, a sort of bruise you just never got over. You remember they unjustly locked you away. You were never guilty as charged, or crazy or whatever; or the law was unjust or excessively severe. Then you discover that you actually locked someone away yourself, someone you had as little respect for as the system has for you, be it a cat or a bird or a dog, etc. You remember that Jesus died for your sins, and then you realise that bible-thumping at that time in history meant promoting the already abolished ritual killing of animals on the Sabbath ("temple gifts" were a major debate at the time, with a lot of money riding on it). In other words, discovery cleans memory by saving the past as real past ("real" being a sensibility that makes DNA, a judging of a discovery's compatibility with the sum total of real past), a past that does not exert itself and does not really invite reminiscence, because it is in a format that is compatible with all previous lifetimes.

Real is when other is felt. How does it feel to be locked up? How does it feel to be that crow or cat or dog or whatever? If you feel it, can you do it again? When you discover the other of the feeling of being locked up you have displaced the memory of what you did to the creature with how it felt to be the creature. But if you add your experience of being locked up to your memories of injustices you have suffered, thus eliminating the universal beneficence from this particular event (which in turn pollutes all other events and perceptions, happy or sad), you CAN do it again. This is the nature of Hell, a place we bring our world to by being always able to do things again, which is a world where memory reasons.

We are born having eliminated nothing, not even the pain we are suffering at the time, from the sense of universal beneficence. This is innocence. It is not mere naivety. It is intense even when we are unhappy (remorse is the intense form of unhappiness). And as we "save" the things from memory, as other, we are restoring this intensity of life, until we are no different than we were as children.

When childhood is no longer distant the strand is complete.

Feeling as other is the strand building.

Skaffa en gratis