Senaste inläggen

Av dennis hägglund - 13 augusti 2008 16:36

Today I have begun a process of rewriting the original entries in this blog; a sort of second draft. I chose this method as opposed to starting another blog for the rewrite. You, the reader, are being taken more seriously, and I hope you'll enjoy that.

Av dennis hägglund - 13 augusti 2008 05:14


Human life develops in confusion. Confusion makes a conscious, a separate and isolated place in the mind, where the confusion seems clarity. This resemblance to clarity is so convincing that if we try to make something clear we are trying to give this conscious a complete grasp of it.

At some point, usually around the time when we are trying to gain some sexual experience, thought introduces itself into the conscious, eliminating for a lifetime all resemblance to the mental or perceptual workings of other species and of children. We become an oddity, with our waking hours being neither waking nor sleeping, but with no way to know what waking is to those who have it to be.

When we are thinking we are trying to make certain that what we know about ourselves does not become known to anyone else. We are aware that if anyone else comes to know what we know about ourselves we would no longer be respected. We would be ostracized, shunned.

We think in order to represent ourselves as someone others do not reject, fully knowing that if they knew what we know of ourselves we would be rejected. This in itself precludes relationships. We can not think of or imagine having relationships, because the foundation of relationship is to have complete awareness of each other. We resign ourselves to something else from our encounters, the way people are resigned to cows for their milk. We become exploiters.

If we are shut up in a box, for what they call "sensory deprivation", it is at first stimulating; helpful in a way. When we come out we tend to see things more clearly. But if we are trapped in the box for a long time the opposite happens. When we finally get out we are not interested in the world. Being away too long has destroyed perception. And this is where thinking leads. This is exploitation: a blindness to life's true worth.

We have a past. If you are drowning you still long for air. Air is the past. But if you are guilty, if you know what no one must know about yourself, you do not long for innocence. The innocence has actually vanished from your ken, like someone who would not breathe once he surfaced. You see a world without innocence (without the innocence that is actually there), which is a world that does not invite attention to the perpetual present (as the real world, where innocence exists, does).

It is confusion that gives us the world of progress as it has been throughout history and is today. This progress gives us plenty to gain so we have no need for relationships, no need for the original and evolved wholeness of the mind and perception. Most people never realize they have lost something profound, because they have so much trivia to gain. Society is an environment for those who have lost sight of the beauty of innocence, and the beauty of innocent living. It is a morbid retreat from universal values.

Is it this private self-knowledge of a past that can not bear another's scrutiny which wakes up thought instead of perception each morning? What would it be like to find perception awake? Nothing you saw would mean what it means to society. A child would be a child, and not a student of human society. A breast would be a breast and not an opportunity. A cow would be a slave and slavery an abomination. And the stars would be an infinity and an eternity of profounder events past than ever happened or will happen on Earth, rather than astronomy.

Perception is not the senses, the sight and hearing and so on. These vary from species to species, while perception does not, because perception is what all the species together accomplish. But only in innocence, which is freedom from confusion, immersion in total clarity of others.

Av dennis hägglund - 6 augusti 2008 16:08


Deceptions create belief. No deception means no belief, a void of the experience of believing, a kind of virginity of the mind.

Belief is a surface effect. Once we have people believing something we have established a surface on which we can sow shallow things (knowledge) as a substitute for discovery or depth of learning. To learn deeply and quickly, then, we must remove this surface.

And it is hard to remove. This is not just patriotism or religious nonsense, but the deceptions imposed on us by each older person we met during childhood, and then our peers, and eventually even our juniors. Deceit is the intended product of thinking, which is ubiquitous.

Words embrace all. They embrace the shallow and the deep. We can all say "Love" and "God" and "Evolution" and so on. So when there is something deep in love, in God, or in evolution, we have two versions. Thus the student who has deep love will always be meeting the teacher who has shallow love, and the teacher will always belittle the student's love either directly or by insisting that they both have the same love.

Language mesmerizes, so that it becomes impossible to tell a person that he is not looking deeply, because he is in full possession of every deep word. From this perception we must derive what it means to be a serious teacher, a teacher who never resorts to gaining control of the students. Control is shallow; it is the recourse of the shallow mentality. I get paid to teach, which means I must get results, but I am shallow, which means I can only get a result if I control the student so he accepts shallowness as the desired result, a result that on the surface seems to be genuine although it never represent new insight, 'new insight' being the definition of education.

Intelligence wants to go deeply; it is equipped for it. Authority or control means forcing shallowness on those who are innately deep. Only by forcing them can they be made shallow. Once shallow they are prey for exploiters, and we have a politic of exploiters instead of public servants.


What is intelligence? It is when experience has not interfered with evolution. Experience is achieved in a way evolution actually resents (as it resents human habitats, the fount of experience), which is why it creates a separate mental compartment called conscious.

Consider virginity. Virginity is chaste. What is it waiting for? Intelligence! Ask experience when to make a child, or just when to have sex for the hell of it, and it has an answer, but intelligence has no answer, meaning it produces no child (given society as it is) and no sex.

(No child? If you need the government to make and maintain an incubator to hatch eggs, which do you do, make eggs, or wait until the incubator is fully functional? Look how stupid it actually is to make babies and then complain about the world not being fit for them. 'Rotten eggs preferred' is who governs, no matter what pretty phrases they campaign with, and if you want to change that you don't play into their hands.)

Experience becomes ones eyes, and through them one can not see this chastity or this intelligence. Show them a virgin and they are just waiting for a chance to change his or her status. There is profound beauty there, but through the eyes of experience one finds only a fresh new toy.

This undiscovered beauty is the depth a virgin's relationships can achieve. It is unfulfilled potential, like having lungs but being stuck on the bottom of the sea. Of course this is only sexual virginity. Experience has already robbed this person of a great deal of his or her potential, so sexual virginity is not the complete potential; it is only a great deal more potential than what will remain after sexual experience, which usually comes after the experienced peers, functioning as authority/control, have sufficiently berated the adolescent for having none ("peer pressure").

Av dennis hägglund - 3 augusti 2008 10:51


When we are deceived by someone's self-representation, where he represents himself as respectable be means of conscious self-control, something must become misplaced. In fact, anything that is true about the person and his relationships must become misplaced.

To illustrate, let's say we are watching a video of a person being himself, a video taken of him in private without his knowledge. But! Before we can view this video he catches us and imposes a photo of himself over the video so that all we see of the video is its edges. We strain and strain to make sense of these edges, but all we really are getting is his touched up portrait. One thing we do know, however, is that what we are seeing around the edges is misplaced in the context of the portrait. So what we want to see is where is the parallel of this video information when someone is putting on his usual act.

And the answer is: it's feelings. Let's say this is an angry person, but his portrait, his act, is saying that he is feeling quite at home and nonchalant. If we look at the act, then the anger is misplaced. And when there is misplaced anger present there is a conditioned inclination to assume it as ones own. As ones own it fails to produce a sense of the other's anger, even though the other's anger is actually present. As soon as we decide it is our own it becomes suitable to our own disposition, thus it fails to serve as disclosure.

Consider the zebra (from an earlier entry) who assumes the role of killer because it doesn't see or smell or hear the tiger in the reeds. It is not feeling a tiger's killing lust. It has subverted the information by taking credit for it. There is no such thing as a bloodthirsty zebra, so that subversion is quite dramatic.


Envy is a conditioned response to a contrived stimulus. Let's say you see someone with a costly boat out on a lake. The boat is a contrived stimulus. Man invented it. So instinct is not used to it's presence. This means we, as authority, can more or less dictate how it will be viewed. And since we want to make money on this invention we condition everyone born to say, "Wow! I wish I had one!", leaving those of us who can't afford one in an odd and uncomfortable place.

Nature equipped us with a way of always perceiving directly what is going on. So when we as people who can't have the costly boat see the person who has one we are not actually left having to try the boat to find out what happens when a person has one.

Let us say that a person has something that completes him. Why would the feeling then be bad or strange? Why wouldn't it be uplifting like seeing a species of bird with its wonderful unique wings? Is it possible to find a bad feeling accompanying something good? It is quite schizoid, this idea that in some cases we are delighted by someone who is complete, and in other cases we are broken up about it.

Here we have another example of the video hidden by the portrait, except here the video has been explained so that we are inclined to think it is a nice frame for the portrait. How lucky can a person be, when he owns things that people envy him? Portrait: happy owner. Frame: we envy him. That explains everything. Nothing seems misplaced.

Intelligence is social. So if we direct our affections to mere objects, like boats, we become senile. Envy as other is the discovery of the degree of senility the owner has incurred to date. If we want to keep the mind, which is the perception and the thrill of living, fresh, we have to indulge our instinctual urge to socialize broadly, with all the available species. Intelligence is the ability to cross social distances, which means we originally have an overwhelming urge to find other species, and to maintain a kinship with them (Human language is actually one of our most detrimental habits, so verbal thinking is anathema to our intelligence). The full spectrum of the social distances we are crossing is our whole intelligence, the one by which we conceptualize God and the cosmos as well as someone can at this point in evolution.

Av dennis hägglund - 28 juli 2008 10:58

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Av dennis hägglund - 12 juli 2008 18:53

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Av dennis hägglund - 4 juli 2008 20:33

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

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

Av dennis hägglund - 2 juli 2008 11:42

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skaffa en gratis