Inlägg publicerade under kategorin psychology

Av dennis hägglund - 12 januari 2009 21:42


Gullibility is an opiate. The one who tries to correct it will seem more cruel than kind this side of time's horizon.


Some thousands of years ago a nearly four billion year old process of evolution was interrupted in our species (and a few select other species we favored as pets and cattle) when we decided that the process of defying nature could be made more interesting than continuing to evolve. A means was invented for extending the range of our species, and improving upon this means, and thus extending our range perpetually, became a new star to follow, a new God perhaps. This precipitated a radical change in the mind, and especially in the human mind. On the one hand we had the mind as it was evolving, devoted utterly to evolution, which is to harmonizing with a growing and evolving diversity of living forms, and on the other we had the mental compartment, if we may call it that, which we would devote to what man could do for man if he established some order or regimen of allocating tasks which tasks taken together would produce a society with some potential for survival or coexistence with nature and with other societies.

In theory this was a practical development. Man seemed to himself an intelligent animal either way. He was an intelligent natural animal when he was living in nature, and he became an intelligent "person" when he devoted himself to human society. But has anyone ever questioned this theory seriously? Are there not some holes in it? Is it really possible to be intelligent in two ways: by behaving as if nature and its evolution is everything, "God's Plan" so to speak, and also in behaving as if nature and its evolution must make way for man and his "evolution". No doubt all of us have heard, from some people with respectable degrees from respectable schools, that man has been evolving since he abandoned nature; that leaving nature precipitated some extraordinary evolution in our species, while other people with equally respectable degrees from equally respectable schools have said that both man and nature have stopped evolving since man abandoned nature for a life as a rogue mammal, and that nature will resume evolving if man allows it to, releases it from bondage, while man is, as far as nature is concerned, an extinct ape and will never again evolve; that man is a mammal that can not be restored to nature, which is also true of the humble cow. In some species the pilot light of instinct has gone out, according to these less optimistic theorists (who have been taking into account the relatively recent discovery of "Eden Man", people who, while being exactly like us physically, have less in common with our ways of living than wild chimpanzees. The dictionary gives us: Homo sapiens 1. the species of bipedal primates to which modern humans belong, characterized by a brain capacity averaging 1400 cc (85 cubic in.) and by dependence upon language and the creation and utilization of complex tools. --while the chimps are more inclined to use language and tools than Eden Man, even though Eden Man does have this brain capacity. In short, remaining in the exact niche where evolution placed man to begin with, which is where he doesn't need or use clothes, shelters, words or tools of any kind did not keep his brain from growing big. The conscious has not made the brain grow. A big brain has more to do with how sensitive your skin is and how much of it is exposed than with how intelligent you are.).

Are there two perspectives: One where nature is looking at man's activities in disgust and another where man is looking at nature's activities with contempt. And if there are these two, is one of them intelligent, or are they both intelligent? And if one is intelligent, which one is it? (Certainly we don't believe that nature watches man's activities with approval! "Hurray! I'm extinct! Wonderful! Man is making my lungs bleed!") This is a question regarding the division of the human mind. The conscious precipitates the effect that the natural intelligence becomes subconscious. The new perspective precipitates the effect that the old comes into disuse. Contradictory perspectives do not coexist within the conscious ken.

How does a creature of nature get along? He applies an intelligence, but what is this intelligence; what is its medium? The conscious, which is man's way of getting along in human society, applies knowledge, experience and words. The adult conscious actually immerses him in a sea of words for all his waking hours. We can not seriously expect that the natural creature has anything akin to words in its processes, and so its processes are not sluggish. That is simple enough to understand. It needs words to slow the processes down, words that are being acted out, spoken for effect rather than because they are true or cogent. What is harder to understand is what knowledge and experience do to processes. If there is no knowledge and experience, is the subconscious process remotely related or similar to the conscious process? Knowledge and experience are introverted effects. We must collect them and refer to them, which means we must distract ourselves from the present to find out what we need to do, like a person who must look something up on a website or in a reference book. Without knowledge and experience there is no distraction from the present, and this is what is unimaginable to the conscious process, a mind that processes without distracting one from the present.

How can the present and the processing not conflict with each other? It may appear that there must be both and that the one must distract and detract from the observation of the other. But look at a recent science, a science in its infancy, 'body language'. There are two ways to deal with body language. One way, the conscious way, is to remember what each known posture of the body means, which means the observer must look at the posture and then refer what he observes to his memory, and the other is where there is an instantaneous perception of what the posture means so that observing the posture is not interrupted for even an instant while the observation is being processed. Looking at this rationally, the observed person is making a posture without trying to, and so the observer should be understanding its meaning without trying to. After all, the person doing the observing is also making body language all the time, and he is not conscious of it. Apparently it is the conscious that is the distraction. Get rid of that and everything is working smoothly...

...except for one thing: the subconscious is extremely critical of man's activities.

Is this clear? I am making body language all the time and so are you. Does this mean we both know how to make it but neither of us know how to read it? Or is reading it just as natural and unconsciously done as making it? Why this new science then, if we are already reading it subconsciously? Why does it belong in the conscious, as well as in the subconscious? Next we will be posturing consciously as well, which will defeat the whole purpose, like a veracity testing machine that lies.

What we are sure of is that body language, when it is not studied for effect, is being truthful. I say I love my mother but my body language testifies that I abhor her. It is true that I abhor her. We can rely on it. When we die we are reincarnated in hell, which is in our mother's care. Being afraid to die is being afraid of mothers, which is quite rational. So what we have to determine is if it is possible to have an intelligence that lies, or if it is a prerequisite of intelligence that it is truthful in the very best sense, a sense of not even being naïve.

Is it possible to make the conscious truthful? This is where knowledge and experience come in. Is knowledge true? Is experience true? Can we suspect all knowledge? Can we suspect all experience? Can the phenomenon of input itself be false, so that if it requires us to look inward, into memory, into the past, into the idea, then it is false? Consider astronomy, for example. If I distrust what I was taught about religion, this does not mean I necessarily distrust what I was taught about astronomy. I put religion down as superstition, and astronomy as science. But they are both input. So where is the lie of astronomy? It is simple. There is a cosmos above us. It gave us an evolving sense of its presence for nearly four billion years. Astronomy disregards this sense, and gives us a new cosmos, a cosmos that is appropriate to study as if it never made any better sense to us than it does to the scientists who are assembling the puzzle of cosmic parts and generating the new ideas from these structures as if nature were oblivious to the cosmos and science is the chore of generously enlightening the only species that can be enlightened.

Conscious is something dead giving us the dead version of everything else.

If only man can make sense of the cosmos then only man deserves to live on, and any other planet in the cosmos that does not have man on it deserves to be plundered to death. Science is destroying the bond between man and nature, as if man's evolution were some sort of primordial larval stage. Like Adam from the Old Testament (Judeo-Christian scriptures), science gives us a nature that is scarcely worthy to be sacrificed on an altar. This again has to do with what is instantaneously perceived. If we instantaneously perceive that nature is profound and inspired we can not make ourselves conscious of it, and if what is profound and inspired about ourselves is what nature evolved us to be rather than what man has conditioned us to be we can not make ourselves conscious of it. Conscious can not regard life in an unconditioned perspective. Conscious is purely an invention of our authorities. We are tailor made to serve older generations, like dogs made to herd sheep.

How is experience like knowledge? If you see me and I am making a face that seems nonchalant, what do you see as far as what lodges in your conscious or memory? You see a man who is nonchalant. But why am I consciously making you see me as nonchalant? It is because I am actually quite perturbed! I have reasoned out that to show you how perturbed I am would place me at a disadvantage. So now your experience tells you that I was not perturbed. This is a gullible conclusion. And your power to get past this is subconscious. You can not make your conscious less gullible. You can not accumulate less gullible input. Like body language, you can only do it truthfully from your subconscious, which is from evolution, from being a wild animal. The truth is told or expressed only subconsciously, and it is heard or seen, perceived in short, only subconsciously. Why is this animal gift subconscious? Because we are no use to authority if we are still functioning on all cylinders. We are not exactly cattle, because our ingenuity is our greatest gift, and we will not apply that unless we believe we are serving ourselves.

There is a great celebrity in the music branch. An idol. All the budding teens adore him, except those few who have spent some time with him. The ones who know him too intimately hate him, grew disgusted with him. Why? Because he is a monster, of course. And they made him a monster. They took an ordinary brat and made a monster of him. How much would it be worth to love someone and find that no matter how intimately you knew him and no matter for how long, your love would only grow? Only the subconscious has this gift. Only the subconscious knows who this is and why it is this way; why it has to be just those, and not the ones in the spotlight.

The old adage is that familiarity inevitably breeds contempt. And what is the opposite of familiarity? Besides novelty! Since novelty relies too heavily on naivety. It is evolution. No one is ever the same. Not only are they consistently good; they are always better. The best any person, cat or dog could ever be is consistent. Not so the wild creatures.

And why just the wild creatures? Because one law applies. Diversity challenges the social intelligence. If we are the same we do not provide the gift of challenge. Harmony and order are actually opposites. Same things can develop order, while only diversity can develop harmony. We love things because they refuse to become more like us; they insist on becoming less like us. Love exists because it is never the same. It is always challenged. When people love each other it is because, together, they love the other species.

Conditioning takes time. We have to meet authority. We have to imprint upon authority. We have to be instructed in how to serve. So there is a time in life when we are less conditioned, almost unconditioned. And how does one agree with an unconditioned person, a baby? It is as simple as this: love the other species. It is what babies do. A baby may hate that it is hungry for too long, or thirsty, or itchy or generally uncomfortable, but what it hates more than anything is that it hears, in ways we can not be conscious of, an invitation to encounter other species, or perhaps the cosmos, and its feet will not move it. Mother is the baby's feet! Like being cut in half, the lower half having died in the process.

The conscious has no real past. It is something that exists through authority's trickery. There is a real past. We begin whole and diminish. The real past is to recover the whole through penetrating the trickery. The trickery can not penetrate itself. Look at modern psychology. It is all about how the conscious will come to understand the unconscious and the subconscious. The fact is the subconscious is an ocean of perception. Putting drops of pseudo-understanding into a bucket is futile when there is already an ocean of perception waiting for a small upgrade.

Av dennis hägglund - 4 september 2008 10:37


Why do the hormonal chemistries of individuals and species differ? As a general rule it must be for the same reason their bodies differ: they do different things, pursue different livelihoods. All sparrows living in a certain environment behave and eat more or less the same, finding what they need the same way, and so with all foxes, so within species there is generally a minor difference in chemistries. Sparrows and foxes need radically different chemistries, while sparrows and sparrows do not.

Man has a very special spectrum of activities, because man is a species unto itself. This is like when the world suffered and extinction level event, and a few species had to serve as the basis for re-diversification. The world has not evolved for billions of years in order to find itself reduced to one species. As soon as a species divides itself off to become the only species in some environment it begins to diversify, initially and most obviously into prey and predator, which means into ordinary people and sociopaths. You may think most sociopaths are institutionalized, but in fact they are more often quite successful people; and highly respected, not because they do good things, but because the things they do are said to be good. With success comes the right to a custom-made image.

Consider a politician, for example. How does a peace loving person become a politician? He can't. He must always ask himself if he is the right person for the job, because if there is a better suited person it is worse than mass-murder to take the job. And has any politician in the world's history ever asked himself if there is anyone more suitable? It requires an extremely cavalier attitude towards the suffering of the masses to present oneself as a candidate or accept an appointment to political office, and no one has devised a politic which precludes this predation even if several interesting books have been written on the subject, and a few interesting experiments have been performed.

With this preface we are hoping to establish that people's feelings differ because people's actions differ. Then, when we introduce the phenomenon "contempt" we can discover what the actions of contempt are.


If one allows contempt to possess oneself, which means if one allows oneself to indulge in certain actions (which we will quickly get to), its study becomes oversimplified. Contempt can not be a discovery when we have it only as our own feeling. So, can contempt be ones own exclusively in a relationship? In other words, if you meet me and just me on a path, and you have contempt for me, does it make any difference to your ability to feel this contempt for me if I don't feel contempt for you at the same time? Or is contempt, or any other feeling, always a cue that you are missing this feeling in the other because you allow it to possess you, which means you are missing the others antisocial resources or resourcefulness?

Why do we allow a feeling to possess us? Let us say that you see me and I am a deep mystery. If I am a deep mystery, then how do you know how to feel about me? Is it just a habit? I'm a slender mature man. Is that enough to trigger a feeling? Are we in some simple kind of competition, and not responsible for finding out the depths of each other? If we are sane, then we understand that even though we are both people, homo sapiens, we are deep mysteries to each other, and it behooves us both to be finding out about each other, rather than reacting with some conditioned social mechanism triggering itself by simple recognizable differences. We need to approach the new as if it were new! (And if we do so we will find that each of us is always new, that we have started something moving.)

Contempt comes from home. At some point in our development we become objects of desire to the parental generation. Those parents who don't overtly court us would do so if they could get away with it easily enough. A heterosexual father and his son, for example, are competing for the same thing, someones heterosexual daughter. But the father is married, most often, and can't admit to this competition. But he tells himself he is the obvious choice for the girl; the son is pathetic for his immaturity, his lack of a good job, etc. She deserves better than his son; she deserves himself. And it becomes important that the son remain pathetic in all the measures the father approves of in himself. In other words, he sabotages the son's chances. Sabotage is the message of contempt when we feel it as other, which is when we feel it without our own glands producing the chemistry.

And if the father is homosexual he has contempt for his son's interest in both girls and boys. He still has to sabotage the son's chances to find himself secure. This is why success, which requires some sort of sponsorship, is often founded on incest, which pedophiles call "children maturing rapidly".

And if the boy's mother is heterosexual she develops contempt, which is a plan to sabotage his chances, when she realizes that he finds girls his own age more attractive than her. And if she is homosexual he has become competition for the girls. So if he is living with both parents when he enters into the arena of romance he has both of their contempt, regardless of gender preference, which is often a conspiracy to sabotage his chances. War is a good way to get rid of unwelcome sons. It is for this reason it is very hard to slow down or dampen any international conflict. The world is full of unwelcome teenage sons, and parents seeking ways to dispose of them.

The situation is secret, of course. Subconscious as far as the conscious observer is concerned. So the son assumes the role of the unintentionally failed development. He won't be going to the school he was accepted in or whatever, and he won't be dating a nice healthy girl from a good neighborhood. He'll be desperate, subservient, humble and perhaps promiscuous because every girl he meets wants his body but not his prospects. This is a son who doesn't know his destiny is a product of sabotage, which is a product of contempt. His mother claims to love him, his father claims to be confused about how all his best laid schemes to subvention his rise up the social ladder fell through. The parents generate a torrent of lies to cover up their mischief. This torrent is the usual source of the fiction in books and on the television.

Now this son is in the position of the herbivore who doesn't know the tiger is silently hiding in the grass downwind. He assumes the contempt he feels is his own contempt (thus he assumes that sabotage is his own device, his own inspiration), whereby it possesses his body and is played through his glands so that he has no way to find that alien contempt which is his family's, and the real nature of his fall from grace.

This susceptibility to the feeling as his own is also an action he indulges in. He can't have only the feeling of contempt as his own. There is always the action inspired by any feeling, or the feeling inspired by the action, whichever end one wants to approach the matter from, since there is neither cause nor effect. Recall how we said in the preface that we have chemistry because we have different actions. Contempt is virtually a new predatory species, a mutation in the child who was not that way, and had no such problems as mom and dad actively trying to sabotage his chances.

The action among boys in the upper grades of schooling is usually lies. There are honest boys who have some fair amount of charm to the gender they are inclined to court, and to sabotage these boys chances requires only that someone lies about himself. The honest boys are known to have done the usual trivial things: homework, maybe sports, television, videogames, etc. But the liars are known to have done all those things that only exist in fiction. They have walked on mars, been on secret missions for Her Majesty, solved murders, killed terrorists, and so on. The pose wins the contest.

And girls play an equally deep game using makeup and high heels and other fashion tricks. Glamor, it's called. Glamor works better than good genes and healthy routine. A girl who is not slim enough for her stature looks slim enough if she seems taller, while a girl who is slim enough in the first place has no option but to accept that she has been reduced to a mere equal of the chunky girl. And the chunky girl is prepared to give in to the boys' fantasies, which she signals with her fashion, and by painting herself to appear more vivacious than the healthier girls. She competes at full throttle. She makes sure she is on every boy's mind, pushing out the better girls.

Fictions gives us all a circle of the good people, the ones we have to save, or who have to save themselves, from the few bad people around. It is difficult to want to discover the real nature of acquaintances. They are mysterious and new, and yet it is easier just to agree to accept them as well meaning, which is how they portray themselves to us. When we say we want to discover someone who is new and mysterious we mean someone wonderful, not someone awful, not a vulgarian. There is already too much that we need a vacation from in life; we are disinclined to add more to it. But as we discover others as they truly are we also discover how to live very seriously, which is gratifying. And the reason all this predation exists is that it has gone undiscovered, so it is all our own fault. Subconsciously, as the police psychologists are so fond of saying, everyone longs to be caught.


Hate is a closely related feeling. Most hate we encounter is feigned, affected, and so found consciously, not by feeling as other. If you really hate you are actually trying to rape, torture and kill. It is hard to hate very much without first making yourself very sick physically, and it is hard to hate when you are very sick unless you have some tonic or balm for the symptoms. Heroin is sometimes called monster, because it completely liberates a person from what he has done to himself, so that he sees very clearly how he could rape, torture and kill. Performance enhancement is not only about cheating at sports.

We say "done to himself", but of course there are predators. If the obese person hates the hate did not originate there. For example, people have sold him more food than they should have, and the wrong food, and then other people have sold him treatment and pharmaceuticals. Someone who wantonly participates in making a person obese and in preying on the obesity is also hateful.

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 - 28 juni 2008 09:57

1. He was born the usual marvellous child. He told his mother they lived with the boogey man. Other kids and their moms didn't have to live with the boogey man! The father wouldn't stand for a child who knew how to criticise him. He sodomized the boy, out of sheer hate for his marvellous normalcy, as his father had done to him. When the boy later confronted him with the crime he told the boy it had been his mother's father who had done it; that he would cut off his arm before.., etc. He also told the boy that during his infancy he had only cried when his mother held him; that it had been hard to keep her from touching him and making him cry. Home-made misogyny. Some months later the father resumed having sex with the boy, each time given him enough alcohol that he would laugh while being sodomized, and saying that it was good for him, that it would eventually heal the injury from the rape. He established other reward patterns besides the alcohol, so the boy would look forward to the sessions. As he grew the boy learned to exert extortion pressure, and did fairly well at it despite the alcoholism. The father learned to predict his demands and fulfil them before any threat was applied. Love meant to give before he was forced to, which kept him broke. The boy started a little band, but the drinking and a volatile temperment kept it from developing more than local recognition. All this came to light when he was found molesting a much smaller boy who thought he was a rock-star.

2. Her obese, self-prescribing, mother walked around like a General inspecting the worst of the troops, grumbling and growling, glaring at everyone. Everyone made way for her imperious disposition, parting like a sea before an ocean liner, putting it down as 'a mere psychological disorder', not wanting to interfere in her therapy. The girl was very impressed by this apparent command of respect from absolutely everyone. The behaviour of the mother was simple to explain: she had told the girl that she was a queen, and ruled over all the people. "The buck stops here!" Everywhere they went mother had to stay in character so the girl wouldn't think there was anyone she could tell about her unpleasant experiences as mother's sex-slave.

3. A boy had a father who actually was an officer in the police. He had the idea that all the police stood by each other no matter what they had done. He was regaled with stories of the crimes each cop had committed and they were all keeping quiet about. Getting paid for sex with his father was just a perk; he really had nothing to do about it. This same cop also had a list of people whose children he had sex with as a bribe to keep them out of jail. None of this would ever have been discovered if the cop in question hadn't been hurt in an auto accident and taken to a hospital where a doctor, trying to determine who to notify, noticed his little phone book had some very peculiar entries.

4. Another obese woman who self-prescribed (and had a key-machine so she could burgle the local grannies she had visited perfunctorily, grannies who had the tablets legitimately) sent her two retarded children out to invite other children to stay the night, tempting them with promises of all kinds of sweets. Gradually about a dozen children began to suffer varying degrees of retardation, according to how often they overnighted with the lurid family. She was respectable enough in dress, housekeeping and manner that not many thought her anything but unfortunate to have two retarded kids, but her sex-life was composed of drugging children into unconsciousness and having sex with them.

5. A girl had sex with her obese alcoholic father, mostly oral at first, so early she couldn't say when it began. He used her like some male version of the vibrator. Once she could speak he used rewards and threats, the most effective threat being that if everyone knew about her "whoring" she would become an outcast just like he would. She wasn't all that inclined to tell anyone in any case, since she was actually accustomed to and inured to the abuse, although she really did believe that the abuse would only get worse if she were put in some institution. (Her experience was that everyone had sex with kids.) He also promised her that having learned sex meant she could get rich, since rich men wanted sex with her as well. In the circles he travelled she learned that this was so, except that none of them were very rich. She developed an expensive taste in drugs and had a lot of customers, and a lot of diseases. People who want sex with children seem often to know each other and each other's predilection, perhaps because they do a lot of drinking together, drink being a sort of lubricant that makes people say more than they would otherwise.

6. A very ugly and somewhat slow woman, on some pharmaceutical program which she supplemented with cheap wine, had a very ugly baby boy. About a year later she went out and kidnapped a lovely little girl the same age. She had named her boy Erik, apparently planning to make this switch. She adjusted the birth-certificate she had to say Erika. No one got her to say how she disposed of the boy. The girl was poisoned in her crib with solvents and became retarded to the point where she didn't have to go to school. The woman collected a pension for the child, and was only found out to be a pedophile when she started picking up other children of an unlikely age and masturbating herself with them. She seemed under the impression that this was what the neighbors sent their children outside for.

Av dennis hägglund - 27 juni 2008 11:26

When we deceive a child for the first time in its life, we actually create a part of the mind that has never existed in any creature. It is called "memory" (because it can also hold facts, facts being a form of deceit like vitamin tablets), a misnomer.

Thought is to prey on memory, and everyone can do it (make the other believe!) by the age of twenty, but despite this skill no one can prevent himself believing everyone else. This means thought and believing are preferences. We prefer believing to the only other thing man can inspire, which then, by inference, must be APATHY.

Want a third option? That takes longer.

Av dennis hägglund - 25 juni 2008 12:29

Violence is there when what we do is not violent in our own estimate. Bigotry is when we see the violence of other peoples that is not violent in their estimate, while we do not see the violence in ourselves that is not violent in our own estimate. We see theirs; they see ours; but we don't see together.

"How can anyone say they are victimised by me? The only violence I seek is justice!" That is a conditioned perspective. "If you don't love us (Americans) you're crazy!", a rock star proclaimed in song. In capitalism the governing body first conditions the masses, and then they ask the conditioned masses to make themselves heard. Like asking your parrot to say, "I adore you!".

Peace is a mind of peace and a mind at peace. What is actually sacred? If you don't see what is sacred you can't see what will bring peace, or what is bringing strife and pain. You can't tell that by protecting what can only be coveted you destroy what can be adored. There was something sacred about each of us when we were born, while we were small. (If we were born to pedophiles this thing lasted for a very short time. We could barely speak when it was ripped from us. And the pedophiles version of this crime is that their children are the most mature. They actually lobby with this message. Sex with adults sets the stage for success.) But the business of life took over control of us, ushering out the love of life. No matter who our parents were, this sacred thing was not even noticed. Traditional psychology has declared children "empty shells waiting to be filled by adults", the only question then being what is right to fill them with.

The only empty part of a child is the part where lies are believed. That is rational psychology, complete psychology.

And today we who were treated in this abysmal fashion normally do not find fault with a system that disregarded what was sacred in us. That is programming. Adopt what molests you, be it sodomy or reasoning. Even a domestic cat will bring the baby squirrels from the trees for the master to raise; rescuing babies from the imagined hell of a natural parent's ministrations. Putting them back will really confuse the poor kitty, as will unwittingly causing them to perish.

Reason is the enemy of perception. We are trained to reason away what is sacred. Fewer and fewer things become sacred as reason develops, which means more and more violence is not violence in our way of reasoning about it. We see sacred, but as reason supplants seeing we reason away the sacred, which reasons away any harm we have done to what is sacred.

You can not use the word God in your reason and get a God out of it, because you can not find what is sacred in reason. Reason happens in a space that is too limited for anything sacred or profound. There is space for a technical description of God, but there is no technical description of God that makes a meaning "God". If you make a meaning of the word Sun, is it technical? Nothing we can name is technical in its own presence. God becomes a technical description only in God's absence, and a God who can be absent is not God.

Atheism is to remove the technical description of God from reason; why bother? Three pixels from thirteen billion light-years away through a telescope have more presence than the technical description of God which the word God means to reason, and the debate surrounding these pixels has more meaning.

You can reason only because what fits into reason is not profound; add something profound, something sacred, and you must remove it from this slum-dimension called reason. God is a dead word when reason indulges in it, which is why people are so free with it. They can use it or not; it makes no difference. Thus using it has become a gimmick, a way to bring tears to a child's eyes because to the child the word still has some meaning. ---"Has your trust in God's servant ever wavered? Ask him to forgive you now, right now! Prodigal child, welcome back to the fold!". A tearstained Kodak Moment. My little boy is Saved.--- Religion is a gimmick. Any retard can learn the ropes. There is no less sincere way to encounter an audience.

The sanctity of what is sacred is the joy of life. It is to see God. To fail to make this distinction, so that those things and actions which destroy or damage what is sacred are not perverse things and actions to us, is the sum total of blindness. It is the most perverse distinction in the cosmos to not need to see God. To not need light is not nearly as queer. Nor to not need food or not need water, or to not ever need a mother. To see what is sacred is to see God's reflection, which is as close as anyone could want to get this early in evolution. Even a crow has no way to utter something without including God in the utterance. Crows are wonderful, even if they often get escorted from the premises by cautious parents. God is the context one must see everything in to be actually living.

We have been working on how emotions are found as other. Consider the emotion of seeing God's reflection, feeling what is sacred. Is it anger, jealousy, contempt, disdain, apathy? It is only joy (joy is actually psychology, even if you have not felt it since you were little). There is a constantly new joy and nothing else. Where does this leave anger? You can not indulge in such a broad spectrum, from joy to anger. You have to be insane, as we all have seen illustrated today, to say, 'I am angry because I am helping God!'. One is only angry because the ease with which one becomes angry angers the other. How often haven't we been angry with Bill Gates during the last twenty years? The man has generated more tears from modern men than all the women in history generated from all the men. Put yourself in his place. "What do you want from me?", he asks. "Who do you think I am?", "For my next miracle...!". He is angry that you become angry with him. He's just a man, after all. Would you have done better or more?

If your airplane is crashing maybe you have time to get angry, but do you? You might get angry because you can't make your new cell phone work, especially when the kids make it work without even reading the manual. Anger contests accepted liberties, which is part of senility, part of failing to belong.

Find who you anger, which you can not do while the anger is your own, in your own veins (not meaning one should suppress it; the discovery of anger as other does not happen if one tries to control ones own anger, but only when one sees the need to find out what anger means as the other, which is compassion, even if he reasons that he should hide it), and the anger shows you infinitely more than anger as yourself can do; it shows you how you anger the other. Any feeling as other is encyclopaedic in its content.

"How did I do it to myself?". What is God if I had it done to me by another? Only reason could invent a God compatible or consistent with harm we didn't do to ourselves. In nature "I did it to myself!" is a sacred understanding, unquestioned by all but the immediate prey, death row. To see the world this universal way one must first resurrect complete perception, perception that can be responsible, perception that does not need to ask to trust anyone. If we say we should be able to trust people, how much right to ignore them is implied by this? Is it like traffic on the freeway: you stay in your lane and I won't even see you there? But threaten me and I'll notice you. I didn't see you; I was busy looking out for police cars. I trust you, so I don't need to understand you. I trust you, so whatever is sacred about you is none of my concern.

There is no benign trusting, no trusting where we don't adopt a right to not bother about the other to just that degree to which we trust him. And if you and I can resist preying in that blind-spot the world will find someone who can't, perhaps an understandably volatile child of sodomy.

Trust is to economize the senses. If we economize them enough we can live inside our heads. This is violence. I say, "I believe in democracy.", but I have economized my senses so that I can live a life of opportunism, thinking how to get spurts of reward or pleasure by conning everyone into believing that I live in the present, that they can trust what they recognise on my face, in my words and my voice. Locked inside my head, where am I going to perceive right from wrong so I can vote for the right? In my reason? Reason contains only conditioned response. I might as well tell the rulers to do as they please, "Indulge your ambitions, gentlemen (and a few ladies), since that's how you got this far up the ladder in any case. It's all momentum, isn't it? The momentum of weakening one kind of resolve to bolster the other."

How often in a democracy are we asked to tell right from wrong? Who has ever voted for anything except by eliminating the options most evil to his reason, thus accepting the remaining by process of elimination? No one ever voted for good; good was not in the running. Did you vote to liberate homosexuals? There are just as many or more still lurking in the showers and bathhouses. In there they don't want to be recognized. You couldn't have voted to also repair the environment (the architecture) to eliminate such lurking, making homosexuals more normal (which would have been good because then homosexuals would have a normal amount of dignity), simply because it was not on the ballot. Think what a joke it is to the homosexual in the shower with the boys, that a man was prosecuted for secreting a video camera in a girl's locker room. If that's a crime, then what is it to actually bring your lust into the shower physically?

Perception has to be complete. If I find a few faults with something presumed to be right, this proves it is not perception that has declared it right. Perception is not this faultfinding process either. If we add the factor I mentioned to the ballot we probably still have some issues with homosexuals, and they with us. Perception is something utterly alien to reason. It is to find out in a way that, to reason, does not seem to fit the bill: feeling as other, feeling as finding out. Reason can't accept that it has competition for the job of finding out, competition that is constantly flawless and whole, and that was born on the throne.

If the heterosexual finds out how it feels to be homosexual, what happens to his heterosexuality? He finds out it is the same thing. His revulsion, then, if he felt any, becomes revulsion for those he encouraged as well as those he didn't. It is not just that some roles do not suit males or do not suit females; they do not suit anyone. Perception brings chastity.

We who were conditioned to be heterosexual males thought that the girl role is ugly on a boy but pretty on a girl. Homophobia is a defensive reaction. Once you have someone to have sex with when it is devoid of sacred function, devoid of nature's call, you have made it as strange as it can be made, and seemingly stranger ways are not really stranger (which is why they can happen, why a hetero- is not more human than a homo-sexual).

Nature resists the pleasure of sex because pleasure is a nonsensible diminution of the real thing. Pleasure is not to commune with the sacred. Pleasure is not empathy with our star bringing life to our planet. Sensitivity of the reproductive organs has an origin, like all feelings. It had to be there to make something work in a sacred way. No successful parent of the wild ever said, "Honey, I really enjoyed that!". There was no two, not even three, not even four including God, but everything on Earth was there in that moment hailing the coming child or children as blessedness that blesses all.

Where life is evolving only messiahs and food are born, someone for all, or something for the crows. Finding a partner is the elaborate art of keeping the crow-population low.

Av dennis hägglund - 20 juni 2008 22:44

When, as toddlers, we are first able to listen to the words, we are told lies about who we have been so far and who our mothers have been to us so far. Then accumulation: each adult proceeds to tell us the lies about who he is and has been and will be, and also we get a history of who every known adult past and present was or is. And finally, around puberty, one by one our peers begin to manufacture lies about themselves in the same spirit, until we have no friends left of a real kind. There is a believer in us, falling for all these lies, and only this believer is not abandoned (as is that in us which waits for truth, reality, communication).

Each adult knows of himself that he projects someone who is not real for people to relate to as himself. Each knows that the person who develops a relationship with this projected someone is not relating to a living being, and hence that he is utterly alone despite having this "relationship".

Thus: any adult person believing himself to be private in his mind rather than abandoned in the real world is actually insane. He is abandoned because he has no one that he is relating to or can relate to which is not a device of someone's thought. He is not private because he is not hiding from anyone real. He is hiding from the figment of others contrived by their thinking to keep what they imagine to be their real selves private.

This is elementary psychology, the first and most obvious starting point for self-discovery. The question is, is this for the private self to read, or is there another reader? When the private self reads the reading is not difficult because it is not making anything happen.

This is like any wasting disease: here is the cure, and are you going to take it, or are you really that intent on following the lemmings into the depths?


What the adult does in his head as an approach to his dealings with others is obviously not good for them. His perspective is that he does it, while a rational perspective is that all mature people have done it to us, as well as to everyone since the beginning of human history. Everyone we have met who was old enough has done this to us all our lives, and everything we have read or heard from the past was generated by this mental acrobatics, and it was not good for us; it did us serious harm, and it is the harm that is thinking.

Skaffa en gratis