Inlägg publicerade under kategorin politics and religion

Av dennis hägglund - 15 januari 2009 20:15

 

The conscious is called that because it is consciously observable, and the subconscious is called that because it is not consciously observable. At one time even our species had a mind that operated without any aspect of the operation becoming observable. When we are asleep that mind resumes its work. Imagine a dream where you had to observe the process of conceiving and constructing the dream. It would lose that thing the actors call "suspension of disbelief". In other words the fact the process was observable would mean you couldn't really dream.


So let's say that you once found God, but you found God with the mind as it was before you adopted a conscious (which would imply that all animals have found God; that it has nothing to do with being human, or even that being human is what makes us uniquely unlikely to find God). Then your conscious would not be the mind that found God. As soon as you adopted a conscious you would not have found God, or to put it another way, you would be conscious of not having found God. This is where religion comes in. You found God, then you lost God because having found God is not in the conscious, and now religion is going to help your conscious to find God. It's a racket!


The conscious can not ever become aware of what the subconscious is aware of, because the subconscious has the true-to-life or universal version while the conscious is composed completely of uniquely human versions. If we make anything that is in the conscious into a true-to-life version it ceases to be conscious. This is the basis of meditation. Make everything in your conscious true-to-life or universal and your conscious is empty; it vanishes.

ANNONS
Av dennis hägglund - 27 juni 2008 11:02

Where should people be living on this planet, and where should they be discouraged from living? Can we make a map of the varying degrees of safety from natural disasters?


Can we subsidise moving people from less safe to more safe places? Would this cost more or less than to send help, which for so many people comes far too late in any case? Is there an age ahead of us, of global reasoning, global planning? And if so, isn't it time for that age? Don't we have enough videos of how Mother Earth behaves? Isn't it brutal to sit and watch the world suffer on the news, and then send inadequate care packages that rarely arrive, and condolences?


We also need a map of the varying degrees of safety for many projects, like dams and the regrettable nuclear waste repositories which are going to plague all foreseeable future generations who will have the sense not to be making any. China reported almost having a wild nuke from their recent problems. Call it sheer luck; certainly not global planning. (What do you call a China Syndrome in China?)


Isn't our approach to the world's problems a little like an insurance company that tells half the people to 'take great risks; the other half can afford it'? When is politics going to become a science instead of a circus of superstars, an aristocracy? Doesn't it sicken you that people make a game of the very thing that is urgently needed, like making a carnival ride of the fire-department?

ANNONS
Av dennis hägglund - 26 juni 2008 13:16

Which of the following options is closest to how you feel:


1. I want to save the world, if I can get rich in the process!


2. I want to save the world and will accept substantial losses to my lifestyle.


3. I want someone else to save the world, and he's to keep his hands off my lifestyle while he's doing it.


4. You never know what's true. Maybe the world does, and maybe it doesn't, need saving. If my lifestyle suffers any losses it won't be because I'm saving the world, but because I can't prevent those losses.

Av dennis hägglund - 19 juni 2008 21:57

"Socialists call the world a cave to live in, while capitalist call it a gold-mine. How long will the prospector let you occupy the mine?" 


We live in a 'damned if we do, damned if we don’t’ world. If we all kill each other this is terrible, and if we all live in peace together there will always be more impact from our various ways of life, which is terrible. There is a question of the politics of this and the politics of that, and maybe it is really a moot point. But even so it is important to see deceptions, to see each deception that affects us personally.


If politics is looked at from the simplest perspective, where we only have two directions, left and right, so that we must be somewhere between the two points or right on one, these two directions are easily understood. Left is socialism, right is capitalism.


Socialism means a government that makes it easy for the masses to have good lives. Capitalism means one that makes it impossible to have a good life without an exceptional amount of money. Justify being human, or justify being rich. Justify a reasonable amount of productivity, or justify an ugly and mostly sexual competition (Santa knows you’re a bad boy!).


Socialism doesn’t get each citizen more money, but makes everything more beneficent and cheaper. Capitalism impresses upon each citizen that he could be getting more money.


Socialism is difficult, a real science of politics. Consider vacations. In socialism we would have a lot of time free from duties, except the duty to be good citizens, to learn enough about taking care of the things and places we are using. People want to enjoy their free time, otherwise capitalism is just as good; if I am bored at home I could be bored at work and getting paid for it. A good vacation for Swedes in Sweden, for example, means easy access for everyone to the Swedish wonderland of the archipelago, skärgården. It means no need to own a powerboat or a sailboat. But then there is the trouble that this vacation environment is fragile, and the fewer people who go there the more authentic it remains. So the manner in which the masses can be allowed to spend the summers there becomes a science and an education; you have to graduate from vacation school to go there.


And let us say that we have all this fixed so far. If everyone is away for the summer burglars go berserk. Burglars are often misfits, like alcoholic youth, addicts, fugitive immigrants, racist groups, incest victims, etc. So we have to have a science of taking care of misfits, a science of immigration, etc. And with people spending more time out of doors we have to have a science of technology. We can’t enjoy life while we are afraid of what we and our children are breathing. And all of this sort of thing is simply the taxpayers getting what they are paying for.


One thing we are all born good at is enjoying freedom and nature. So in socialism we have to treat this faculty in a child as sacred. This is why he is a socialist, because he doesn’t need money, and can’t imagine money as a motivation for self-abasement, for preying on the weaknesses of the old and the unscrupulous. We have to accentuate that Sweden is the land of great vacations for its people, and not that it is an industrial force to be reckoned with. We have to accentuate that our kids are alright with us the way they were born, without effete academic additives.


Capitalism is a fetish. What is intelligent sex? It is none at all. No sexual experience puts us closest to children. The less sex we indulge in the less we influence children to acquire the taste, and to accept it as wholesome (which it isn’t --sex is the feeling of not having a natural or universal right, but a contrived right, to reproduce; a natural right does not produce sexual experience, and so it leaves a creature with no inclination to repeat sex just for the feeling; experience repeats itself, while living is always discovered moment to moment. Dogs have sex for the same reason, while foxes do not, because foxes have no contrived rights, no fox-world to live in or to put their babies in; only a world-world-- so this means tampering with their instinct, the root of a lively mind) until they have acquired it themselves. And the less we have to divide life into family time and couple time, which is like dividing life between yoga instructor and hit-man, a multiple personality disorder. So people who go fetish on us, be it sexual or political, are the opposite extreme from intelligent.


And what this is about is intelligence. It takes no intelligence to be a capitalist. It just takes conspiracy, a type, just like street-drug addiction: If you don’t know the addicts you can’t become one. "GW is a goodol’boy!”, "Arnold plays ball!”


Let’s say we have a man whose (lucrative for some strange reason) job is to handle our foreign affairs (with that kind of money, how can he look a socialist in the eye; his solidarity is with the US). He tells us that what we need is more military spending. This is a confession. He is saying, "I got the job, which to me is just the money and the perks, so now no one is doing this job.”. This kind of hiring is capitalism. He is not telling us that if we invested all the money we have been putting into the military into making peace, which requires intelligent (qualified, not chosen for their willingness to make old men happy) politicians, we should never regret it. Whereas war is regrettable whether one wins or loses. What is wrong with not spending money on arms is that people then just pocket the money as if there were no violence to concern ourselves about. Disarming in itself is not making peace, even if it helps.


Intelligence is love for the planet, and for the cosmos above it reflected in the planet. If one loves the planet one enjoys being intelligent. It is not something one does for money. Violence is not random. Violence begins when we allow someone to con us into clinging to something that in itself is violent. It is violent to be a Jew or a Christian, for example, since they both hold it as holy to declare that God has no feelings for nature; God wasn’t happy with the world, only with man, the sixth day solution to the monotony of creating a world. "God’s chosen people.”, is violent. "Only Baptised Christians will go to heaven.”, is the hardest sell on Earth, the most ruthless campaign. Flags with crosses on them are violent. Raising animals we know to be physically and emotionally sensitive as pets or for slaughter or milk is violent. We may say they are not sensitive creatures, but we have desensitised many people in the same way. It doesn’t mean they are not a sensitive species. If we took better care of nature, we would not want pets; we would see the difference and would not want a creature diminished by our "care”. Expanding our transportation systems without due consideration for the impact on nature is violent, and deprives us of nature. Obesity is violent, as is any overspending or thieving. Arms manufacture is violent, to prey on people’s paranoia and greed. And much more, of course. But the point is that we Swedes are all conditioned by capitalism recently (Capitalism is a war against the less destructive use of the planet; it is a real war, with a real army, half of them in plain clothes, fighting socialism everywhere all the time. Socialists call the world a cave to live in, while capitalist call it a gold-mine. How long will the prospector let you occupy the mine? Half the battle is won through the smart use of media that Hitler’s regime devised.), so that to make rational concessions becomes difficult; it becomes a threat if someone says we are doing it wrong, where peace is to invite the critic to come and help us solve the problem. A critic is saying, "I am intelligent about this and you are stupid about it.”. If that is true he is worth a lot to us. If it is a senile delusion we need a better critic, not an end to criticism.


There is perfection in the stars, perfection in the microcosm, perfection where nature still has a good foothold, and there it ends. Man is the imperfection. If something is wrong man is doing it. It is madness to reject any criticism off hand. It is rational to look for better criticism, to look for the best criticism.

Skaffa en gratis bloggwww.bloggplatsen.se