Inlägg publicerade under kategorin utbildning/education

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.

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 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 - 23 juni 2008 00:00

In this class we have shown that the various forms of authority we encounter throughout our lives condition us to live our lives in such a way that everything pertinent to our intelligence, our decision and action resolving process, accumulates as things hidden from us, and we have shown that when another's feelings are hidden from us we adopt the feeling as our own to our best ability.

We have shown that, in the shadow of language, laughter, which communicates in a universal way, seems to lack the nuances to serve as communication, because we listen to language very slowly while one must listen to the universal sounds very quickly.

We have shown that feelings as self lose their nuances. Feelings are only nuance-rich when they are perception, other, which is when they are important. As ones own feeling a feeling has no real significance. Nothing depends on a careful perception of a feeling that seems to be ones own, while everything depends on a careful perception of every nuance of a feeling that is other or others.

We have shown that nature and the cosmos lose their sanctity to a perception that habitually accepts a version of authority, including the authority of peer pecking order, that hides everything we needed to see.

These are the phenomenon related to the shrinking of activity volume in the brain, which authority has labelled "concentration" so that those whose brain activity covers the whole brain are, in this definition, unable to focus.

So there are two kinds of people: those to whom everything they need to perceive to live sane and free lives is hidden, and those who have restored the animal to the throne by completing its perception to include human mischief.

Av dennis hägglund - 22 juni 2008 01:25

"This is goodness, the opposite of power, to mean that children may always become the best of us, that we would rather cultivate a gift in them that eventually makes us feel stupid and primordial by comparison, than conjure from a child someone who makes us feel superior."

When we awaken the animal we have a marvel of discovery and learning that eclipses the processing of knowledge and of the images in experience which we imagined as having substance (the images of others and their actions which they have contrived by their thinking to have us believe). This sensibility also retains a perfect sense of life's context, which is of what all the other species along with the cosmos have meant to us when we were whole; and it is not a mere friendly observer of other species, but equally precious to them, always getting as much feedback from them as one seagull is getting from another.

There are two learning options in human potential. The one is the animal, which has evolved for billions of years, and the other is the civilisation handbook, which is in the memory, and which has always been written by someone trying to elicit human cooperation for his private agenda. The first historian and biographer most of us in the West know about has it said that God made him; that he was not born of a woman; that there never were any people before him. Can we imagine that he was deluded, or was he just a liar? And being just a liar we declare him sane (like George Bush)? He did not pass on a history he himself knew, of earlier generations who carried with them the knowledge of their roots in a natural habitat, a place where homo sapiens was indigenous. He chose to excise the known past from the verbal history in order to arrange some clout for himself. He chose to leave new generations in the dark. Lies are the history of language. "Lies are their mother-tongue!"

The animal discovers, learns, in a way that fits two things together: electricity and glandular excretions. When a lower glandular excretion happens in our own bodies this is evidence of a new environment incompletely understood. (When these become perception as other the new environment IS UNDERSTOOD.) A completely understood environment generates higher feelings (which are creating new perception), and to date people are only equipped for nature, not for man's environments. The shift from nature to man's environments, in other words, is responsible for the lower emotions. What we are doing here on this blog is ending an era where man is not equipped for the environment he has produced, which is the beginning of an era where man will radically alter the way he produces changes in the environment. We are studying toward the end of a time when we would make a thing or a change without having it completely understood.

When a lower glandular excretion, a lower emotion, is found as the other perception has finally evolved, actually evolved while we are here in this lifetime. Jealousy, envy, hate, are examples of non-recurring emotions, so that if once we perceive these as the other we can never feel them again. (The senses acquire the perception of the traps. Some feelings only exist as full cooperation with the trap-maker.)

This is relationship, where there is a bond of discovery. The idea that the animal is subconscious or unconscious, so that there is no activity from it that we can be completely aware of, vanishes. The animal intelligence has always been with us, as long as we have had genuine feelings, genuine glandular events. It is only its natural placement (the place feelings originally occupied in relatiohships) that has been confused. And why not? We have been in the care of a caring system, as far as we have known. We have given up the role of self-care, self-responsibility, self-reliance, self-help, etc. We have placed ourselves in others' care. We have suggested peace but accepted that it can't be done, for example. Is that sane, or simple?

In the memory things are this simple, where we do some little part, always oblivious to, or with some vague pre-programmed idea about, how the whole works, and yet this animal we have described in this class is not simple, so we have to doubt its existence: it's too complex to exist! How does a simple creature reflect that once he was a profound one?

What is more obvious than that kept creatures become simple, even more so than wild creatures which have been condemned by the same confusion, the zebra who assumes it's a killer because its eyes, ears and nose do not detect the presence of any other killer around (the natural killer being clever enough to be hidden from those three senses) while its feelings, for some reason suddenly confusing, contradict it? If we keep a creature for too long it becomes more simple than any wild creature could be, because in the wild becoming simple is lethal, terminal. Simple minded creatures are mere ripe fruit.

The zebra scenario has such a simple solution: the zebra understands its place, and realises that this feeling of killer is other, which means a killer is hidden, and it can now feel the killer in the bushes as a blossoming of profound authority. As soon as it is aware of the killer, feeling it in the bushes, feeling the awesome power, it is free. As soon as it understands, from what it feels from the bushes, that the killer means to kill only the zebra that wants to become a killer that doesn't care who it kills (random violence; chaos, a crime the natural killer is incapable of), the trial is over. The killing feeling leaves the zebra's blood when it senses the presence of a grand killer, a killer who lives on blood and feeds its young with blood and has never in its billions of years of evolution been less deadly. Judge, jury and beheader.

What binds the zebra and the killer in a bond of death instead of one of harmony? It is the presence of the inferior version of the hormones in the zebra's blood! The petty copy-cat, the inexpert marauder, the fraud. Are we good at being lower beings, you and I? Are we good at hate, which is torture? At anger, which is bloodshed and bodily breakage? At contempt, which is slumming, winning the flotsam in the stream of life? At fear, which is callousness, a habit of going without feeling the way? At lust, which is to compete for whores, so that he who lusts most poorly pays the least and comes closest to friendship? At greed, which is the partnership with lust, so that he whose greed is greatest has the most deviant sex? At gluttony, which requires a diet of both excessive food and excessive pharmaceuticals or the equivalent? At vanity, which requires complete obliviousness to the significance others put on those who appeal to them, the violence of their fascination, like a pheasant parading in a hotel kitchen? See the split: the good and the evil, where the evil grow more so while the good do not grow more so.

Here is your niche! Here is where good discovers what goodness can go on to become. And as you can do this, you being a small minority, the children can do it far more elegantly. This is goodness, the opposite of power, to mean that children may always become the best of us, that we would rather cultivate a gift in them that eventually makes us feel stupid and primordial by comparison, than conjure from a child someone who makes us feel superior.

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.

Skaffa en gratis