Inlägg publicerade under kategorin utbildning/education

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.

ANNONS
Av dennis hägglund - 20 juni 2008 00:14

The strangest thing I see in the teaching environment is the idea every teacher seems to rely on, that all solutions are already available. If there is violence in the school, for example, all that is required is to send the teachers to a course on how to deal with violence in school. So, in reflection, all that is wrong with any school is that its teachers have not yet been sent to this course. The funny thing, of course, is that every school is full of violence. No one has ever seen the purported benefits of this wonderful course.


When no solution exists, the healthy thing to do is to pretend to have the solution and use it as if it works?

ANNONS
Av dennis hägglund - 16 juni 2008 02:59

We are engaged in a process of discovery. Ironically, it is the discovery of reality. We find man in the absurd situation of being unable to grasp reality. Astronomers make the world of knowledge larger every day, but man, including astronomers, still prefers an unchanging place called conscious, where even "the one God” is so small he wants to consult with us, like Santa Claus, and where even this God can’t watch us flimflamming him because the process is private and he is as unsuspecting as the rest of those in our addled and sabotaged experience.


We understand some basic rights. The nature of thinking is to formulate falsehoods for effect, while a child has a right to unpolluted truth. Where the law sides with the liar there is no law. To teach children and to imprint something on them must be done without destroying or diminishing the gifts they are born with, and if a teacher or neighbour finds these gifts damaged he has a right to show the child how it was done. He has a right to expose family, friends, leaders, clergy, books, doctors, etc. Adults do think, and there is no thinking to present truth, except as thinking to usurp it (like a whore usurps a grant or scholarship), which requires only recognition of its worth.


We can not find reality as something that can be added to conscious. Conscious is tiny as a defence agaist the onslaught of a reality too profound to deal with as we have been taught and conditioned (insecurity plus security equals security if you ignore the insecurity, as conscious ignores un- and sub-conscious), and not because it is unschooled. So the way is not easy, like reading a best-seller or the scriptures. We must take a tiny flame that lives alongside of the conscious, as other than thinker or its thinking, and fan this dying flame into the light that penetrates all of man’s deceit and folly, because as we accept a shallower and well-meaning man it is accompanied by an equally weak perception of what man destroys and would destroy could he but reach it. Finding an evil among us, and within us as conditioning, is the price for finding the sanctity and astonishing beauty of what's around us. Depth can not be partial. See man only as a surface and we must see nature and the cosmos as equally shallow, and then some preacher, philosopher, therapist or professor can sound deep to us when “adding depth to conscious”, the world’s most trivial pursuit.


The study needs to begin from the first day’s postings. The steps of learning seriously are: Accumulate, and assimilate. You accumulate by action (which in this class means reading and looking), and assimilate by inaction or resting. You know it is time to accumulate more when assimilation is complete, which you will know by a feeling of needing to do it, eagerness to get back to it. You will know when it is time to assimilate by the sense of tiredness. Tiredness is an instinct saying you have accumulated as much as you can assimilate for now, and that you should assimilate while the recent upload is fresh. What we learn here is that anything your glands do, any cocktail of hormones they excrete, are defining your surroundings (which always implies a response: an action or rest), which is instinct. (What a chemistry set! Thank God science hasn’t come up with a way to milk it, or we’d all have tags in our ears.)


To have tiredness working as it should one needs to use as little caffeine and sugar as one can manage on. If you have to use these stimulants, make a time of day after your chores when you don’t use them, and switch to the mildest version you can function on at your chores, for example, green tea and maize-syrup, or if you must, maple syrup or maple sugar. Best, of course, is to go all the way down the yin ladder (Yin-yang is unfortunately the best study of food as it relates to health to date, since medicine is only lucrative as a way to milk 'the illness-cow', not to kill it. Imagine all that expensive education, just to say: "eat and drink cheaper stuff and less of it, and you'll never have to come back". Medicine will always find a costlier way to keep us sick longer. Died at 40, buried at 99.) to bancha roasted twig tea and occasional brown rice syrup or barley malt, but for some a sudden shift is not practical.


You crave yin as a direct consequence of yang, worst case, red meat. Study your fingernails to cheat the doctors: clippings should be as impossible to gnaw through as fishing monofilament, and the lighter areas at the base of the nails indicates a body starved for whatever can be leached from nail, bone, cartilage, and fibro-cartilage. These vanish from pinkie to thumb, one at a time, as you get better. In Sweden Kung Markatta knows who sells the stuff, including Grundboken i makrobiotik av K.M It matters to our learning ability how we feel, and matters to our feelings what our physical growth is rooted in, our roots being inside of us instead of in the ground like a tree’s. Essentially we are plants that pick up our dirt and compost and carry it with us, and like plants we want it free of human tampering.


When we are in charge of a feeling like tiredness (or any other feeling)through the power to apply stimulants, it can not serve in its natural capacity. No serious creature rests deeply only when it is going to sleep. An instinct ('instinct' by common usage, is a bit impersonal, a bit 'lab-procedural', but in our context it is synonymous with perception) will not trick one, so tiredness is not asking us if we feel like resting. In nature you miss this hormonal message (which is not mere tiredness when perceived as the observed or other, which is the self-oblivious and natural perspective, but a world expressing having no further use for us until we have caught on) and die.


When an adult human rests he is still not resting, because he has adopted thought sometime in his teens, and when we have understood thought’s genesis clearly the mind will resume being as it was before this tragic event. This is not only a repair of that problem, but of all the problems in our lives which led to it (hence genesis); the problem, in other words, of conditioned susceptibility. So we are not just removing thought; that by itself is most likely impossible without extensive brain surgery. To remove thought from the memory completely and naturally we must expose all the trifling and tampering our minds have been subjected to since we were born. This means it is easier if one is younger, of course, since a young mind has been subjected to less, but this version of the class, developed through decades of experiments, ought to work with any person who could, if the need arose, return to school.


More Don’ts: If you smoke cannabis I suggest you get rid of the habit and the company while you study (As I sit here I notice one of my neighbours indulging; the habit is spreading. Thank God he doesn‘t smoke tobacco.). It is really the self-prescribed Prozac, and makes it almost pointless to approach a difficult subject.


Tryptamines in minute doses may seem practical for clarifying a difficult problem, but it is doubtful they do anything for the student except shorten the time by intensifying the effort. There are usually ongoing studies somewhere in Europe where a person who wants to try them may volunteer, although in my opinion the doses being used are often excessive. Someone cheating in a chess tournament wouldn’t use nearly as much, and he most certainly would win.

DMT (a street and lab drug taken by smoking or injection) is a natural tryptamine, found in the body, so if you get enough rest you will get a rational dose of it in any case. Seems a bit arrogant to push something around wilfully that comes naturally if your approach is healthy.


Alcohol makes a difficult class utterly impossible. Sad that it’s so popular. There are some nice alcohol free beers now. Norrlands Guld alkoholfri is a bit sweet, but comes in a can.


Finally: It’s amazing how many people have not discovered earplugs. God knows how they expect to study without them. This is not the ‘eat and puke’ education most schools offer to those who have no serious goals but to graduate. This is about the intrinsic right to study in order to achieve a place in society that is a passion, not a job. About freedom!

Av dennis hägglund - 15 juni 2008 03:15

Reading is the art of making meaning from sentences and their context. How do we make meanings? We can do it in a very egocentric way, or we can do it in a way that always arrives at what the author has meant. The egocentric way, the lazy way, is to decide that any meaning must be familiar. This is "reading by recognition”. For example, you read, "Cherishing other as oneself.”, and this becomes, "Sharing. Don’t Bogart that joint. Don't eat your candy in secret where no one can demand a share.”, whereas the original meaning is, "Self-obliviousness, the metamorphosis from self-awareness (which is awareness limited to what can be controlled by will, splitting conscious from unconscious and subconscious) to self-exclusive other-awareness.”.


When we are no longer self-oblivious this real meaning is not recognizable, and the lazy reading of the words does not admit the challenge of the unfamiliar, the yet-to-come. Is there such a thing as self-oblivious people? If so there is no familiar way to mean them, no way to recognize them. Small children are self-oblivious, but no ordinary adult has ever recognized them as such, so despite the familiarity with small children in the present and the fact that all of us have been small children there is no familiarity with the phenomenon.


Self-oblivion may seem to the recognition like some sort of fetish accomplished through bizarre rituals, but in reality it is only the recovery of the lost mind or perception. This recovery is not chosen, not something on a menu to select or not. The intelligence that remains must demand that the intelligence that is lost be recovered if the chance arrives.


It is hard work to read without recognition as the way to arrive at a meaning, and hence as a way to proceed, to continue, to get to the end. It is hard work to see so many words and to have read so few of them after so much effort. But it is education. You don’t pick up your first serious calculus book and read it in an evening.


It is not an insult to us, after we have established that we can earn a living, to be given something that is difficult to get through. The writer didn’t just out of the blue write these things, but has devoted his life to it, so it should not feel strange to the reader that it requires some mental energy and time to understand it and actually get it done.

Av dennis hägglund - 13 juni 2008 09:59

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.”


Av dennis hägglund - 13 juni 2008 08:43

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

Av dennis hägglund - 9 juni 2008 19:08

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.

Av dennis hägglund - 9 juni 2008 01:00

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.

Skaffa en gratis bloggwww.bloggplatsen.se