Sometimes the depth of the ignorance of people in American society still amazes me, even after being so amazed so often in the past.
In the news today was the bold headline. “Lights out for predators on Halloween”, that was accompanied by an article boasting of “Operation Boo”, carried out by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (uh, isn't “Correction” and “Rehabilitation” supposed to be the same thing? I guess some genious state official figured that two lies were better than one, even if they are just different words for the same lie!) Apparently, all registered sex offenders who are on parole are forbidden to participate in Halloween. They must remain at home, with lights off, and are not even allowed to answer their door.
Talk about alienating sex offenders (which in most cases is exactly why they became sex offenders in the first place). This is a perfect example of how “the System” works against proven effective rehabilitation efforts (such as community re-integration) by imposing “media friendly” programs that do absolutely nothing to reduce criminal activity. Of course what “Operation Boo” does accomplish is that it gives “visibility” to a government agency's supposed efforts to “protect our children”. But, the only thing they are protecting of course is their jobs, and perhaps their delusion of heroic purpose.
I would be willing to bet dollars for dirt that if anyone did an effectiveness survey for “Operation Boo” (though not surprizingly there is considerable resistance by the System to all such surveys), they would find not only any significant reduction in sex crimes committed by the targetted sex offenders (parolees), but over the course of the few weeks that follow “Operation Boo”, they would discover a distinct increase in the number of sex offender parolee parole violations and re-offenses.
Of course, no one will ever do such a study, and I suppose that makes my prediction a safe one to make. Which makes a point not so much about the potential results of such a study as much as the point that so many operations are carried out by government agencies while the only ones reporting on the supposed effectiveness of the operations are the agencies themselves. And, they invariably use extremely slanted, controlled, and unscientific data to make their programs appear effective. Not even the press steps in (like it claims to do) to provide any “public oversight”, because then they would be cut off from getting so many lucrative headlines handed to them on a silver platter, like “Lights out for predators”. How juicy is that?
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Crapshoot Justice
You come home after a hard day at work and discover your front door kicked in and several valuable items (T.V., stereo, laptop, etc...) are gone. You feel violated and even terrified by what has happened. What should you do?
In our crap shoot justice system, you are expected to call the police, so the burglars might be caught, and justice served. There are many theories that support this course of action, such as; that catching the criminals (and locking them up) will stop them from being able to commit more crimes. We also rationalize that the punishment will somehow discourage other would-be criminals from violating the law once they learn about the potential consequences. Then of course there is always the retribution itself, which makes us feel better.
But in truth, none of these theories hold water. The criminals eventually get out of jail, or prison, and typically end up committing more crimes than they would have if they had never been caught (this bears out statistically). Other “would-be” criminals are actually incouraged by the thrill and danger that the possibility of getting caught provides. Tougher punishments have historically resulted in more, not less crime (with few, but highly touted, exceptions). And the retribution is of course just another word for vengence, and we all know where that leads.
So what can we do? We can't just ignore the crime and let the violator run free, can we? Or, can we? What if we did?
Most burglaries are committed by immature people (under the age of 25). That means that if we leave them alone there is a good chance that they will “grow up” and become responsible member of society all by themselves. You never hear about all the criminals who don't get caught and end up becoming very law conscious citizens over time (usually a few years). You may think that's ludicrous, but once again, statistics bear me out.
Consider that, in areas of the world with practically no crime, such as rural China, there is also practically no law inforcement. Sociologists have known for a long time that the hands-down best deterent to crime is a close knit community. Even in America, the best crime prevention/reduction programs are the ones that emphasize community integration, and re-integration of the criminals back into the community. These programs are proven to work, and the cost-benefit analysis is astonishing as well. But the “justice system” itself is the primary opposition to these programs, both in the polls and on the streets! (For example, by pushing for longer sentences that only increase the length of time a criminal is kept seperated from society while increasing the chance he will commit more crimes when released.) That is, of course, because the justice system needs crime to survive, and there are no official mechanisms to check it's appetite for criminals. It is a “beast” that only appears to control crime as it consumes criminals, then blames the fowl smelling excreta that oozes out its other end on the criminals that it feeds on. I know, because I was once excreted from the system's ass. So when I hear a cop or some other “official” refer to me as a “piece of shit”, I just smile and say, “exactly”.
In our crap shoot justice system, you are expected to call the police, so the burglars might be caught, and justice served. There are many theories that support this course of action, such as; that catching the criminals (and locking them up) will stop them from being able to commit more crimes. We also rationalize that the punishment will somehow discourage other would-be criminals from violating the law once they learn about the potential consequences. Then of course there is always the retribution itself, which makes us feel better.
But in truth, none of these theories hold water. The criminals eventually get out of jail, or prison, and typically end up committing more crimes than they would have if they had never been caught (this bears out statistically). Other “would-be” criminals are actually incouraged by the thrill and danger that the possibility of getting caught provides. Tougher punishments have historically resulted in more, not less crime (with few, but highly touted, exceptions). And the retribution is of course just another word for vengence, and we all know where that leads.
So what can we do? We can't just ignore the crime and let the violator run free, can we? Or, can we? What if we did?
Most burglaries are committed by immature people (under the age of 25). That means that if we leave them alone there is a good chance that they will “grow up” and become responsible member of society all by themselves. You never hear about all the criminals who don't get caught and end up becoming very law conscious citizens over time (usually a few years). You may think that's ludicrous, but once again, statistics bear me out.
Consider that, in areas of the world with practically no crime, such as rural China, there is also practically no law inforcement. Sociologists have known for a long time that the hands-down best deterent to crime is a close knit community. Even in America, the best crime prevention/reduction programs are the ones that emphasize community integration, and re-integration of the criminals back into the community. These programs are proven to work, and the cost-benefit analysis is astonishing as well. But the “justice system” itself is the primary opposition to these programs, both in the polls and on the streets! (For example, by pushing for longer sentences that only increase the length of time a criminal is kept seperated from society while increasing the chance he will commit more crimes when released.) That is, of course, because the justice system needs crime to survive, and there are no official mechanisms to check it's appetite for criminals. It is a “beast” that only appears to control crime as it consumes criminals, then blames the fowl smelling excreta that oozes out its other end on the criminals that it feeds on. I know, because I was once excreted from the system's ass. So when I hear a cop or some other “official” refer to me as a “piece of shit”, I just smile and say, “exactly”.
“Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied”
I have suggested that we use “clear and present danger” as a measure of the validity for the reasons we use to commit violence (i.e. to kill). But I realize of course that there are no simple rules for determining when we should or shouldn't kill.
For example; I have also asserted at times that perhaps it would have been best if someone had simply put a bullet in my head at that Denny's restaurant in Coeur d'Alene five years ago (where I was found in the company of a little girl I had kidnapped after murdering her family) instead of putting me under arrest.
You may think that society must determine my guilt before it can justify killing me. But that is exactly the kind of irrational fear based thinking that makes real justice (justified action) impossible.
Despite what our fear motivated system wants you to believe, it is simply not possible to determine rationally what should be done about a dangerous (or tragic) situation out of the immediate context of the situation itself! As soon as you change the context of the situation, you also change the appropriate rational response. And attempting to re-create the circumstances in court in order to determine a rational response is impossible. It can only result in the fabrication of rationalizations (i.e. excuses) for delayed actions.
In other words, by arresting a suspect in order to delay justified action (i.e. justice), we completely destroy any chance of genuinely justified actions (true justice). It does not matter how meticulously preserved the crime scene is at the time of the crime, or how carefully the evidence is weighed in court. No matter how hard you try, you simply cannot just suspend the crime so you can decide what to do about it later. This is a fundamental flaw with the entire justice system. And the system itself is acutely aware of this flaw, so it expends tremendous resources just trying to cover it up, and even more effort futilely trying to fix it. Better and better crime scene preservation and evidence analysis only results in more money being spent while justice is delayed and perverted further and further.
Attempting to invoke any kind of social justice by delaying action is clearly never going to be accomplished. The outcome can only be less and less justice the further we move the rationalizing process away from the circumstances being rationalized. It is a sand trap with only one solution: don't step in it!
They say “justice delayed is justice denied”. I wonder if they realize how true that is. As for taking justice into our own hands, perhaps there is no place else where it belongs!
For example; I have also asserted at times that perhaps it would have been best if someone had simply put a bullet in my head at that Denny's restaurant in Coeur d'Alene five years ago (where I was found in the company of a little girl I had kidnapped after murdering her family) instead of putting me under arrest.
You may think that society must determine my guilt before it can justify killing me. But that is exactly the kind of irrational fear based thinking that makes real justice (justified action) impossible.
Despite what our fear motivated system wants you to believe, it is simply not possible to determine rationally what should be done about a dangerous (or tragic) situation out of the immediate context of the situation itself! As soon as you change the context of the situation, you also change the appropriate rational response. And attempting to re-create the circumstances in court in order to determine a rational response is impossible. It can only result in the fabrication of rationalizations (i.e. excuses) for delayed actions.
In other words, by arresting a suspect in order to delay justified action (i.e. justice), we completely destroy any chance of genuinely justified actions (true justice). It does not matter how meticulously preserved the crime scene is at the time of the crime, or how carefully the evidence is weighed in court. No matter how hard you try, you simply cannot just suspend the crime so you can decide what to do about it later. This is a fundamental flaw with the entire justice system. And the system itself is acutely aware of this flaw, so it expends tremendous resources just trying to cover it up, and even more effort futilely trying to fix it. Better and better crime scene preservation and evidence analysis only results in more money being spent while justice is delayed and perverted further and further.
Attempting to invoke any kind of social justice by delaying action is clearly never going to be accomplished. The outcome can only be less and less justice the further we move the rationalizing process away from the circumstances being rationalized. It is a sand trap with only one solution: don't step in it!
They say “justice delayed is justice denied”. I wonder if they realize how true that is. As for taking justice into our own hands, perhaps there is no place else where it belongs!
A Definition For Murder
I have written profusely about the destructive and anti-productive properties of fear, often even refering to it as the source of all “evil”. But like all other aspects of our experiences in life, fear has a purpose. So I should stress, that like all “evil” things, it is important to learn how to master and control fear, not eliminate it. Fear needs you to “be afraid, be very afraid”, in order to control your thoughts and behavior.
Our goal should be to feel fear without being afraid. Roosevelt would have been more precise (though less dramatic) if he had said, “The only thing we have to fear is being afraid.” All he was really saying, of course, was, “Let's not be cowards!” Isn't the definition of a coward, someone who is afraid of fear, and thus allows it to determine what they do, and, perhaps even more significantly, what they think.
When we let fear control our thoughts then we end up rationalizing our cowardly acts. The murderer thinks, “He deserves to die because...” It doesn't matter what excuse he invents, or even whether it is invented spuriously in the mind of a cowardly killer, or formally in the courts of a fearful society. All that matters is that the excuse justifies our submission to fear, so that fear can stay in control.
But what is a coward if not a child? Perhaps being afraid is the only way we can protect ourselves while we are still too immature to respond rationally (and without rationalization) to the threats we perceive. So maybe we should not be so quick to judge and condemn a coward, because doing so is itself a cowardly act. Instead, maybe we should see the coward for the child they are, whether that child be a 35 year old man, or a 200 year old social system. (Notice how only the young and immature social systems in the world still have criminal death penalties. The European Union will not even accept a country that still executes its criminals.)
If “being rational” means acting on reason, and “rationalizing” means inventing excuses, then how can we tell the difference? Actually, there is a simple test that the militaries of the world have used for thousands of years. They call it, “clear and present danger”. If you kill for any reason less than this, then you are only rationalizing a cowardly act. And, that makes you a murderer. But, don't worry. You'll grow up someday. I did.
Our goal should be to feel fear without being afraid. Roosevelt would have been more precise (though less dramatic) if he had said, “The only thing we have to fear is being afraid.” All he was really saying, of course, was, “Let's not be cowards!” Isn't the definition of a coward, someone who is afraid of fear, and thus allows it to determine what they do, and, perhaps even more significantly, what they think.
When we let fear control our thoughts then we end up rationalizing our cowardly acts. The murderer thinks, “He deserves to die because...” It doesn't matter what excuse he invents, or even whether it is invented spuriously in the mind of a cowardly killer, or formally in the courts of a fearful society. All that matters is that the excuse justifies our submission to fear, so that fear can stay in control.
But what is a coward if not a child? Perhaps being afraid is the only way we can protect ourselves while we are still too immature to respond rationally (and without rationalization) to the threats we perceive. So maybe we should not be so quick to judge and condemn a coward, because doing so is itself a cowardly act. Instead, maybe we should see the coward for the child they are, whether that child be a 35 year old man, or a 200 year old social system. (Notice how only the young and immature social systems in the world still have criminal death penalties. The European Union will not even accept a country that still executes its criminals.)
If “being rational” means acting on reason, and “rationalizing” means inventing excuses, then how can we tell the difference? Actually, there is a simple test that the militaries of the world have used for thousands of years. They call it, “clear and present danger”. If you kill for any reason less than this, then you are only rationalizing a cowardly act. And, that makes you a murderer. But, don't worry. You'll grow up someday. I did.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
A World of Real Miracles
Life is eternal and there is no escape. We try to escape by lying to ourselves, but in the end (usually our end) the truth prevails, and life goes on without us.
Didn't I just say that life was eternal? How then, you may ask, does “life goes on without us?” Simple, we are not eternal, but the life that gives us consciousness (and the ability to understand our experiences) is eternal. We are finite and limited beings that life created and occupies according to its own intentions. Life's intentions accommodate all of eternity. Our limited intentions are pure fantasy by comparison. Life is forever; we are not.
But, we can live forever with life, and through life; as life lives through us. We can share the eternal nature and consciousness of life. All we have to do is stop lying to ourselves, telling ourselves that we create life (that is, believing ridiculously that somehow our consciousness is a product of our brain). We pretend to be gods, with god-like “free will” and even eternal existence. This fantasy prevents us from realizing and sharing the true eternal nature, and continuity of being, that only the life inside of us can offer. Life, consciousness, does not belong to us, and we certainly did not create it with our puny little monkey brains! And even though life does not need us, it loves us. Even the most dispicalbe person is a treasure beyond the value of the universe itself, as far as life is concerned. I know, because I am one of those “most dispicalbe” people, and yet I witness life's love for me every day! The first time I witnessed it (or, more correctly, the first time I had the courage enough to acknowledge it as my creator) was on the mountain with Shasta. Shasta's innocence was like a healing salve that freed me from the iron like grip of the mask (lies) I wore. I truly wish people could see the miracle in this alone, then perhaps they would stop believing in their fantasy miracles, and start living in a world of real miracles.
“Imagine there's no heaven.
It's easy if you try.
No hell below us,
Above us only sky.”
Didn't I just say that life was eternal? How then, you may ask, does “life goes on without us?” Simple, we are not eternal, but the life that gives us consciousness (and the ability to understand our experiences) is eternal. We are finite and limited beings that life created and occupies according to its own intentions. Life's intentions accommodate all of eternity. Our limited intentions are pure fantasy by comparison. Life is forever; we are not.
But, we can live forever with life, and through life; as life lives through us. We can share the eternal nature and consciousness of life. All we have to do is stop lying to ourselves, telling ourselves that we create life (that is, believing ridiculously that somehow our consciousness is a product of our brain). We pretend to be gods, with god-like “free will” and even eternal existence. This fantasy prevents us from realizing and sharing the true eternal nature, and continuity of being, that only the life inside of us can offer. Life, consciousness, does not belong to us, and we certainly did not create it with our puny little monkey brains! And even though life does not need us, it loves us. Even the most dispicalbe person is a treasure beyond the value of the universe itself, as far as life is concerned. I know, because I am one of those “most dispicalbe” people, and yet I witness life's love for me every day! The first time I witnessed it (or, more correctly, the first time I had the courage enough to acknowledge it as my creator) was on the mountain with Shasta. Shasta's innocence was like a healing salve that freed me from the iron like grip of the mask (lies) I wore. I truly wish people could see the miracle in this alone, then perhaps they would stop believing in their fantasy miracles, and start living in a world of real miracles.
“Imagine there's no heaven.
It's easy if you try.
No hell below us,
Above us only sky.”
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
The Fine Art of Non-imposition
For the most part, I still believe pretty much the same things I believed before the “revelation” in the Montana wilderness that caused me to turn myself in. The one main difference is – and this is a big difference – that I no longer believe that I have the “right” to impose what I believe onto other people.
Every critical decision, and most lesser ones, that I have made, since the revalation, has been in accord with this simple realization. Including my decisions to bring Shasta home, allow myself to be arrested, cooperate with the authorities (prosecution and defense lawyers), to not speak to media (and write a blog instead, so the truth as I see it would be freely available instead of packaged and sold), and to not resist, attempt to influence, or appeal, societies decisions in my regard.
I spent the whole first part of my life believing the lie that I needed to change people to my way of thinking in order to make the world (any world) a better place. After the “revelation” I saw that this was as far from true as night is from day (which is an analogy with deliberate innuendoes concerning the fact that night and day can only be properly observed by someone standing on the surface of a revolving world). The world can only change, and is changing, according to the will and intentions of infinity. There is nothing I can do as a limited being that will ever cause the world to change any differently.
But, I also came to realize that my limited self has an infinite counterpart that is very much capable of changing the world. And, as I have just stated a moment ago, already is! I do not need to make a conscious effort to improve the world. All I need do is have faith that it is already being improved. I will then do whatever needs to be done without thought or effort. Joseph Campbell calls this, “following your bliss”. The hippies called it, “believing in Him”. I have called it, “listening to your intuition”, but it can also be simply stated as, “letting go (and letting God)”. Whatever you call it, it is a delicate balancing act that can be (and fortunately is) maintained only by ridding oneself of worldly fear, which is not easy to do, until you have done it, then it is the easiest thing in the world. “An easy yoke to bear”, as the most famous man in all of history is purported to have once said.
Every critical decision, and most lesser ones, that I have made, since the revalation, has been in accord with this simple realization. Including my decisions to bring Shasta home, allow myself to be arrested, cooperate with the authorities (prosecution and defense lawyers), to not speak to media (and write a blog instead, so the truth as I see it would be freely available instead of packaged and sold), and to not resist, attempt to influence, or appeal, societies decisions in my regard.
I spent the whole first part of my life believing the lie that I needed to change people to my way of thinking in order to make the world (any world) a better place. After the “revelation” I saw that this was as far from true as night is from day (which is an analogy with deliberate innuendoes concerning the fact that night and day can only be properly observed by someone standing on the surface of a revolving world). The world can only change, and is changing, according to the will and intentions of infinity. There is nothing I can do as a limited being that will ever cause the world to change any differently.
But, I also came to realize that my limited self has an infinite counterpart that is very much capable of changing the world. And, as I have just stated a moment ago, already is! I do not need to make a conscious effort to improve the world. All I need do is have faith that it is already being improved. I will then do whatever needs to be done without thought or effort. Joseph Campbell calls this, “following your bliss”. The hippies called it, “believing in Him”. I have called it, “listening to your intuition”, but it can also be simply stated as, “letting go (and letting God)”. Whatever you call it, it is a delicate balancing act that can be (and fortunately is) maintained only by ridding oneself of worldly fear, which is not easy to do, until you have done it, then it is the easiest thing in the world. “An easy yoke to bear”, as the most famous man in all of history is purported to have once said.
Monday, October 25, 2010
The Christian Dilemma
If you are not willing to admit that everything you believe is wrong, then how will you ever know if you are wrong? All the faith in the world wont help you if you don't believe in the right thing. In fact, if you are wrong then your so-called “faith” becomes the instrument of your demise, because it prevents you from realizing you are wrong.
There is an answer to this dilemma, and the Bible even tells you what it is. But the Bible can't help you until you hear the Word of God directly for yourself.
“You search the Scriptures, for in then you think you have eternal life; and these are they that testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” (John 5:39-40, NKJV)
There is an answer to this dilemma, and the Bible even tells you what it is. But the Bible can't help you until you hear the Word of God directly for yourself.
“You search the Scriptures, for in then you think you have eternal life; and these are they that testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” (John 5:39-40, NKJV)
Are We There Yet?
What if the reason it is so important for us to overcome fear in this world is because heaven is a terrifying place? If we could control our fear then heaven would be as wonderful as promised, but if not, then it would be hell!
Maybe we are in heaven right now!
Maybe we are in heaven right now!
The Word of God is Spoken, Not Written
All scripture may very well be “inspired by God”, but only life itself is spoken by Him. So, where do you think we should turn when we seek the Truth and Meaning of our existence? With what “words” should we seek to understand? God's spoken word? Of, man's “inspired” ones?
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1, NKJV)
…
“All things were made through Him (the Word), and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (1:3)
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1, NKJV)
…
“All things were made through Him (the Word), and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (1:3)
The Beautiful Ones
They do not confine themselves to the flesh (at least, not usually). They live in a world of pure conscious energy. They are born twice, but only die once. Their enemy is fear and ignorance; their nature, love and understanding. Their enemy is overcome, and their nature is forever. To them, life is truly just a dream, and their waking reality is all of eternity. To us they are, angels, gods, and saints. To them we are children. They are the Beautiful Ones, and they love to help us learn and grow.
“The Beautiful Ones always smash the picture, always, every time.” - Prince
“The Beautiful Ones always smash the picture, always, every time.” - Prince
The Temple of Life
When we hide from our feelings (i.e. pain) we are only fooling ourselves. Our feelings cannot be hidden from those who can see the Truth. We can only hide from those who are also hiding. We cannot hide from the ones who walk in the light; the “Beautiful Ones”.
They see us for who we truly are, scared little children, weak and dominated by our fears. So they do not condemn us. But, they do allow us to condemn ourselves. This is so they will know when we are ready to be “re-born” and they can come to our side. When we stop judging ourselves and our world, then we are no longer afraid. Only then do we become more than human, and join the Beautiful Ones in the Temple of Life, where death has no authority.
They see us for who we truly are, scared little children, weak and dominated by our fears. So they do not condemn us. But, they do allow us to condemn ourselves. This is so they will know when we are ready to be “re-born” and they can come to our side. When we stop judging ourselves and our world, then we are no longer afraid. Only then do we become more than human, and join the Beautiful Ones in the Temple of Life, where death has no authority.
Being a “Man”
There are those who believe that the “definition of a man” is someone (a male) who keeps his suffering to himself (i.e. “doesn't cry like a girl”). In my book, such “men” are weak and cowardly.
It takes strength and courage to own up to and express who you are in your heart (emotionally). Attempting to hide what you feel is akin to hiding from who you are. The definition of a coward, is someone who lets fear determine their behavior. Someone who hides from what they are afraid of is a coward.
I am still such a coward. I have yet to summon the courage to express, and thus let go of, my deepest fears. It is not something I can do with words alone. I think words can help build courage though. But in order to truly face myself, I must do so in front of others.
I question whether the System wants this to happen. I suspect not, but I could be mistaken. It is the only way I will ever “heal”. It would be a miracle if it ever happens.
In the mean time, I am stuck with just being human.
It takes strength and courage to own up to and express who you are in your heart (emotionally). Attempting to hide what you feel is akin to hiding from who you are. The definition of a coward, is someone who lets fear determine their behavior. Someone who hides from what they are afraid of is a coward.
I am still such a coward. I have yet to summon the courage to express, and thus let go of, my deepest fears. It is not something I can do with words alone. I think words can help build courage though. But in order to truly face myself, I must do so in front of others.
I question whether the System wants this to happen. I suspect not, but I could be mistaken. It is the only way I will ever “heal”. It would be a miracle if it ever happens.
In the mean time, I am stuck with just being human.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
The Sacrifice of Understanding
Our ability to understand is the very gift of life, not our ability to “think”. Thought is something else entirely. Understanding is love. It is the offspring of infinity, and the Living Truth. We routinely sacrifice our understanding to the false god of reason everytime we put our faith in human rationality. We even sacrifice our children's understanding by teaching them to trust reason over intuition.
But understanding allows this sacrifice, because if it did not then we could never come to realize that understanding is eternal, and freely given (never earned).
But understanding allows this sacrifice, because if it did not then we could never come to realize that understanding is eternal, and freely given (never earned).
The Question of Faith
“Faith” does not mean not questioning what you believe. That is how fantasies end up becoming religious doctrine.
Faith means trusting that there are answers to all your questions, even when you don't know what the answers are yet. But, it does not mean that you should not ask the questions!
Only someone who is lying to you (consciously or unconsciously) would want you to not question what they tell you (e.g. government, religions, corporations). An honest entity loves to be questioned, even challenged. It is a chance for them to be known, and to learn.
Faith means trusting that there are answers to all your questions, even when you don't know what the answers are yet. But, it does not mean that you should not ask the questions!
Only someone who is lying to you (consciously or unconsciously) would want you to not question what they tell you (e.g. government, religions, corporations). An honest entity loves to be questioned, even challenged. It is a chance for them to be known, and to learn.
Creations of Belief
It is only when we think that we have attained some ultimate understanding (or belief) that our ability to understand ceases (dies). True understanding is a living, breathing, changing thing all unto itself. It has its own purpose, and intelligence. It lives through us. We cannot create it or own it. It creates us!
Constant Scrutiny
I don't claim to understand what the ancients (wise men) understood. At least, not all of it. But, some of it is very plain to me, and even the part that I do think I understand is subject to my constant scrutiny.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Your Brain On Reason
“We are led to conclude that the human being, at this stage of evolution, is a biological robot (biot) automatically responding to genetic template and childhood imprinting.” - Timothy Leary in Info-Psychology (1987)
The human mind is a machine. Albeit a very complex machine that, when combined with the human body, is capable of amazing feats. If you doubt the machine nature of the mind then you probably have just not yet learned how easy your thoughts are to manipulate.
The brain is biological, yes; not mechanical or electronic. But biology is as much a system of cause and effect as any of the other machine types. So to deny the machine nature of our brain is to deny the very principle of cause and effect.
Our brain is the epitome of reason. Its primary purpose is not to determine us, but to serve us. Its function is to give us the ability to manipulate our experience. We call it “reasoning”, but that is a misleading term. It implies that the mind has the ability to understand. But it does not. The mind can only process finite information. Understanding requires consciousness, and consciousness requires the comprehension of infinity. So when we “reason” we are not understanding at all. We are merely manipulating our understanding to suit ourselves.
This is why there are so many different “understandings” in the world. Because people mistake reason for understanding. We worship cause and effect as though it were a god. Or, at least some “law” of the universe set down by a god. But cause and effect is an invention of reason. And reason is the latest in a long line of false gods. We have turned to such gods for thousands of years (at least) in our dellusional attempts to control forces in the world that we can not understand.
As our understanding changes, so the nature of our gods change. Any student of modern religion knows this to be true, but only a few realize the religious nature of the modern state. Our government is a religion of the false god of reason. The Christian Bible even warns us of the dire consequences of such false belief systems. So does the Koran, Tora, Buddhist sutras, and many other writings from those who genuinely understand. Unfortunately these writings have been left to the interpretation of those who still bow to reason. But fortunately the writings themselves have been preserved. So, they might yet serve their intended purpose to “guide and instruct”, but not, “speak for God”. Any real god must be able to speak for itself, or it is only the product of someone's imagination, and reason.
The human mind is a machine. Albeit a very complex machine that, when combined with the human body, is capable of amazing feats. If you doubt the machine nature of the mind then you probably have just not yet learned how easy your thoughts are to manipulate.
The brain is biological, yes; not mechanical or electronic. But biology is as much a system of cause and effect as any of the other machine types. So to deny the machine nature of our brain is to deny the very principle of cause and effect.
Our brain is the epitome of reason. Its primary purpose is not to determine us, but to serve us. Its function is to give us the ability to manipulate our experience. We call it “reasoning”, but that is a misleading term. It implies that the mind has the ability to understand. But it does not. The mind can only process finite information. Understanding requires consciousness, and consciousness requires the comprehension of infinity. So when we “reason” we are not understanding at all. We are merely manipulating our understanding to suit ourselves.
This is why there are so many different “understandings” in the world. Because people mistake reason for understanding. We worship cause and effect as though it were a god. Or, at least some “law” of the universe set down by a god. But cause and effect is an invention of reason. And reason is the latest in a long line of false gods. We have turned to such gods for thousands of years (at least) in our dellusional attempts to control forces in the world that we can not understand.
As our understanding changes, so the nature of our gods change. Any student of modern religion knows this to be true, but only a few realize the religious nature of the modern state. Our government is a religion of the false god of reason. The Christian Bible even warns us of the dire consequences of such false belief systems. So does the Koran, Tora, Buddhist sutras, and many other writings from those who genuinely understand. Unfortunately these writings have been left to the interpretation of those who still bow to reason. But fortunately the writings themselves have been preserved. So, they might yet serve their intended purpose to “guide and instruct”, but not, “speak for God”. Any real god must be able to speak for itself, or it is only the product of someone's imagination, and reason.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Unleashing Intuition
Modern science induces us to mistake reason for understanding. Reasoning is a mechanical process that allows us to manipulate and share understanding. But, it is useless without the understanding for it to manipulate. Even a computer can manipulate understanding. But, a computer cannot itself understand anything.
We reason with our thoughts. But our thoughts are not what allow us to understand. In fact, the process of thinking does more to inhibit understanding than to facilitate it. Thinking is a regulator, not a conductor. It restricts our understanding in order that we can do work with it. But thinking alone does not allow us to understand anything.
Monks experience their most profound understanding by turning off their thoughts (the computer-brain). Without the restriction of our thoughts to inhibit our understanding it becomes possible to experience “pure understanding”. That is, perhaps, to understand understanding itself. This is sometimes called enlightenment. But it is really no more than intuition unleashed!
“And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.” (John 1:5, NKJV)
We reason with our thoughts. But our thoughts are not what allow us to understand. In fact, the process of thinking does more to inhibit understanding than to facilitate it. Thinking is a regulator, not a conductor. It restricts our understanding in order that we can do work with it. But thinking alone does not allow us to understand anything.
Monks experience their most profound understanding by turning off their thoughts (the computer-brain). Without the restriction of our thoughts to inhibit our understanding it becomes possible to experience “pure understanding”. That is, perhaps, to understand understanding itself. This is sometimes called enlightenment. But it is really no more than intuition unleashed!
“And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.” (John 1:5, NKJV)
Dependent Parent Support
Why is it that our society demands that parents support their children, while the children are young and dependent, but we don't demand that children support their parents, when their parents are old and dependent?
Thursday, October 21, 2010
If You Believe Me...
If someone wants to tell me what is wrong with the way I think, then I will eagerly listen to them with an open mind, and even expect to learn something. But if someone wants to tell me what is right about their own way of thinking, then I see no reason to waste my time listening to them, as I would expect to learn nothing.
And if someone wanted to tell me what is right about my way of thinking, then, if I was bored, I might listen to them merely to humor myself. Yet, if someone wanted to tell me what was wrong with their own way of thinking, then I would drop whatever I was doing, and listen to them carefully. Not so that I could learn something, but so that we all might.
If you believe me,
And you receive me,
We will be together this day.
And if someone wanted to tell me what is right about my way of thinking, then, if I was bored, I might listen to them merely to humor myself. Yet, if someone wanted to tell me what was wrong with their own way of thinking, then I would drop whatever I was doing, and listen to them carefully. Not so that I could learn something, but so that we all might.
If you believe me,
And you receive me,
We will be together this day.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Dependent Choices
The debate of free will verses predestiny is as old as civilization itself. But the debate is a distraction from the truth of the matter all together. “Free will” is a silly human invention that has no correlating concepts in the natural universe. And “predestiny” is likewise a mute argument in the light of a little simple introspection that anyone can do. But the debate persists for the same reason that all debates persist; because both sides contain truths, and both sides contain deception. Only because there are any “sides” at all does the solution remain a mystery. The solution I am refering to in this case is one I like to call “dependent choices”. It completely ignores the concepts of “free will” and “predestiny” and instead simply observes the obvious without trying to turn it into something “devine”.
The dividing question in the aforementioned debate is, “Do we have the ability to make our own choices, or are our choices predetermined?” If you consider this question without prejudice then it can seem rather silly.
First of all, the terms are not even clearly defined, and because of this most actual debates on the issues digress quickly into pointless arguments over what “choice” means, or what “freedom” is. If both sides ever did actually manage to rephrase the debated question in terms that both sides agreed to then there would be nothing to debate! The arguments are all semantics and definitions, not conceptual at all.
For example, what exactly is choice? If we agree that it is a machine-like function that any computer can demonstrate, then the predestiners win. But if it is an indeterminable “spiritual” event, then the advocates of free will have the best argument. But what if we define “choice” as, “the finite result of infinite causes?” I'm only suggesting one possible definition that the antagonists in this case might agree on. You can plainly see that if they were to agree to some such definition, then the question could almost answer itself. So lets consider that question again, and see how silly it becomes using the definition for “choice” that I suggest above.
“Do we have the ability to control the infinite causes that result in a finite choice?”
It should be clear that this question has no answer. Or, if it did have an answer, it would be both yes and no. We can only control a finite number of causes, not infinite. So it's a silly question after all, as is the original version of this heavily debated paradox, when it is so carefully considered.
The question we might actually be trying to ask could be, “How can we make better choices?” So let's apply my definition for “choice” to this question and see what comes out:
“How can we improve the finite result of infinite choices?”
Ah! Now there's a worthy question that we might actually be able to answer. But, I'll leave the answer to that question up to the “experts”, if they ever stop arguing over semantics. Besides, I've already found my own personal answer to that question about five years ago. :)
The only remaining point I'd like to make for now is my own definition of “dependent choice”. Like I've already said, it sidesteps the silly ideas and comes straight to the point: “Every choice we make is the result of infinite causes and has infinite results” (note, I am no longer using my earlier definition of “choice” here, but I am proposing a completely new definition and concept).
With this definition I have stated only the obvious. And yet, it gives us a different way at looking at the “choices” we make that I think can spur whole new realizations, and perhaps even an authentic “paradigm shift” in social consciousness. Or maybe I'm just dreaming. Who knows.
The dividing question in the aforementioned debate is, “Do we have the ability to make our own choices, or are our choices predetermined?” If you consider this question without prejudice then it can seem rather silly.
First of all, the terms are not even clearly defined, and because of this most actual debates on the issues digress quickly into pointless arguments over what “choice” means, or what “freedom” is. If both sides ever did actually manage to rephrase the debated question in terms that both sides agreed to then there would be nothing to debate! The arguments are all semantics and definitions, not conceptual at all.
For example, what exactly is choice? If we agree that it is a machine-like function that any computer can demonstrate, then the predestiners win. But if it is an indeterminable “spiritual” event, then the advocates of free will have the best argument. But what if we define “choice” as, “the finite result of infinite causes?” I'm only suggesting one possible definition that the antagonists in this case might agree on. You can plainly see that if they were to agree to some such definition, then the question could almost answer itself. So lets consider that question again, and see how silly it becomes using the definition for “choice” that I suggest above.
“Do we have the ability to control the infinite causes that result in a finite choice?”
It should be clear that this question has no answer. Or, if it did have an answer, it would be both yes and no. We can only control a finite number of causes, not infinite. So it's a silly question after all, as is the original version of this heavily debated paradox, when it is so carefully considered.
The question we might actually be trying to ask could be, “How can we make better choices?” So let's apply my definition for “choice” to this question and see what comes out:
“How can we improve the finite result of infinite choices?”
Ah! Now there's a worthy question that we might actually be able to answer. But, I'll leave the answer to that question up to the “experts”, if they ever stop arguing over semantics. Besides, I've already found my own personal answer to that question about five years ago. :)
The only remaining point I'd like to make for now is my own definition of “dependent choice”. Like I've already said, it sidesteps the silly ideas and comes straight to the point: “Every choice we make is the result of infinite causes and has infinite results” (note, I am no longer using my earlier definition of “choice” here, but I am proposing a completely new definition and concept).
With this definition I have stated only the obvious. And yet, it gives us a different way at looking at the “choices” we make that I think can spur whole new realizations, and perhaps even an authentic “paradigm shift” in social consciousness. Or maybe I'm just dreaming. Who knows.
Unconditional Love
Unconditional love is not what you think it is. If you have any ideas at all about what love is, then it is not unconditional love that you are imagining.
Unconditional love cannot be imagined. It can only be directly experienced. Once it is experienced then all other “sensual” experiences become much less important, but more intense at the same time.
Unconditional love doesn't mean ignoring your resentment toward someone. It means giving into your resentment while at the same time repenting your ignorance. In other words, it means embracing the pain we inflict upon ourselves. Not in the self-flagelation, but in the humbleness of self-effacing honesty.
Unconditional love seldom (if ever) results in one's feeling any sense of personal pleasure. The only “pleasure” a person gets from this kind of love is the pleasure that comes through our empathy for those we care about. This “real pleasure”, (a.k.a. “Joy”, a.k.a. “Bliss”) emanates from the inside out, not outside in. And, it causes all our personal external pleasure senses to tingle with the simplest experience. Drinking a glass of water can be more intoxicating than the most potent wine, for a person who truly loves.
Unconditional love does not condone ignorance. But, neither does it feed ignorance the fear that it craves. We do not “turn the other cheek” if we are afraid of being struck again. We only offer an ignorant person such an opportunity to strike us when we are not afraid, and when we truly love the person about to cause us pain. Only then will it have the power to heal.
Unconditional love does not comprehend fear. Some say that if you are not afraid then you can not know courage. But such courage is a misleading human invention that caters to false pride. I'm not saying one should not be “courages” and face their fears. We absolutely should! But, do not then take pride in your courage, for all fear is the result of your ignorance and nothing else. And, only by facing our fears can we learn this; there is nothing to be afraid of. (Or, as I believe Roosevelt once said, “The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself!”)
So, unconditional love is not something I, or anyone, can tell you about. But I, and almost anyone else, can tell you what it is not about. Just about anything you think it is, is what it is not! But, it does exist. And, it only takes faith in its existence in order to experience it. Once it has been experienced it is simply no longer possible to confuse “imagined love” with “real (unconditional) love” ever again.
“The Tao (way of love) that can be taught is not the eternal (unconditional) Tao.” - Lao-zi
Unconditional love cannot be imagined. It can only be directly experienced. Once it is experienced then all other “sensual” experiences become much less important, but more intense at the same time.
Unconditional love doesn't mean ignoring your resentment toward someone. It means giving into your resentment while at the same time repenting your ignorance. In other words, it means embracing the pain we inflict upon ourselves. Not in the self-flagelation, but in the humbleness of self-effacing honesty.
Unconditional love seldom (if ever) results in one's feeling any sense of personal pleasure. The only “pleasure” a person gets from this kind of love is the pleasure that comes through our empathy for those we care about. This “real pleasure”, (a.k.a. “Joy”, a.k.a. “Bliss”) emanates from the inside out, not outside in. And, it causes all our personal external pleasure senses to tingle with the simplest experience. Drinking a glass of water can be more intoxicating than the most potent wine, for a person who truly loves.
Unconditional love does not condone ignorance. But, neither does it feed ignorance the fear that it craves. We do not “turn the other cheek” if we are afraid of being struck again. We only offer an ignorant person such an opportunity to strike us when we are not afraid, and when we truly love the person about to cause us pain. Only then will it have the power to heal.
Unconditional love does not comprehend fear. Some say that if you are not afraid then you can not know courage. But such courage is a misleading human invention that caters to false pride. I'm not saying one should not be “courages” and face their fears. We absolutely should! But, do not then take pride in your courage, for all fear is the result of your ignorance and nothing else. And, only by facing our fears can we learn this; there is nothing to be afraid of. (Or, as I believe Roosevelt once said, “The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself!”)
So, unconditional love is not something I, or anyone, can tell you about. But I, and almost anyone else, can tell you what it is not about. Just about anything you think it is, is what it is not! But, it does exist. And, it only takes faith in its existence in order to experience it. Once it has been experienced it is simply no longer possible to confuse “imagined love” with “real (unconditional) love” ever again.
“The Tao (way of love) that can be taught is not the eternal (unconditional) Tao.” - Lao-zi
Monday, October 18, 2010
An Alternative To Free Will
“Free Will”, by definition, demands that we able to choose independently of all influences. It does not mean we must choose independently, only that we have the ability to do so. But if we can choose independently of influence, then what determines our choice? If you say, “our character”, or “our nature”, then what determines those? If you say, “our choices”, then you have made the age old logical error of circular reference, the same kind of logical error that kept people thinking that the world was flat for so long despite overwhelming evidence that it couldn't possibly be flat. It seemed flat, so arguments were invented (many of them circular) to explain away the evidence.
Of course, ultimately the evidence won out and now we take gravity for granted. And, we don't even bat an eye at the idea of men standing upside down some 8.000 miles below us.
Someday too, we will not question the concept of dependent choice. “Free will” will seem as silly as the idea of a flat earth. But before that day comes we are going to have to collectively let go of certain absolutes that keep us from grasping beyond what our minds can directly perceive. Just as we let go of the concepts of “absolute up” and “absolute down”, we will need to learn that there is no “absolute right” or “absolute wrong”. Once we accept this then the idea of dependent choice will seem obvious.
And, if you think that our “character”, which ultimately determines our choices, is itself determined by nature, or “God”, or “the Universe”, then you have already admitted that we have no free will.
Because if our choices are determined by our character, and our character is determined by something other than ourselves, then our choices are not free, they are determined by whoever (or whatever) determined our character. And that is what “dependent choice” is all about.
Dependent choice does not imply pre-destiny. In fact, the concept of dependent choice has nothing to say about our “destiny” at all. Whether or not our choices are predetermined becomes a mute question when the idea of dependent choice is fully explored and understood. It is like asking, “what holds the earth up?”, after gravity is understood. The question itself no longer makes any sense, since gravity allows for a whole new way of looking at “up” and “down”.
And so, dependent choice provides a whole new way of looking at “right” and “wrong”. Suddenly, anyone claiming to be “the most right” about their view of the universe is exposed as a fraud. They will appear as foolish to us as a man who climbs a mountain in order to be “the closest to heaven”. Most religions of the world will become empty shells of impossible “righteousness”. Ironically, most religions of the world were based on the teachings of men who seemed to understand that there is no absolute rights or wrongs. When you re-read the teachings of Jesus, for example, in the light of dependent choice, suddenly what he is saying makes real sense, and no longer requires faith in imagined ideas, like absolute rightness (a.k.a. “righteousness”) and absolute wrongness (a.k.a. “evil”). The “miracles” that Christ performed are seen as very good metaphores for concepts that dependent choice supports.
Just for example, Jesus healed many “lepers”. Leprosy is a “skin disease” that eats the external flesh of the body while leaving the internal organs intact. Because of the way lepers were outcast and blamed for their own disease, leprosy is an excellent metaphor for how “sin” (i.e. deception) will eat away at the external “skin” of a person's “character” while leaving the internal “organs” of a person's “character” intact. Such a person's behavior (external skin) becomes more and more hideous as the disease progresses, and society soon casts them out (e.g. sends them to prison) and blames them for their sickness (behavior).
But dependent choice tells us that these “lepers” do have a disease, and, just as Jesus tried to teach us, it can be cured. Not miraculously in the “magical” sense of miracles that religion has imagined. But, in the very real “miraculous” sense of the mysterious force of “devine (unconditional) love”. Just as gravity (a miraculous and mysterious force itself) allows men to orbit the earth, seeming to set them free from the very gravity that holds them there, so devine love will some day set men free from “leprosy” (i.e. deception based behavior). Some day we truly will perform “miracles” even greater than those performed by Christ (as Christ himself promised we would). But, they will not be “magic” or “supernatural”. They will be achieved by mere understanding.
Faith in understanding is devine love. It is what Jesus and St. Paul really means by “righteousness”. Fear and ignorance is the cause of all suffering (i.e. deception based experience). It is what Jesus and St. Paul really meant by “evil”.
Of course, ultimately the evidence won out and now we take gravity for granted. And, we don't even bat an eye at the idea of men standing upside down some 8.000 miles below us.
Someday too, we will not question the concept of dependent choice. “Free will” will seem as silly as the idea of a flat earth. But before that day comes we are going to have to collectively let go of certain absolutes that keep us from grasping beyond what our minds can directly perceive. Just as we let go of the concepts of “absolute up” and “absolute down”, we will need to learn that there is no “absolute right” or “absolute wrong”. Once we accept this then the idea of dependent choice will seem obvious.
And, if you think that our “character”, which ultimately determines our choices, is itself determined by nature, or “God”, or “the Universe”, then you have already admitted that we have no free will.
Because if our choices are determined by our character, and our character is determined by something other than ourselves, then our choices are not free, they are determined by whoever (or whatever) determined our character. And that is what “dependent choice” is all about.
Dependent choice does not imply pre-destiny. In fact, the concept of dependent choice has nothing to say about our “destiny” at all. Whether or not our choices are predetermined becomes a mute question when the idea of dependent choice is fully explored and understood. It is like asking, “what holds the earth up?”, after gravity is understood. The question itself no longer makes any sense, since gravity allows for a whole new way of looking at “up” and “down”.
And so, dependent choice provides a whole new way of looking at “right” and “wrong”. Suddenly, anyone claiming to be “the most right” about their view of the universe is exposed as a fraud. They will appear as foolish to us as a man who climbs a mountain in order to be “the closest to heaven”. Most religions of the world will become empty shells of impossible “righteousness”. Ironically, most religions of the world were based on the teachings of men who seemed to understand that there is no absolute rights or wrongs. When you re-read the teachings of Jesus, for example, in the light of dependent choice, suddenly what he is saying makes real sense, and no longer requires faith in imagined ideas, like absolute rightness (a.k.a. “righteousness”) and absolute wrongness (a.k.a. “evil”). The “miracles” that Christ performed are seen as very good metaphores for concepts that dependent choice supports.
Just for example, Jesus healed many “lepers”. Leprosy is a “skin disease” that eats the external flesh of the body while leaving the internal organs intact. Because of the way lepers were outcast and blamed for their own disease, leprosy is an excellent metaphor for how “sin” (i.e. deception) will eat away at the external “skin” of a person's “character” while leaving the internal “organs” of a person's “character” intact. Such a person's behavior (external skin) becomes more and more hideous as the disease progresses, and society soon casts them out (e.g. sends them to prison) and blames them for their sickness (behavior).
But dependent choice tells us that these “lepers” do have a disease, and, just as Jesus tried to teach us, it can be cured. Not miraculously in the “magical” sense of miracles that religion has imagined. But, in the very real “miraculous” sense of the mysterious force of “devine (unconditional) love”. Just as gravity (a miraculous and mysterious force itself) allows men to orbit the earth, seeming to set them free from the very gravity that holds them there, so devine love will some day set men free from “leprosy” (i.e. deception based behavior). Some day we truly will perform “miracles” even greater than those performed by Christ (as Christ himself promised we would). But, they will not be “magic” or “supernatural”. They will be achieved by mere understanding.
Faith in understanding is devine love. It is what Jesus and St. Paul really means by “righteousness”. Fear and ignorance is the cause of all suffering (i.e. deception based experience). It is what Jesus and St. Paul really meant by “evil”.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Looking For Reasons
If you read this blog looking for the reasons why I did the things I did, then you will no doubt find them. But they will be your reasons, not mine.
On The Act Of Listening
To truly be able to listen we must cease all other activities of the mind. We must open ourselves up to the speaker; whether that be another person, a piece of art, or the universe itself (i.e. common experience).
To “open ourselves up” means to the offer no resistance to the ideas and impressions that are being offered to you by the speaker. That is, to not consciously attach meaning or significance to the impressions being conveyed. We should allow our unconscious mind to manage all the necessary associations for us.
We must not seek the reasons or motives behind the words we wish to hear. Doing so will contaminate their meaning with our own dellusions. Instead, we should keep a clear mind. We must accept everything that is being said as though it were we ourselves speaking.
After having thus listened, we may reflect on what we have heard at our leisure. In this way understanding is given its voice.
To “open ourselves up” means to the offer no resistance to the ideas and impressions that are being offered to you by the speaker. That is, to not consciously attach meaning or significance to the impressions being conveyed. We should allow our unconscious mind to manage all the necessary associations for us.
We must not seek the reasons or motives behind the words we wish to hear. Doing so will contaminate their meaning with our own dellusions. Instead, we should keep a clear mind. We must accept everything that is being said as though it were we ourselves speaking.
After having thus listened, we may reflect on what we have heard at our leisure. In this way understanding is given its voice.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Illusions Of Invention
When I am seeking understanding these days I focus on simply being open and honest with myself. The understanding comes in its own time, sometimes almost right away, other times not at all. But one thing I don't do is try to find the “reason” for something, then mistake whatever “reason” I came up with for understanding.
In our world, a world presently dominated by the religion of reason (a.k.a. “science”) we are taught falsely that reasons and understanding are the same thing. If we know the reason for something then we think we understand it. And if we can't find a reason, then we think that understanding eludes us.
Amazingly, we can even have a true and deep understanding while thinking that we don't understand at all, simply because we cannot put our understanding into the terms of reason (i.e. words). This, in fact, is the very source of all human conflict and suffering. We defer to reason, and trust it instead of our true understanding which very often can not be verbally expressed or even grasped with images in our mind.
Reasoning and language are not by themselves the problem. It is only when we put our faith in symbols and reasons that we get into trouble. By themselves they are wonderful tools for expressing complex ideas and otherwise sharing our experiences (as I am doing now). But no words, nor any other symbolic system that is the product of human reason (e.g. religion, philosophy, or art) will ever truly express the real beauty of genuine understanding. Nor will these languages of reason ever be able to express or represent the understanding we need to grow out of our dellusional state. As long as we put our faith in science and technology, or religion, or music, or art, or philosophy, then these same will imprison us. Only true understanding, which is direct and unsymbolized by men (yet symbolized by the universe itself perfectly and beautifully!) can set us free from the illusions of invention.
In our world, a world presently dominated by the religion of reason (a.k.a. “science”) we are taught falsely that reasons and understanding are the same thing. If we know the reason for something then we think we understand it. And if we can't find a reason, then we think that understanding eludes us.
Amazingly, we can even have a true and deep understanding while thinking that we don't understand at all, simply because we cannot put our understanding into the terms of reason (i.e. words). This, in fact, is the very source of all human conflict and suffering. We defer to reason, and trust it instead of our true understanding which very often can not be verbally expressed or even grasped with images in our mind.
Reasoning and language are not by themselves the problem. It is only when we put our faith in symbols and reasons that we get into trouble. By themselves they are wonderful tools for expressing complex ideas and otherwise sharing our experiences (as I am doing now). But no words, nor any other symbolic system that is the product of human reason (e.g. religion, philosophy, or art) will ever truly express the real beauty of genuine understanding. Nor will these languages of reason ever be able to express or represent the understanding we need to grow out of our dellusional state. As long as we put our faith in science and technology, or religion, or music, or art, or philosophy, then these same will imprison us. Only true understanding, which is direct and unsymbolized by men (yet symbolized by the universe itself perfectly and beautifully!) can set us free from the illusions of invention.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Power and Control: A Consequence
When it happens, we ask ourselves how is it possible for a human being to so callously rape and murder a child? For lack of any comprehensible answer we become convinced that it simply is not possible for a human to do such a thing. It requires the heartless mind and soul of an inhuman monster.
It must be a monster. How else could a person not respond to the gut wrenching emotions that such an act solicits in anyone with any human feelings at all? And if such feelings are not present, then the person is simply not human, and therefor easy for us to make suffer for their crime against humanity. We can punish them without compunction or remorse, because the do not feel as we feel. They are inhuman and deserve whatever happens to them.
And such has been the rational behind every act of violence and cruelty propagated by humans against other humans since the beginning. The “victim” is always perceived as somewhat less than human, or rather, less “real” (capable of emotion) than the person inflicting the harm. The rapist sees the woman (or child) as incapable of comprehending his needs (i.e. emotions) and therefor deserving of their fate. The soldier sees his enemy as misinformed, and therefor less able to understand the true reality, and hense less able to comprehend real emotions. And society in general, ostracises the criminal as we once did lepers, and for the exact same reason (it was once commonly believed that lepers brought the disease upon themselves with sin or foolishness, they deserved to suffer also).
It's called dehumanization, and without it there would be no violence in the world. The victim is a thing, a “monster” or “slut” or “piece of trash” that deserves what they get. Even as we condemn the rapist for being a heartless monster we are being heartless ourselves, focusing on our own emotions and needs (i.e. “for justice”) rather than stepping back and seeing the crime for what it is; a very “human” act after all!
We often forget that rape is not about sex. The sex is no more than a weak man's convenience, while the real goal, of course, is power and control (never mind for a moment that ultimately there is no such thing and that all effort to attain power and control is delusional, a delusion that our present culture indorses and promotes, much to its own demise). And if we consider the real goal of rape to be power and control then it is only obvious that all acts of violence and cruelty, whether “legalized” or not, are a form of rape. We might fool ourselves into thinking that we have a “right to justice” and that criminals “deserve what they get”, but the victims (the criminals themselves) aren't so easy to fool. They, typically fully realize that their “punishment” has nothing to do with “justice” or even “law and order”. They know as well as any rape victim knows it's not about sex.
You might be wondering, what does raping a helpless little child have to do with power? But it's not about power over the victim directly. It's about power over what the victim represents in the mind of the rapist. We know that a woman rape victim is often only an effigy for the women in the rapists life who have rejected him, or perhaps even a mother who abused him. But how could a child represent such a threat to a pedophile rapist?
In the case of crimes against children, the child becomes an effigy, perhaps for a lost childhood, or maybe even for society in general. Children clearly represent everything that is precious and innocent to society. So when someone attacks a child (either sexually, as is common in the United States, or by other forms of violence, such as the rash of knife attacks on children this year in China) we should recognize that the child is usually not even the real victim. And when we respond with appall and disgust, we are giving the attacker exactly what he wants, evidence of his power and control, and support for his delusion.
The criminal himself becomes an effigy for society, as were the lepers, or even witches – all these were once symbols of societies anxieties and served as effigies as such.) The courts frequently even proclaim that the punishment inflicted is intended to “send a message” to other would be criminals. So clearly the criminal is being used to appease societies delusion of power and control over natural elements that it refuses to accept that it will never be able to control.
If this sounds familiar it should; we once punished witches for causing crop failures, and Jews for causing economic failures, and fags for causing AIDS. So it should be no real surprize that we yet identify an arbitrarily defined group of people (criminals are defined by laws that define crime – in our country sex with children is a crime, and only because of our influence has child sex, and prostitution, become crimes in other countries where child sex very rarely even occurred – until it was criminalized, thus making it a convenient weapon for weak men to wield against society), and then punish that group for causing us to suffer.Isn't that exactly what criminologists accuse criminals of doing; blaming others for their own behavior?
So how long until this pattern of very human behavior is recognized and stopped? I can answer that question with the question: How long until we stop believing in the illusion of power and control.
It could be awhile. :(
It must be a monster. How else could a person not respond to the gut wrenching emotions that such an act solicits in anyone with any human feelings at all? And if such feelings are not present, then the person is simply not human, and therefor easy for us to make suffer for their crime against humanity. We can punish them without compunction or remorse, because the do not feel as we feel. They are inhuman and deserve whatever happens to them.
And such has been the rational behind every act of violence and cruelty propagated by humans against other humans since the beginning. The “victim” is always perceived as somewhat less than human, or rather, less “real” (capable of emotion) than the person inflicting the harm. The rapist sees the woman (or child) as incapable of comprehending his needs (i.e. emotions) and therefor deserving of their fate. The soldier sees his enemy as misinformed, and therefor less able to understand the true reality, and hense less able to comprehend real emotions. And society in general, ostracises the criminal as we once did lepers, and for the exact same reason (it was once commonly believed that lepers brought the disease upon themselves with sin or foolishness, they deserved to suffer also).
It's called dehumanization, and without it there would be no violence in the world. The victim is a thing, a “monster” or “slut” or “piece of trash” that deserves what they get. Even as we condemn the rapist for being a heartless monster we are being heartless ourselves, focusing on our own emotions and needs (i.e. “for justice”) rather than stepping back and seeing the crime for what it is; a very “human” act after all!
We often forget that rape is not about sex. The sex is no more than a weak man's convenience, while the real goal, of course, is power and control (never mind for a moment that ultimately there is no such thing and that all effort to attain power and control is delusional, a delusion that our present culture indorses and promotes, much to its own demise). And if we consider the real goal of rape to be power and control then it is only obvious that all acts of violence and cruelty, whether “legalized” or not, are a form of rape. We might fool ourselves into thinking that we have a “right to justice” and that criminals “deserve what they get”, but the victims (the criminals themselves) aren't so easy to fool. They, typically fully realize that their “punishment” has nothing to do with “justice” or even “law and order”. They know as well as any rape victim knows it's not about sex.
You might be wondering, what does raping a helpless little child have to do with power? But it's not about power over the victim directly. It's about power over what the victim represents in the mind of the rapist. We know that a woman rape victim is often only an effigy for the women in the rapists life who have rejected him, or perhaps even a mother who abused him. But how could a child represent such a threat to a pedophile rapist?
In the case of crimes against children, the child becomes an effigy, perhaps for a lost childhood, or maybe even for society in general. Children clearly represent everything that is precious and innocent to society. So when someone attacks a child (either sexually, as is common in the United States, or by other forms of violence, such as the rash of knife attacks on children this year in China) we should recognize that the child is usually not even the real victim. And when we respond with appall and disgust, we are giving the attacker exactly what he wants, evidence of his power and control, and support for his delusion.
The criminal himself becomes an effigy for society, as were the lepers, or even witches – all these were once symbols of societies anxieties and served as effigies as such.) The courts frequently even proclaim that the punishment inflicted is intended to “send a message” to other would be criminals. So clearly the criminal is being used to appease societies delusion of power and control over natural elements that it refuses to accept that it will never be able to control.
If this sounds familiar it should; we once punished witches for causing crop failures, and Jews for causing economic failures, and fags for causing AIDS. So it should be no real surprize that we yet identify an arbitrarily defined group of people (criminals are defined by laws that define crime – in our country sex with children is a crime, and only because of our influence has child sex, and prostitution, become crimes in other countries where child sex very rarely even occurred – until it was criminalized, thus making it a convenient weapon for weak men to wield against society), and then punish that group for causing us to suffer.Isn't that exactly what criminologists accuse criminals of doing; blaming others for their own behavior?
So how long until this pattern of very human behavior is recognized and stopped? I can answer that question with the question: How long until we stop believing in the illusion of power and control.
It could be awhile. :(
Monday, October 11, 2010
All They'll Need Is Love
I have said that when the world awakens to itself people will become conscious of themselves only in the context of the One World consciousness, and will no longer be conscious of themselves as individuals. But that sounds like I am saying that we will lose our individual identities, and become some sort of automatons, which is not what I think at all!
In fact, we will become much more aware of ourselves as individuals, and much much more alive as human beings. All I mean by saying that we will not be conscious of ourselves is that all of our conscious energy will be spent on the One World, not on ourselves, and this will give us an overwhelming sense of purpose and being.
It might help to think of it as being deeply in love with everyone you meet, and with everything that happens. Even in the present world when we are in love with someone or something, our lives are greatly enhanced by a sense of purpose and being that is centered on the person or thing we love. Well, in an enlightened world, that sense of being in love becomes profound and omnidirectional.
So just as being in love today causes our sense of purpose to increase while our sense of importance and self consciousness decrease, so it will be when the world awakens and every living person will be connected through their love to the planet, and even to the universe, all at once.
You might invision such a world as being occupied by starry eyed hippies who sit around all day smiling blissfully but accomplishing nothing. But I believe that in such a world the human race will accomplish more in one year than we have in the last hundred years!And that's being conservative about it!
There is so much negative energy in the world today that it's surprizing to me that we can accomplish anything at all. What little we have achieved this last century will be taught to infants in the coming years in much the same way they learn to speak today. Any ten-year-old will be able to explain the relative nature of space and time, and they won't need a bigger brain than we already have to do it. All they'll need is love.
In fact, we will become much more aware of ourselves as individuals, and much much more alive as human beings. All I mean by saying that we will not be conscious of ourselves is that all of our conscious energy will be spent on the One World, not on ourselves, and this will give us an overwhelming sense of purpose and being.
It might help to think of it as being deeply in love with everyone you meet, and with everything that happens. Even in the present world when we are in love with someone or something, our lives are greatly enhanced by a sense of purpose and being that is centered on the person or thing we love. Well, in an enlightened world, that sense of being in love becomes profound and omnidirectional.
So just as being in love today causes our sense of purpose to increase while our sense of importance and self consciousness decrease, so it will be when the world awakens and every living person will be connected through their love to the planet, and even to the universe, all at once.
You might invision such a world as being occupied by starry eyed hippies who sit around all day smiling blissfully but accomplishing nothing. But I believe that in such a world the human race will accomplish more in one year than we have in the last hundred years!And that's being conservative about it!
There is so much negative energy in the world today that it's surprizing to me that we can accomplish anything at all. What little we have achieved this last century will be taught to infants in the coming years in much the same way they learn to speak today. Any ten-year-old will be able to explain the relative nature of space and time, and they won't need a bigger brain than we already have to do it. All they'll need is love.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Dogs In Glass Doghouses
In our world (the U.S.) it is expected that a person's life consist of mostly gradual changes over time. When a person experiences a drastic change in a short time (such as the sudden loss of a loved one, a job, or home) then we recognize this as highly stressfull and in some cases traumatizing.
But what we fail to recognize, perhaps because it is so far “off the map” of our cultural experience, is what happens when a person's entire world is yanked out from under their feet. Not just the loss of a loved one, or a job, or home, but the loss of all loved ones, friends, family, and all prospects of any jobs, and of ever having a home ever again. Not even a severe accident can cause this kind of loss, because even if you are paralyzed from the neck down, you still have family, friends, and community support. You can still “rebuild”, and therefor there is still hope.
But what happens when even hope is taken away? What is a person supposed to do when all of their options, even the most extreme options, can promise no light at the end of the tunnel? There is one circumstance where this is the case in our society, and it is an all too common and completely ignored tragedy, called “Criminal Conviction”.
I know, I know; criminals bring it upon themselve, so they “deserve what they get”. But does anyone every really deserve to have all hope taken from them?
You might think that there is always hope. But if that is what you think then you do not yet understand even what hope is.
Hope is something that only exists when it is “seen”. A person who sees no hope, has no hope. Just because others see hope for that person does not mean the person has hope. That is why so many “criminals” end up trapped in their hopeless worlds, because other people can “see” a way out for them, but they themselves can see no way out.
If a man does not realize that he is responsible for his own demise, then how can be responsible? He can't. It is like the dog I saw recently on A.F.V., who did not realize that the glass had been removed from a storm door, so there was nothing to stop him from going outside by walking straight through the empty door frame.
The dog would wait for someone to “open the door” before he would pass through, even after watching another person walk through the unopened door. This is very funny to us, but completely humorless to the dog.
Now suppose the dog's owner did not realize that the dog could not go through the empty storm door frame, so he leaves the regular door open expecting the dog, that is house trained, to go out on its own when it needs to relieve itself.
Of course the dog ends up urinating in the house. So the owner thinks the dog needs a “lesson”, and he punishes the dog expecting the problem to be solved that way. But the dog is only confused by the punishment, and still does not realize that it can go outside anytime it wants.
And the owner soon discovers not just urine, but BM as well. He becomes irate and bannishes the dog outdoors indefinately. The owner begins to see the dog as a burden on the household and no longer a member of the family. The dog soon developes very real antisocial behaviors from the lack of human attention and is eventually put to sleep.
All of this happened because the dog could not see an option that the owner (authority) could plainly see. And there you have criminal behavior in a nutshell.
So, using this analogy, how can we open the “storm door” for criminals? Education is one way. I once did a college research paper on the effects of education in prison on recidivism (re-offense rates). Every study I found, even those unfavorable to prison education, showed a strong direct relationship between the amount of education a prisoner receives in prison and the chances that he will stay out of prison once he is released. These studies show that the relationship holds even when the prisoners are compelled to educate themselves (sort of like pushing the dog through the storm door to show him there is no glass in it). The theory is that an education helps the “criminal” overcome his blindness to his options. An educated criminal begins to realize that just because he painfully banged his no on the “glass” a few times (for example, losing a good job because of unfair workplace practices), that doesn't mean the “glass” is always there. He learns what “glass” is (i.e. workplace politics, ethics, etc...) and learns to function in a word with “glass” in it.
Of course, it will be a long time methinks before the dog owner of this world (i.e. the authorities) learn how to properly traind the dogs of this world (criminals). In fact, in the last 30 years, education programs in prison have been reduced to practically nothing. It's almost as though someone figured out a great way to make a lot of money playing “dog catcher”. And the trauma that these poor ignorent “dogs” suffer is real, and profound. We punish them unjustly for their ignorance, and eventually bannish them to the yard, or put them to sleep. Euthanasia ends up being our only act of kindness.
But what we fail to recognize, perhaps because it is so far “off the map” of our cultural experience, is what happens when a person's entire world is yanked out from under their feet. Not just the loss of a loved one, or a job, or home, but the loss of all loved ones, friends, family, and all prospects of any jobs, and of ever having a home ever again. Not even a severe accident can cause this kind of loss, because even if you are paralyzed from the neck down, you still have family, friends, and community support. You can still “rebuild”, and therefor there is still hope.
But what happens when even hope is taken away? What is a person supposed to do when all of their options, even the most extreme options, can promise no light at the end of the tunnel? There is one circumstance where this is the case in our society, and it is an all too common and completely ignored tragedy, called “Criminal Conviction”.
I know, I know; criminals bring it upon themselve, so they “deserve what they get”. But does anyone every really deserve to have all hope taken from them?
You might think that there is always hope. But if that is what you think then you do not yet understand even what hope is.
Hope is something that only exists when it is “seen”. A person who sees no hope, has no hope. Just because others see hope for that person does not mean the person has hope. That is why so many “criminals” end up trapped in their hopeless worlds, because other people can “see” a way out for them, but they themselves can see no way out.
If a man does not realize that he is responsible for his own demise, then how can be responsible? He can't. It is like the dog I saw recently on A.F.V., who did not realize that the glass had been removed from a storm door, so there was nothing to stop him from going outside by walking straight through the empty door frame.
The dog would wait for someone to “open the door” before he would pass through, even after watching another person walk through the unopened door. This is very funny to us, but completely humorless to the dog.
Now suppose the dog's owner did not realize that the dog could not go through the empty storm door frame, so he leaves the regular door open expecting the dog, that is house trained, to go out on its own when it needs to relieve itself.
Of course the dog ends up urinating in the house. So the owner thinks the dog needs a “lesson”, and he punishes the dog expecting the problem to be solved that way. But the dog is only confused by the punishment, and still does not realize that it can go outside anytime it wants.
And the owner soon discovers not just urine, but BM as well. He becomes irate and bannishes the dog outdoors indefinately. The owner begins to see the dog as a burden on the household and no longer a member of the family. The dog soon developes very real antisocial behaviors from the lack of human attention and is eventually put to sleep.
All of this happened because the dog could not see an option that the owner (authority) could plainly see. And there you have criminal behavior in a nutshell.
So, using this analogy, how can we open the “storm door” for criminals? Education is one way. I once did a college research paper on the effects of education in prison on recidivism (re-offense rates). Every study I found, even those unfavorable to prison education, showed a strong direct relationship between the amount of education a prisoner receives in prison and the chances that he will stay out of prison once he is released. These studies show that the relationship holds even when the prisoners are compelled to educate themselves (sort of like pushing the dog through the storm door to show him there is no glass in it). The theory is that an education helps the “criminal” overcome his blindness to his options. An educated criminal begins to realize that just because he painfully banged his no on the “glass” a few times (for example, losing a good job because of unfair workplace practices), that doesn't mean the “glass” is always there. He learns what “glass” is (i.e. workplace politics, ethics, etc...) and learns to function in a word with “glass” in it.
Of course, it will be a long time methinks before the dog owner of this world (i.e. the authorities) learn how to properly traind the dogs of this world (criminals). In fact, in the last 30 years, education programs in prison have been reduced to practically nothing. It's almost as though someone figured out a great way to make a lot of money playing “dog catcher”. And the trauma that these poor ignorent “dogs” suffer is real, and profound. We punish them unjustly for their ignorance, and eventually bannish them to the yard, or put them to sleep. Euthanasia ends up being our only act of kindness.
Friday, October 8, 2010
The Blind One
When I say that capital punishment is a crime, I am not saying so because I believe that killing someone for any particular reason is a crime.
Perhaps the word “crime” is not the correct word for what I am attempting to express since it is a word that is normally used to denote behavior that is arbitrarily defined by society as deviant and subject to censure. But I use the word only to make the point that the behavior society condemns is essentially no different then the behavior they themselves indulge by condemning the so-called criminal.
What I'm trying to say is that most “criminal behavior” is the result of individualistically motivated dehumanization of other people, and in fact that would be my definition of crime, if it were up to me.
The key terms in this definition of crime are “individualistic” and “dehumanization”.
By individualistic I mean selfish. So an arbitrarily large group of people can behave just as individualistically as an individual. I use the word individualistic to indicate the true cause of selfishness; a view of the self as essentially independent.
I also avoid the word “selfish” because it is too weak to express the truly “criminal” demension of its definition. In our society, “selfish” does not necessarily mean “criminal”, though in my view, selfishness, or individualistically motivated behavior as I say, should be the very definition of crime.
The second critical term in my definition of crime denotes the specific mechanism used by a “criminal” to detach themselves from the person they intend to victimize. The term “dehumanize” puts the emphasis in the definition on the act of seperating oneself from another person, rather than the behavior that such seperation allows. It does not matter whether we “murder” or “execute” the other person; the real crime is the seperation from that person that occures in our subconscious (i.e. “heart”).
Dehumanization can be mistaken as a “spiritual” crime because of the internal (subconscious) rather than external crime scene, or “location of the crime”. But as I define it, it is not spiritual at all. It is a very real crime that any honest trial could easily expose (unlike conventional behaviorally defined crimes that are almost impossible to prove without an actual confession, which is a dirty little secret that the “Criminal Justice System” would prefer you didn't know). It is relatively easy to conceal your behavior, but almost impossible to conceal your feelings, which when perceived by an honest person (such as a child, or enlightened adult) are as transparent as glass and a direct indication of one's motives (i.e. internal state).
Of course, the problem then with my definition of crime is that unless we live in an enlightened world it can not be practically applied as a form of social control. But the beauty of my definition is that in an enlightened world it would apply itself, and social order would be maintained with no formal effort!
You may say, “Dream on!” and that I will. But my point is only this: The current “Criminal Justice System” is counter productive. It not only fights crime with crime (disguised as “law”), but it in fact generates more “crime”, even as it defines it! It must do this in order to justify its own existence! But it very ingeniously conceals this fact with a system of doublespeak and diversion (Orwell's book “1984” has been dismissed too soon! Also, the movie “A Scanner Darkly” beautifully illustrates exactly what I am saying here, not to mention uncountable other books, plays, and movies throughout history. So it's nothing new, just very well concealed – perhaps too well.)
There is just one more point that I would like to illustrate here. Since, by my definition of crime, crimes occure in the “heart”, it is still possible to kill. But killing would no longer be defined by silly laws as “murder” in one case and “execution” in another (i.e. “lawless” and “lawful”). Instead we would only kill as an act of compassion, and/or necessity (which ends up being the same thing in an enlightened world). It is because of this that I do not challenge my own death sentences. I am not an enlightened person, therefor I do not have the ability to consciously perceive another person's motives. So it is not possible for me to “judge”, even by my own definition of “crime”, whether or not I should or should not die. And this further illustrates also why I have struggled as much as possible to not be a part of the decision process (i.e. “Criminal Justice” proceedings). In the past I have tried to prevent others from becoming involved in that process as well by asking to represent myself, and my recent decision to ask for a court appointed attorney reflects my deeper commitment to the beliefs outlined above; I have realized that trying to protect someone from judging me is a backhanded form of judgement on my own part. I was assuming I knew better than they did. I no longer make that assumption. For all I know, this is an enlightened world, and I am the blind one!
Perhaps the word “crime” is not the correct word for what I am attempting to express since it is a word that is normally used to denote behavior that is arbitrarily defined by society as deviant and subject to censure. But I use the word only to make the point that the behavior society condemns is essentially no different then the behavior they themselves indulge by condemning the so-called criminal.
What I'm trying to say is that most “criminal behavior” is the result of individualistically motivated dehumanization of other people, and in fact that would be my definition of crime, if it were up to me.
The key terms in this definition of crime are “individualistic” and “dehumanization”.
By individualistic I mean selfish. So an arbitrarily large group of people can behave just as individualistically as an individual. I use the word individualistic to indicate the true cause of selfishness; a view of the self as essentially independent.
I also avoid the word “selfish” because it is too weak to express the truly “criminal” demension of its definition. In our society, “selfish” does not necessarily mean “criminal”, though in my view, selfishness, or individualistically motivated behavior as I say, should be the very definition of crime.
The second critical term in my definition of crime denotes the specific mechanism used by a “criminal” to detach themselves from the person they intend to victimize. The term “dehumanize” puts the emphasis in the definition on the act of seperating oneself from another person, rather than the behavior that such seperation allows. It does not matter whether we “murder” or “execute” the other person; the real crime is the seperation from that person that occures in our subconscious (i.e. “heart”).
Dehumanization can be mistaken as a “spiritual” crime because of the internal (subconscious) rather than external crime scene, or “location of the crime”. But as I define it, it is not spiritual at all. It is a very real crime that any honest trial could easily expose (unlike conventional behaviorally defined crimes that are almost impossible to prove without an actual confession, which is a dirty little secret that the “Criminal Justice System” would prefer you didn't know). It is relatively easy to conceal your behavior, but almost impossible to conceal your feelings, which when perceived by an honest person (such as a child, or enlightened adult) are as transparent as glass and a direct indication of one's motives (i.e. internal state).
Of course, the problem then with my definition of crime is that unless we live in an enlightened world it can not be practically applied as a form of social control. But the beauty of my definition is that in an enlightened world it would apply itself, and social order would be maintained with no formal effort!
You may say, “Dream on!” and that I will. But my point is only this: The current “Criminal Justice System” is counter productive. It not only fights crime with crime (disguised as “law”), but it in fact generates more “crime”, even as it defines it! It must do this in order to justify its own existence! But it very ingeniously conceals this fact with a system of doublespeak and diversion (Orwell's book “1984” has been dismissed too soon! Also, the movie “A Scanner Darkly” beautifully illustrates exactly what I am saying here, not to mention uncountable other books, plays, and movies throughout history. So it's nothing new, just very well concealed – perhaps too well.)
There is just one more point that I would like to illustrate here. Since, by my definition of crime, crimes occure in the “heart”, it is still possible to kill. But killing would no longer be defined by silly laws as “murder” in one case and “execution” in another (i.e. “lawless” and “lawful”). Instead we would only kill as an act of compassion, and/or necessity (which ends up being the same thing in an enlightened world). It is because of this that I do not challenge my own death sentences. I am not an enlightened person, therefor I do not have the ability to consciously perceive another person's motives. So it is not possible for me to “judge”, even by my own definition of “crime”, whether or not I should or should not die. And this further illustrates also why I have struggled as much as possible to not be a part of the decision process (i.e. “Criminal Justice” proceedings). In the past I have tried to prevent others from becoming involved in that process as well by asking to represent myself, and my recent decision to ask for a court appointed attorney reflects my deeper commitment to the beliefs outlined above; I have realized that trying to protect someone from judging me is a backhanded form of judgement on my own part. I was assuming I knew better than they did. I no longer make that assumption. For all I know, this is an enlightened world, and I am the blind one!
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Wordless Lessons
If you close your mind to ideas and experiences that you think are bad for you then you are making yourself deaf to the voice of experience.
This does not mean you should stick a knife in your hand so you can “hear” a lesson. But it does mean that if you ignore or condemn the man who puts a knife in his hand (or someone's back for that matter) then you will not “hear” the lesson that this experience was meant to convey.
The lesson you miss is not meant for words. If it were, then no stabbing would have been necessary, you could just be told. So no one can simply tell you what the lesson is that you will miss. You must learn for yourself. And the lesson will be repeated over and over until you do. So if you have to stick a knife in your hand in order to understand, then maybe you should.
This does not mean you should stick a knife in your hand so you can “hear” a lesson. But it does mean that if you ignore or condemn the man who puts a knife in his hand (or someone's back for that matter) then you will not “hear” the lesson that this experience was meant to convey.
The lesson you miss is not meant for words. If it were, then no stabbing would have been necessary, you could just be told. So no one can simply tell you what the lesson is that you will miss. You must learn for yourself. And the lesson will be repeated over and over until you do. So if you have to stick a knife in your hand in order to understand, then maybe you should.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Imagination vs Intuition
In this world, we condition our children to ignore their intuition in favor of etiquette, which is extremely unfortunate considering that a child's intuition is the purist form of communion they will ever experience.
We instinctively recognize the closeness of our children to “God”, even if we are not religious. A child's empathy is awe inspiring. They can sense our feelings with uncanny accuracy. Most people typically dismiss this “sixth sense” as trivial, or perhaps even annoying, because the child cannot provide useful dialog or even articulate what it is that they are sensing.
So we send them away when they ask, “What's wrong”? Or, even worse, we lie to them, thinking they could not possible “understand”.
But, it's not understanding that they lack. It is only the ability to put their intuition into words. And as they grow they eventually learn that if you can't say something then it is not important. Our culture over emphasizes the importance of words, and by doing so we condition our children to ignore the very source of their happiness. They soon become “deaf” to the same voice that called them into existence! And in place of their intuition they are trained, both formally and informally, to depend on their imagination instead.
Imagination is the perfect stand in for intuition because it can be trained to conform to social standards. It also allows us to “believe” in things that can be formed and expressed in social terms such as words and other symbolisms (i.e. idols).
But these beliefs that are based on human symbols can never provide the insight and guidance that is absolutely necessary for the heathy functioning of not just the individual but the entire planet. Without some kind of central source of communication to give us purpose and guidance, our “images of god” (i.e. imagined purposes) will inevitably result in turmoil and confusion.
That all being said, here are some ways that I have found that have helped me to recognize the voice of intuition (as opposed that of my imagination).
Intuition always demands genuie self sacrifice. Imagination demands that others sacrifice (or change).
Intuition never expects to be rewarded. Imagination is driven by reward (i.e. “heaven”, “a better life”, “peace”, etc...).
Intuition is the strongest sense of all, so strong in fact that we can never “not hear” it, we can only ignore it. Imagination is barely “audible” by comparison, so if we only think we can hear intuition then that is a sure sign that we can't “hear” at all – we are only imagining things.
Intuition speaks from the experience of the entire universe. Imagination can only speak from individual experience.
Intuition is the basis of religious beliefs. Imagination sustains religion with stand-in beliefs.
Intuition can never be conveyed via human language. Imagination depends on human language (and imagery) to give it form.
Intuition appears contradictory and nonsensical to the unintuitive mind. Imagination strives to be rational, and even though it usually has different sides (e.g. “Pro-life”v. “Pro-choice”, “conservative” v. “liberal”, etc...), the side you happen to be on will always seem “to make perfect sense” to you.
Intuition never shies away from suffering. Imagination promises to end suffering while it causes more.
Intuition does not comprehend fear. Imagination defines fear and thrives on it.
Intuition will inform our imagination, if we let it. Without intuition, our imagination is uninformed (i.e. ignorant).
Intuition sees beauty in all things. Imagination see beauty in only those things that conform to it.
Intuition cannot lie. Imagination cannot tell the truth.
Intuition remembers for you. Imagination expects you to remember yourself.
Intuition never forgets anything. Imagination depends on you to forget so it can deceive you.
Intuition ties us to the Universe. Imagination seperates us from everything.
That's all for now (I could go on like this forever, but this short illustration should help).
Of course “intuition” is only a word that I am using here to represent something that ultimately defies reprentation (in fact, any reprentation at all can only detract from it). So please do not be dissuaded if the word intuition means something else to you. Just keep in mind that there must be something making life happen, it is just silly to think life happens all by itself.
Also, imagination is not a “bad” thing either. In fact, it is also used by “intuition” to serve a purpose. So even as imagination deprives us of direct knowledge of, and communication with, our intuition it is still very much fulfilling the purpose it was made for (but definitely not its only purpose).
So again I say, relax, and just listen. You will hear your intuition when it needs you to hear. There is never any rush with intuition, and imagination, of course, is always in a hurry. :)
Okay, one more:
Intuition asks us to change ourself and tells us how. Imagination wants us to change the world, but doesn't tell us how.
We instinctively recognize the closeness of our children to “God”, even if we are not religious. A child's empathy is awe inspiring. They can sense our feelings with uncanny accuracy. Most people typically dismiss this “sixth sense” as trivial, or perhaps even annoying, because the child cannot provide useful dialog or even articulate what it is that they are sensing.
So we send them away when they ask, “What's wrong”? Or, even worse, we lie to them, thinking they could not possible “understand”.
But, it's not understanding that they lack. It is only the ability to put their intuition into words. And as they grow they eventually learn that if you can't say something then it is not important. Our culture over emphasizes the importance of words, and by doing so we condition our children to ignore the very source of their happiness. They soon become “deaf” to the same voice that called them into existence! And in place of their intuition they are trained, both formally and informally, to depend on their imagination instead.
Imagination is the perfect stand in for intuition because it can be trained to conform to social standards. It also allows us to “believe” in things that can be formed and expressed in social terms such as words and other symbolisms (i.e. idols).
But these beliefs that are based on human symbols can never provide the insight and guidance that is absolutely necessary for the heathy functioning of not just the individual but the entire planet. Without some kind of central source of communication to give us purpose and guidance, our “images of god” (i.e. imagined purposes) will inevitably result in turmoil and confusion.
That all being said, here are some ways that I have found that have helped me to recognize the voice of intuition (as opposed that of my imagination).
Intuition always demands genuie self sacrifice. Imagination demands that others sacrifice (or change).
Intuition never expects to be rewarded. Imagination is driven by reward (i.e. “heaven”, “a better life”, “peace”, etc...).
Intuition is the strongest sense of all, so strong in fact that we can never “not hear” it, we can only ignore it. Imagination is barely “audible” by comparison, so if we only think we can hear intuition then that is a sure sign that we can't “hear” at all – we are only imagining things.
Intuition speaks from the experience of the entire universe. Imagination can only speak from individual experience.
Intuition is the basis of religious beliefs. Imagination sustains religion with stand-in beliefs.
Intuition can never be conveyed via human language. Imagination depends on human language (and imagery) to give it form.
Intuition appears contradictory and nonsensical to the unintuitive mind. Imagination strives to be rational, and even though it usually has different sides (e.g. “Pro-life”v. “Pro-choice”, “conservative” v. “liberal”, etc...), the side you happen to be on will always seem “to make perfect sense” to you.
Intuition never shies away from suffering. Imagination promises to end suffering while it causes more.
Intuition does not comprehend fear. Imagination defines fear and thrives on it.
Intuition will inform our imagination, if we let it. Without intuition, our imagination is uninformed (i.e. ignorant).
Intuition sees beauty in all things. Imagination see beauty in only those things that conform to it.
Intuition cannot lie. Imagination cannot tell the truth.
Intuition remembers for you. Imagination expects you to remember yourself.
Intuition never forgets anything. Imagination depends on you to forget so it can deceive you.
Intuition ties us to the Universe. Imagination seperates us from everything.
That's all for now (I could go on like this forever, but this short illustration should help).
Of course “intuition” is only a word that I am using here to represent something that ultimately defies reprentation (in fact, any reprentation at all can only detract from it). So please do not be dissuaded if the word intuition means something else to you. Just keep in mind that there must be something making life happen, it is just silly to think life happens all by itself.
Also, imagination is not a “bad” thing either. In fact, it is also used by “intuition” to serve a purpose. So even as imagination deprives us of direct knowledge of, and communication with, our intuition it is still very much fulfilling the purpose it was made for (but definitely not its only purpose).
So again I say, relax, and just listen. You will hear your intuition when it needs you to hear. There is never any rush with intuition, and imagination, of course, is always in a hurry. :)
Okay, one more:
Intuition asks us to change ourself and tells us how. Imagination wants us to change the world, but doesn't tell us how.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Something More Than Human
It seems to bother a lot of people that what I did (murder and rape children) doesn't seem to bother me. In fact, I do believe that one of the purposes of the so-called “Justice System” is to make what I did bother me (i.e. make me “pay for” my crimes). This is decidedly ironic since the purpose I set out on my rampage of rape and murder in the first place was for the exact same reason; to make society “pay for” what it did to me.
So, should I be bothered? I think not, since clearly all I did was what people (in general) seem to always do. Whether you call it “justice” or “revenge” doesn't matter. The only difference between what I set out to do, and what the “System” sets out to do, is the number of people who concur. As if to emphasize this, I even received a letter once from a man who insisted I would get what I “deserve” because “majority rules”. Well, if that is true, then the Holocaust was deserved by the Jewish people (because the majority of Germans supported the Nazi regime that condemned the Jews as criminals who poisoned society – which by the way, prior to WWII was a popular and majority belief in the United States as well!).
So again I ask, should I be bothered? It seems to me that I was only being human by attacking what I perceived to be the source of my misery. So when the present regime officials put their poison needle in my arm “to make me pay” then my own attempt to “make society pay” will be vindicated.
A part of me sincerely looks forward to that day for the vindication alone (not to mention the ultimate freedom and escape that death promises). And yet, another part of me thinks that it is selfish for me to even want to be vindicated. What I did may be “just what people do”, but that doesn't make it acceptable; it only makes it human.
Someday, I believe, we will all become something more than human.
So, should I be bothered? I think not, since clearly all I did was what people (in general) seem to always do. Whether you call it “justice” or “revenge” doesn't matter. The only difference between what I set out to do, and what the “System” sets out to do, is the number of people who concur. As if to emphasize this, I even received a letter once from a man who insisted I would get what I “deserve” because “majority rules”. Well, if that is true, then the Holocaust was deserved by the Jewish people (because the majority of Germans supported the Nazi regime that condemned the Jews as criminals who poisoned society – which by the way, prior to WWII was a popular and majority belief in the United States as well!).
So again I ask, should I be bothered? It seems to me that I was only being human by attacking what I perceived to be the source of my misery. So when the present regime officials put their poison needle in my arm “to make me pay” then my own attempt to “make society pay” will be vindicated.
A part of me sincerely looks forward to that day for the vindication alone (not to mention the ultimate freedom and escape that death promises). And yet, another part of me thinks that it is selfish for me to even want to be vindicated. What I did may be “just what people do”, but that doesn't make it acceptable; it only makes it human.
Someday, I believe, we will all become something more than human.
Probability Limits
They say that if a monkey could type randomly on a typewriter for infinity, it would eventually produce the entire works of Shakespeare by sheer chance. But some day we will discover that this is not true at all.
I cannot yet say how I know this, but I can “see” it plainly via intuition. There exist in nature a kind of probability limit, where the extremely improbable becomes factually impossible.
This limit is already indicated by well known “laws” in science, such as the law of dispersion. If you put a drop of red dye in a cup of water, in a short period of time it will become evenly dispersed in the water. This dispersion occures as a result of the random motion of the dye molecules. If there were no probability limit then it would be possible, though extremely improbable, for the dye to randomly concentrate back into a single drop while it is still in the water.
Is this improbable or impossible? To give you an idea of the improbability of this occuring, the odds would be exactly the same for the red dye to “randomly” form a perfect three dimensional rendering of the Seattle Space Needle.
The significance of the probabilitylimit is that if it exists, then nothing in the universe is random. Randomness requires that there be no limit to the possible permutations of a given set out variables. If there is a limit, no matter how high the limit is, then the result is not random at all; it is determined!
But determined by what? Now that is the question that is impossible for rational science to answer. So science demands that the universe be undetermined, and that monkeys can, given enough time, randomly produce works of art. How silly is that?
I cannot yet say how I know this, but I can “see” it plainly via intuition. There exist in nature a kind of probability limit, where the extremely improbable becomes factually impossible.
This limit is already indicated by well known “laws” in science, such as the law of dispersion. If you put a drop of red dye in a cup of water, in a short period of time it will become evenly dispersed in the water. This dispersion occures as a result of the random motion of the dye molecules. If there were no probability limit then it would be possible, though extremely improbable, for the dye to randomly concentrate back into a single drop while it is still in the water.
Is this improbable or impossible? To give you an idea of the improbability of this occuring, the odds would be exactly the same for the red dye to “randomly” form a perfect three dimensional rendering of the Seattle Space Needle.
The significance of the probabilitylimit is that if it exists, then nothing in the universe is random. Randomness requires that there be no limit to the possible permutations of a given set out variables. If there is a limit, no matter how high the limit is, then the result is not random at all; it is determined!
But determined by what? Now that is the question that is impossible for rational science to answer. So science demands that the universe be undetermined, and that monkeys can, given enough time, randomly produce works of art. How silly is that?
Can There Be Consciousness Without Experience?
It is utterly insane for us to postulate that consciousness somehow arises from the biological mind (i.e. brain). And yet every modern science book I read makes that assumption, even though the very basis of this assumption has been proven over and over to be preposterous.
Why then do we continue to insist that somehow consciousness depends on the brain? Well, the so-called imperical reason is that when the brain is damaged, or otherwise ceases to function, our consciousness is obviously effected. Also when we tamper with the chemisrty of the brain we experience destortions in consciousness. This seems to strongly imply that consciousness depends directly on the brain, and therefor must somehow be derived from biological processes.
But what this rational fails to realize is that it is not consciousness that is effected by the brain, but it is what we are conscious of that is effected! This is an important distinction, because it seperates consciousness from experience, and by doing so it compells us to rethink our views of (and questions about) what consciousness is. In fact, it raises the most important question to modern thought today: Can there be consciousness without experience?
I suspect that the answer to that question is enlightenment (hint: there is no “yes” or “no” answer, but there is an answer).
Clearly I am talking about what some people call “pure consciousness”. And that brings up a second reason that science insists that consciousness arises from the brain: because if it doesn't then the only other explanation is beyond science. It becomes a philosophical quest instead. It moves into a realm that science cannot go; the realm of extra-experience, more commonly called metaphysics.
Science absolutely depends on experience. Without it there can be no science. So you could say that science worships experience. And if “experience” is only an illusion, then science is a false religion! It is no wonder then that scientists insist that consciousness arises from experience, and even that Experience created us! Because experience is the “god” of science. So, if it is possible to exist (i.e. be conscious) without experience, then science is a lie, and the enemy of the Truth (i.e. pure consciousness). And that is why I assert that the question of consciousness without experience is so vital. I do not propose an answer though, because that would be the “scientific” thing to do (i.e. answer question based on experience). But again, I assure you, there is an answer, and no mortal words will ever be able to convey it.
Why then do we continue to insist that somehow consciousness depends on the brain? Well, the so-called imperical reason is that when the brain is damaged, or otherwise ceases to function, our consciousness is obviously effected. Also when we tamper with the chemisrty of the brain we experience destortions in consciousness. This seems to strongly imply that consciousness depends directly on the brain, and therefor must somehow be derived from biological processes.
But what this rational fails to realize is that it is not consciousness that is effected by the brain, but it is what we are conscious of that is effected! This is an important distinction, because it seperates consciousness from experience, and by doing so it compells us to rethink our views of (and questions about) what consciousness is. In fact, it raises the most important question to modern thought today: Can there be consciousness without experience?
I suspect that the answer to that question is enlightenment (hint: there is no “yes” or “no” answer, but there is an answer).
Clearly I am talking about what some people call “pure consciousness”. And that brings up a second reason that science insists that consciousness arises from the brain: because if it doesn't then the only other explanation is beyond science. It becomes a philosophical quest instead. It moves into a realm that science cannot go; the realm of extra-experience, more commonly called metaphysics.
Science absolutely depends on experience. Without it there can be no science. So you could say that science worships experience. And if “experience” is only an illusion, then science is a false religion! It is no wonder then that scientists insist that consciousness arises from experience, and even that Experience created us! Because experience is the “god” of science. So, if it is possible to exist (i.e. be conscious) without experience, then science is a lie, and the enemy of the Truth (i.e. pure consciousness). And that is why I assert that the question of consciousness without experience is so vital. I do not propose an answer though, because that would be the “scientific” thing to do (i.e. answer question based on experience). But again, I assure you, there is an answer, and no mortal words will ever be able to convey it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)