Projective Identification Of Discompassion

To imagine that it is possible for a person to live without compassion (“human monsters”) is a vice of ignorance.

We often convince ourselves of this possibility when we ourselves observe discompassion in our own thoughts and behavior.

Rather than take responsibility for this perceived failing in ourselves, we unconsciously shift it out into the world upon some convenient entity that seems insensitive to our experience.

And in order to prevent ourselves from realizing the connection between what we project and our own internal fallacy, we exaggerate the fault in the externalized form to the very extreme of its manifestation. We imagine that the target of our projected discompassion is a completely heartless human being with no sympathy at all (and therefore, ironically, deserving of our own lack of sympathy and compassion).

Because of this, some psychologists (and philosophers) say that we “become the monsters that we imagine”. But, the truth is that the only reason we imagine the monster in the first place is because it was already living inside us.

The “monsters” we perceive in the world are invariably products of our own discompassion, and the “evil” that they do is no more than a manifestation of our attempt to deny responsibility for the ugliness inside of ourselves.

So is “society” to blame for the monsters it imagines? Not at all! No one is to blame. The so-called monsters themselves are no less, and no more, to blame than anyone else; they do the same counter-projecting back onto society (or other people who project onto them).

No one can be “blamed” for not taking responsibility. In fact, blaming someone, even yourself, is just another way to not take responsibility. This is why I don't “blame” society for wanting to kill me (at least, not since I surrendered almost six years ago). If I blame them, or even myself, then I accomplish nothing. So instead I focus on what I can do to be responsible for what has happened, without blaming anyone.

If society wants to blame me, and project their discompassion onto me, to hide from their own responsibility, that's okay, for them. But not for me.

You Tell Me

I just realized that to think in terms of our “relationship” to other people, or to the universe, or even to “God”, is a tremendous mistake.

A relationship implies a connection between two or more entities over some distance. The form of connection itself is not important. It can be either physical or simply metaphorical. The important aspect of a relationship is the distance between the entities being related to each other, not the form of connection.

The reason the distance is so important is because without it there is no need for a relationship! Without distance no “connection” of any sort is required. In fact, without distance, no “connection” is even possible. Because without distance there is only one entity, not two.

So, before we can have a relationship we must establish a distance and hense separation from the entity that we wish to have a relationship with. And that's the problem; distance and separation are scientifically – not to mention metaphysically – known to not exist!

Scientist call it “nonlocality”. It was first theorized in the 1960's by John Bell and later proven in numerous lab experiments based on Bell's theorem. And it's not what Bell's theorem proves that makes it so astounding; it's what it disproves! Bell's theorem, and the consequent rigorous scientific experiments, disproves the concept of “locality”, or “separation between physical objects”.

In other words, distance between objects is scientifically proven to be impossible. This is the “quantum enigma”, that baffled Einstein until he died (Bell's theorem was intended to directly address Einstein's assertion that quantum theory was “incomplete” because it could not account for the locality of objects in space, i.e. distance and separation).

So, there you have it. It is impossible for us to have a “relationship” with anything or anyone, because we are not separated!

This is obviously what “mystics” have been saying all along.

The Bible does not say that Jesus is our “connection” to God. It says over and over that He is God, and He is Us! He is “in us” and we are “in Him” at the same time; not separate at all!

The Buddha taught that it is impossible to become enlightened; we can only BE enlightened. Becoming something implies a distance (in time) that must be bridged (connected). But, “being” recognizes that no such distance exists.

So what are we waiting for? What's keeping us from believing what we already know to be true?

What are we afraid of?

You tell me!

Beyond Evolution

Natural selection is not something that only effects genetic material. It is dynamically intertwined with reality itself. Even the very thoughts we think are the result of a process that selects which ideas come into our conscious awareness according to the successfulness of the idea in competition with other ideas. A completely conscious person can actually become aware of this process and even consciously modify the selection criteria. Partially conscious people also modify the selection criteria of their awareness all the time, but they do it unconsciously.

This process – conscious or unconscious – is the basis of intelligence itself. What we perceive as intelligence in ourselves is the result of a process that extends out into our world, and even into the universe. Our brains are no more than organic transceivers for this intelligence. The more we open ourselves to it, the more “intelligent” we seem.

It is not possible to have any thoughts independent of your experience. Even basic instinctive urges are motivated by experiences that are stored in your genetic material, much as complex psychological reactions are the response to experiences stored in the synapses of your brain.

Yes, this implies that we are no more than automatons, or at least our bodies are. Yet, the intelligence that our bodies (and minds) respond to is WHO we really are. Enlightenment is the event of identification with the intelligence, and source of our physical form and all experience. Delusionment is the event of mistaken identification with the experience itself.

Both enlightenment and delusionment are necessary for any experience to occure at all. They are the fundamental events of reality. To have one, you must have the other. It is the constant transition from one to the other that comprises what we call experience.

What Exactly Is Karma?

I have read many things about Karma, but nowhere have I ever read about how to realize what Karma is without being told.

If you can't realize something without being told, then that thing is either false, or not significant to the truth. This is why I try to emphasize discovering the truths that I write about for yourself and never just take my – or anyone else's – word for it. The truths you discover may or may not correspond with what I write, but it does not matter if they do or not. The only thing that matters is that you can feel and experience the truth, so that it is real to you. It does not have to be real for me or anyone else; only for you.

Karma is real to me, but not in the same way that it is often expressed by other people. My experience of Karma is a real and direct experience, not something I have read somewhere.

Karma, as I experience it, transcends time. It is instantaneous and eternal at the same time. Not only do I receive back all the enrgy, both yin and yang, that I put into the universe, but I receive it back at the exact moment that I express it, and I receive it back for all of eternity also.

We can be (and are) forgiven for anything we do, but we can never escape the consequences! Karma forces us to live with the consequence of out actions for all of eternity, past and future. I suffer today for crimes that I will not commit until a hundred years from now. And I reap the joy of compassion that I expressed two thousand years ago at the same time.

This is the Karma I know through my direct experience. But even as such it is not a static belief unsubject to change. My experience of Karma could be different tomorrow, and I will let it be different if it wants to. Who am I to determine what Karma should be? I will let it be what it wants to be without judging it, but always heeding what it has to teach me.