Religion and spirituality, it seems that these two always go together, like peanut butter and jam. You would think they were synonymous. No wonder people are so confused. The two actually have so little in common that they could as easily be seen as opposites. They do share one common feature. They are both ways of responding to the desire for union. We are spiritual beings and so we have this impulse. If I were to suggest a short definition of spirituality it would be this: the process of merging oneself with, by surrendering to, a greater unity, AKA God, AKA Infinite Awareness, AKA Truth. No one can know the path of another. It is a journey, not a guided tour.
It is possible to temporarily sate this desire for union through substitutes. Falling in love is one way. One might also identify with one's nationality or cultural group or even a sports team. We take such pleasure in these things because they allow us to transcend our little ego selves. These are easily seen as substitutions for the ultimate and true Oneness that is the guiding star of the mystic. Religion falls into the same category as these other sops and distractions. It pretends to be what it is not. It claims to deliver what it serves to distract from and prevent.
Occasionally, genuine spiritual seekers will make use of a religion as a mythical narrative to assist their understanding. There is almost no end to the number of stories that could serve this purpose and religious stories aren't really special. Unless these mystics are very discrete, they fall afoul of their own religious authorities in the process. Priests do not approve of this sort of thing. Religions are threatened by any real spiritual progress on the part of their followers. That's because religions are not spiritual paths. They are belief/control systems. Examining and questioning one's beliefs is an essential, important part of any true spiritual path and religions can't have that. It would undermine their power and authority.
You can always spot a religion by it's focus on rewards and punishments, the old carrot and stick. Sometimes it's heaven or hell, sometimes karmic boons or debts. All that is required is belief and obedience. I find such threats and promises inappropriate and offensive. Is union with the divine not considered enough of a prize? Is the experience of separation from It not painful enough?
Morality is whatever the religious authorities tell you it is. You're not supposed to develop the ability to determine it for yourself. You are not qualified. Never mind what you know in your heart. Religion actually destroys our ability to be truly moral by demanding that we choose against what we know to be true. Once again an important aspect of spiritual growth is headed off at the pass. Every time I hear that phrase, religion and spirituality, I have to suppress my gag reflex.
Another case of misrepresentation exists with regards to science. There is confusion always between science and scientism. Again, we have a belief system masquerading as a path to truth. I've actually heard, on more than one occasion, the statement: "As a scientist, I believe...". Real science is an open-minded method of discovery. There is no a priori reason for it to restrict itself to the physical. It's early representatives simply agreed to do so to avoid stepping on religion's toes (for obvious reasons). Scientism is defined by it's belief that matter is the primary reality. There is no evidence that this is so, and plenty to refute it. Refusing to admit the existence of anomalous facts in order to defend one's beliefs is not science. It's pretty much the same as religion. Ironically, this is why religion and scientism will never agree. Science and spirituality already do.
One would have to be extremely naive to think that TPTB are not using disinformation techniques to confuse and manipulate those who are trying to expose them. If your bullshit detector is still functioning, you know this. The form of disinfo that is most easily recognised is false information coming from "leaks" who are double agents, or perhaps researchers whose real loyalty is to the control system. There are also subtler forms that are more difficult to see.
I've recently noticed a form of disinformation that consists of getting people to fear what has already occurred. The control system derives a double benefit from this technique. The first benefit consists of being able to prolong a state of fear indefinitely. Once the worst has already happened, fear goes away. Someone who has a terminal illness is no longer afraid of getting sick. A person who's just gone bankrupt is free of the fear of loss. David Icke doesn't worry about being laughed at. Once something has happened, we forget about fear and start thinking about solutions. Certainly, TPTB would want to prevent this. The second benefit of this technique is that it blinds it's victims to their true condition. No one is more truly a slave than one who believes himself free.
For example, there is much information currently circulating about electronic mind-control. I'm not saying the information is false. I don't believe it is false. However, RFID implants, HAARP technology, etc., are the icing on a cake that has already been baked and served. The fact is, those who know about such things are in no real danger from them. I would never allow myself to be chipped and if I heard a voice in my head telling me to "obey", I'd know it wasn't God. The only people for whom these things are a threat are already mind-controlled. The ultimate electronic mind-control device has been in widespread use for several decades. It's called television.
After you've been watching TV for a surprisingly short period of time, your brain starts producing Alpha waves instead of the Beta waves of normal consciousness. You are actually in a hypnotic trance. Then you receive your programs. What you see on TV is controlled by a tiny handful of super-wealthy sociopaths. There is rarely any need for these individuals to directly control the programming. They simply hire underlings who share their point of view. And those underlings hire similar ones, and so on. Sometimes somebody steps out of line, but they are swiftly dealt with (Rosie O'Donnell) and serve as examples for the rest.
TV is full of personalities and content that normalise stupidity, venality, materialism, paranoia and cringing deference to authority. The point is to give the impression that everybody else is like this, so you should be too if you want to fit in and be normal. It then becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Worst of all are the news programs. The news carries very little, if any, factual information. What there is, is carefully chosen and molded for a desired effect. Most of the content consists of telling you what you should believe, do and buy. All "debate" is circumscribed. It is widely assumed that most research in the field of psychology is pure science or therapeutics. Not so. The vast majority is devoted to advertising and propaganda. We're talking billions, if not trillions of dollars. And all this money was not spent in vain.
TV is the perfect mind-control technology because it is addictive. Once you start watching it, it's very hard to stop. You keep watching even though there's "nothing on". No one has to force you to. People will spend ridiculous amounts of their own money for the privilege. At least some of TV's addictive potential results from commands in the programming. "Stay tuned!" "Don't go away." The most amazing thing, and surely the most wonderful from the point of view of the control system, is that no one seems to notice or care about any of this. If you try to warn people, they just laugh. They don't believe it. Everyone thinks they are immune, but no one really is. TV is what makes all the other assaults on our humanity possible and ultimately, inevitable. The bad news is that electronic mind-control is already here. The good news is that electronic mind-control is already here. We can now stop worrying and start focusing on solutions.
There is fear, and then there is fear. English is funny that way. I am constantly amazed at the way English manages to have so many words and yet be so frustratingly imprecise. Consider words like "love", "God", "soul", "self", "ego", etc. All have so many different meanings that we can't even coherently discuss them without first agreeing on a definition. If this time-consuming step is omitted, our conversations become incoherent and circular. English doesn't seem to have been designed for thinking about immaterial realities. Maybe that's why the control system prefers it.
"Fear" is yet another example of an overburdened word. In one sense it refers to an instinctive function: the "fight or flight" response. This is animal fear. The statement, "fear is your friend" relates to this definition. This is the kind of fear that helps you survive. It mobilises your resources in response to real threats. This kind of fear makes you hyper-alert and responsive. If we act on this natural type of fear, it quickly subsides. If we don't, or can't, the result is stress.
A second definition refers to egoic fear. Animals never experience this unless they are socially bonded with humans. Worry, dread and shame are examples of egoic fear. This kind of fear is not your friend. The statement, "fear is the opposite of love," relates to this definition. The easiest way to spot the difference is by noticing the effects. Egoic fear is characterised by mental confusion and paralysis. It is far more likely to get you killed than help you survive. Acting on egoic fear doesn't make it go away, it only makes it stronger. From here on, in this post, I'm going to be using the second definition.
Some pertinent questions spring to mind. Where does this fear come from? What is it's purpose? How can it be dealt with? I'm going to suggest answers to all of these. If anyone has alternative explanations, I sincerely welcome them. Normally, I go out of my way to qualify my statements to avoid implying certainty when I'm discussing a theory. Please be on notice that I intend to drop this policy for the sake of brevity. However, what I'm about to say is still theory. It remains open to being revised or disproved.
1. Where does fear come from?
Humans exist in symbiotic relationship with parasitic entities. They hide their presence from us by pretending to be us. They refer to themselves as "I" and they are what I've been calling "false ego", or sometimes just "ego". (I'm aware that the word "ego" also refers to one's individuality, but I'm not using it in that sense.) Fear could be called the aura of the parasite. It is it's natural vibrational state. The entity derives all it's energy from the awareness of it's host. It feeds itself by inducing it's host to attend to it's vibration and give it their energy. The more it succeeds in doing this, the stronger it becomes.
2. What is fear's purpose?
From the perspective of the entity, the purpose of fear is to generate a food source. From the perspective of the human host, it is to provide us with an challenge. We can make a useful analogy with a computer game. The game provides the player with an opponent and the point is to overcome the opponent and win the game. In the process we develop knowledge and powers that we didn't have before. The opponent is designed and programmed to try to beat you in whatever way it can. A really good game adversary will even have the ability to learn from what you do, and adapt it's strategy to yours. The entities behave in exactly this way. Understanding this allows one to play to win without resenting the adversary.
3. How can it be dealt with?
The number one strategy of the entity is inducing you to identify with it. So the most effective counter-strategy is disidentification. This is easier once you learn to spot the difference between a natural fear response (fight or flight) and that caused by the entity's presence. When you sense the presence of fear, ask yourself how it feels. Does it sharpen you up, make you hyper-alert and ready for action? If the answer is no, you are dealing with the entity. The entity will try to trick you by providing you with a "hook" to hang it's fear on. It knows that humans will instinctively try to make sense of their experience. We want the fear to have a reason and we're not that picky about what it is. This is how irrational prejudices and phobias are born. Realise that the fear is not yours. The presence of fear is an indication that the entity feels threatened and/or hungry. It means you're winning the game. It helps to remind yourself of this.
The above counter-strategy will be effective if you can also refrain from getting angry and resentful. Angry resentment is very close to fear in a vibrational sense. So it's important to remember that your adversary is only doing what it was designed and programmed to do. It isn't connected to Source like you are. The entities are like the agents in "The Matrix", semi-sentient programs. You are the one who agreed to play the game and you were given an opponent worthy of your potential. Do you really want to play with an opponent who just lets you win and doesn't even try to beat you?
One other thing. Be patient. You're not going to win every skirmish. Anyone who's been lucky enough to learn chess from a master knows, you almost never win... at first. If you ever want to be as good as your opponent, you'll have to put up with getting beat over and over and over again. It's the same with video games. No one expects to succeed on the first try. That's just the way it is, and that's the way we wanted it. So try not to get discouraged by an initial lack of success. Ability comes from practice and every failure has a lesson to teach.
I keep coming across people who believe that Jose Arguelles' Dreamspell calendar is the sacred calendar of the Maya. It's not. The Mayan sacred calendar is a continuously repeating cycle of 260 days, called the Tzolkin. The Quiche Maya of Guatemala have kept the count accurately to this day. This has been confirmed by independent correlation with historical texts. The Tzolkin is an important part of the Maya's spiritual heritage. I have greatly benefited from their wisdom. It angers me to see their traditions abused.
Then along comes Arguelles, who claims to be the reincarnation of a priest called Pacal Votan. He invents his own calendar system, the Dreamspell, and claims that it is Mayan and that it is symbolically meaningful. It isn't. He utilises the Tzolkin glyphs and assigns them meanings that are recognisably derived from traditional sources. This has resulted in massive confusion. I don't have a problem with Arguelles inventing a new calendar. I do have a problem with his theft and misuse of the Tzolkin symbols. I really have tried to cut him some slack and not condemn his actions unfairly. But it is undeniable that he has profited from the misrepresentation of an indigenous sacred tradition and the credulity of a bunch of new age flakes. He has failed, if he even tried, to rectify the situation.
Intuitively, I sense that the Dreamspell is actually harmful in a vibrational sense. It carries and manifests the energy of it's inventor's egomania. This energy affects those who follow and promote it. Followers of the Dreamspell often become very attached to their "galactic signatures", to the point where they are willing to defend it over the true sacred cycle. It seems to have acquired some sort of vibrational power from the mental energy of it's followers. This accumulated power holds those who use it in a deviant egoic pattern. If you have been sucked into this vortex, I would strongly recommend that you withdraw your energy from it. There is no shame in having been lied to, only in defending the lie after it has been exposed.
"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
I know what you're all probably thinking. How does 13 Muluc manage to be so totally sane? LOL. Seriously though, don't we all think we're the sanest person on the planet, or at least in the top 10? The sad truth is that almost no one really is. I'm not. Nor are you. There are probably a few enlightened beings floating around who are. Maybe we could have been sane, if things had been different. As it is, the best we can hope for is to be moving in the right general direction. In practice, it is more useful to think of sanity as a continuum, rather than a category. At least then we can avoid the trap of prematurely congratulating ourselves.
The trouble is, insanity is contagious. If you are insane, your kids are nearly certainly going to be insane as well. Not only that, but their craziness is going to resemble or compliment your own. In this way, whole civilisations can go mad and hardly anyone notices.
It's a pickle because, if you live in an insane society, any progress towards sanity renders you maladaptive. It doesn't matter who is nuttier than who as far as quality of life is concerned. Most parents want their children to have a good and comfortable life. Naturally, they see it as their duty to drive their children insane in the socially approved manner. All kinds of help and encouragement are available to this end. The current form of collective madness has been growing and spreading for at least 3,000 years. It's means of transmission has been thoroughly developed and institutionalised. It now needs very little effort to maintain. All you have to do is keep your head down and follow the herd.
The system is effective but not perfect. Sometimes procedures are incorrectly followed and you end up with the wrong kind of crazy. This isn't really a problem for the system, since these unfortunates serve as cautionary tales for the majority. I know a few people like this. One is called Gerard. I knew him when he used to be fairly normal. In his mid thirties he became schizophrenic. Like most people, he believes things that can't possibly be true. The difference is that he can't get anyone to agree with him. I used to have coffee with him fairly often when I lived in the Davie Village area. He would always show me pieces of costume jewelery that he found in the trash. He always insisted that they were extremely valuable. I recall one ring in particular. According to Gerard, it was a ten carat diamond, set in platinum, and dating from ancient Egypt. There's no point in arguing about it. He claims to be an expert on such things. As an ironic aside, I recently met a well-known gold prospector from the Yukon. He mentioned in conversation that he had lost a solid gold nugget ring. He said that, if someone were to find it in a dumpster, they probably wouldn't know what it was worth. I hope Gerard finds it.
I know another man named Chucky. He is convinced that he is the illegitimate love child of Queen Elizabeth II. I told him that he was way too good-looking to be descended from those freaks, but his conviction is unshakable. Chucky is a really sweet guy, and remarkably lucid on most other topics. He could probably pass for normal if he'd lose the overflowing shopping cart and stop smiling so much. But he can't seem to help bringing up the subject of his parentage in any conversation lasting more than a few minutes.
Normal people usually avoid guys like Gerard and Chucky. They are seen as dangerous and unpredictable, possibly contagious. In reality, they're no less predictable than most people, on their own terms. Most schizophrenics aren't dangerous, far less so than sociopaths. Yet sociopaths make up the majority of world leaders and power brokers, and no one bats an eye. On closer inspection, fixed and irrational beliefs are the norm rather than the exception. How is it possible for people to believe in democracy, when we all know that governments are controlled by those with the most money? How can anyone believe the official story of 911, when there is such a mountain of evidence against it? Are these not examples of fixed and irrational beliefs? Are those who subscribe to them any more open to reason? The hell they are. The one and only difference is consensus. No wonder the schizophrenic is so feared and unpopular.
And then there's us, the ones who've figured out that we're living in an asylum and want out. We've learned to recognise one another without attracting too much unwanted attention from the other inmates. We've given up on the Doctors. They're not there to heal anyone. They just want to manage our symptoms so they can stay in charge. The exits have been locked and mislabelled. But we will find them. We will pick their locks or break them down. And one day soon, we will breathe the air of sanity and freedom. Oh yeah, and we're also going to leave the door open when we leave.
"Truth can never be told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd."
Faith is a powerful thing. Spiritual growth beyond a certain point would be impossible without it. You know if you have it, but it's hard to define. According to my dictionary and a selection of philosophers and theologians, it is practically synonymous with belief. For me, faith means something else. Since it is the only word I have for this something, I want to try to redeem it from this inaccurate association.
Belief will happily masquerade as faith, but it is not faith. It is especially wrong to apply the word to specific beliefs, such as religious dogmas. All beliefs are of the mind. Faith is of the heart. Faith is the mother of courage, the antidote to fear. Faith is the power that ignites the heart of a star. It is a guide and a shield. It is widely agreed that faith cannot stand alone. It must have some object. For myself, there is only one object worthy of faith, and that is Truth itself. Many say that Love is the highest ideal. They are not wrong, but Truth also covers Love, if Love be true. It is easy enough to believe in a false love, conditional, grasping, enslaving "love". If this be the case, only Truth can reveal it. Having made Truth the object of faith, the error of confusing faith with belief is obvious. In the pursuit of Truth, doubt become good and necessary. Every belief is a phantom, blocking one's view. One who refuses to doubt, ie. the "true believer", has no real faith. Paradox. Gotta love it.
The decision to put my faith in Truth means that Truth is worth more to me than any lie, no matter how comforting that lie. I am aware that my limited human consciousness is incapable of ever grasping Truth in it's wholeness. That's okay since my human consciousness is really an aspect of a greater unity that can and does know it. It is it. Even if I can't fully know it, I certainly can increase my knowledge and understanding of it. It seems the only way to do this is to expose every lie and see what remains. As the grime of falseness is washed away, Truth is gradually revealed. The entire process is an unlearning. It might be nice if Truth could be taught, but it can't. There is no such thing as spiritual teaching. Words have no power to teach, only to reflect. They can only be understood by one who already knows. Actually, religions are the enemies of Truth, because they are purveyers of belief. They lie when they call themselves "faiths".
Each evolutionary advance involves acquiring a new kind of language. The new linguistic form has it's roots in, overlaps and transcends those that preceded it. A more advanced type of language is incomprehensible to a less advanced one. I have often felt frustrated by the fact that "history" begins after our last major evolution, the invention of writing. If only we could remember what happened then, maybe we could make sense of where we are now. I don't think it is a coincidence that the "world" coming to a close in 2012, according to the long count calendar, began in 3114 BC. This is right in the middle of the time period when writing began to appear all over the world. Prior to this time, there was no history. The spoken accounts that were recorded shortly after that transition sound like myths. We are told that humans were taught writing by "gods". I don't think they were being deliberately mysterious or lying. I think they lacked the language to describe what had happened. It's interesting that remote viewers and precognitive claim to be unable to see past 2012. If that date corresponds to the acquisition of a new type of language, we wouldn't be able to understand it from where we are now.
From our current standpoint, we can only speculate about the actual experience of an earlier linguistic stage. Each child passes through these stages, but within the context of a literate society, so exact parallels cannot be drawn. It is a pretty safe guess that preliterate humans did not have our modern sense of individuality. The archaeological evidence shows that they lacked any awareness of social status and were very peaceful. Imperialism and war did not exist. So they probably didn't make a clear distinction between themselves and their social context. Prior to written language, people would have had no way of understanding their own psyches. I suspect that most psychic content was externalised. The "gods" of preliterate people may have been ETs, or not, but they were identified with what are now known as archetypes. The characteristics assigned to them were very consistent, even equivalent, in widely separated cultures. After the invention of writing, the "gods" were gradually internalised.
Our experience of time seems to be undergoing a similar process. The language of sensation knows nothing of time. Everything happens now. There is no past or future. Spoken language allows for a vague awareness of past and future, but precise chronology is still absent. Preliterate people don't seem to have cared when or in what order anything happened. Even after the introduction of writing, but before widespread literacy, this is still in evidence. Artwork of the medieval period depicts biblical scenes that represent the clothing and architecture of the period in which it was produced. There is no attempt at historical accuracy. Nowadays, we would consider it bizarre in the extreme to represent J.C. and the apostles in modern dress. After literacy, time becomes more and more specific. We experience it as an objective, linear progression and are able to locate ourselves precisely within it. We've taken the measurement of time to it's extreme limits. We now employ timelines that go back to the big bang itself, and scales of time measurement too small to even experience directly. Time and space are a matched set, and sure enough, spacial awareness has developed in parallel. Modern spacial measurement ranges from light years to the scale of the electron. Spacetime has now been fully externalised, just as the "gods" were at an earlier stage.
The acquisition and development of linguistic forms is symbolically reflected in brain development. Each of us passes through all these stages. Newborn babies are restricted to the language of sensation, which is processed by the R-complex and limbic system. The next brain structure to come online is the right brain. The mind of a toddler is wholly subjective. Preliterate children are highly imaginative and make little distinction between "fantasy" and "reality". Symbolic language has it's roots in right brain cognition, but it is little developed at this stage. It expresses itself through art. (No language is ever fully lost, but continues to evolve alongside newer forms.) With written language, the abilities of the left brain are accessed and begin to dominate awareness. Note the phonetic and visual similarity between the words "literate" and "literal". Left brain language is binary. It's the same as computer language, 0s and 1s, either-or, A-not A. Left brain cognition manifests the inner/outer split. It creates a dual world, divided into subjective and objective realities. This perception is reinforced by the conventions of verbal language, especially by our use of pronouns. It is now common to experience ourselves as totally separate from the world, in it but not of it. The inner/outer split results in a distortion of perception. This limitation can only be overcome by integrating the functions of the twin lobes. This occurs through the agency of the corpus callosum, possibly in concert with some other structure.
The symbol associated with the Ajna chakra, or Third Eye, looks like this: This image could been seen as the left and right brain hemispheres, united by a third structure. Full activation of this energy center results in clairvoyance and telepathic ability. This could constitute the transcendence (internalisation) of spacetime.
The language we use both reflects and conditions our experience of "reality". More and more, I find myself fumbling around with a language that is unwieldy and insufficient to describe my experience. The trouble lies mainly with the inner/outer split that it assumes. I looked up the word "objective" in my dictionary and found this definition: existing independently of mind, or individual perception. There was a time when that statement would not have made me laugh. It perfectly sums up the limitations of binary language. It reflects a belief that no longer holds sway for me.
Once upon a time, everyone considered religious texts to be literally true. Now, a significant number of people are able to understand them metaphorically. Once this transition has occurred, the former conception appears ridiculous, laughable. The texts themselves are carriers of information. The information (interesting word that, in-formation) is real. Interpreting it metaphorically doesn't make it unreal. If anything, it it makes it more real because it is more correctly understood. Many people, myself included, are undergoing a similar transition with regards to "objective reality". We are beginning to realise that a metaphorical interpretation of it is more appropriate than a literal one. The "outer" world is increasingly seen as a reflection, a magic mirror. The separation of inner and outer is an illusion. In fact, they are one reality, seen from two perspectives. As the functions of the brain hemispheres become unified, verbal language, with it's binary bias, can no longer represent our experienced reality. I have to constantly resist the urge to place all references to "objective" reality in quotation marks, to indicate their metaphorical status.
How can I be sure that what I'm experiencing isn't just my personal descent into insanity? I'm fully aware that, to someone still trapped in binary language, I must sound totally nuts. That can't be helped. However, I'm also pretty certain that plenty of other people know exactly what I'm trying to say, and are having just as much trouble expressing it. I know this because I'm learning to read the "signs". Probably the most obvious of these signs is the explosion of synchronistic experience. Synchronicity is the experienced unification of inner meaning and outer reflection. Even if the meaning is not understood, it is always felt to be present. I see synchronicity as an early sign of left/right brain integration. When "objective" reality is perceived to be reflected and symbolic in the same way that dream reality is, other signs of this shift become visible. I see our technologies as external reflections of inner developments. The invention and rise of the Internet is one of these. There are indications of the development of an inner Internet (Hypernet?). On the plane of physical reality, our brains may be responding to the ubiquitous presence of information-carrying waves by learning to access them directly. I've noticed (and I'm not the only one who has) that I am increasingly able to access a field of information that spontaneously "downloads" knowledge. I don't know how or why, but the information appears to be time specific. Everyone who can link with this Hypernet is getting very similar information more or less simultaneously. I think the Hypernet is connected to the phenomenon of viral synchronicity. Some synchronistic experiences are related to themes that spread like wildfire. An example of this is the 11:11 time prompt. It's hard to remember just when it started (late '90s I think), but huge numbers of people started to notice it without any direct contact with each other. I still recall my amazement when I first googled 11:11 and realised how widespread it was. Anyone who has been paying attention to synchromystic themes knows that this sort of viral spread is far from uncommon. I think it very likely that 11:11, as well as other viral synchs and the crop-circle glyphs may be untranslatable "words" in a future, trans verbal language. This emerging linguistic form will allow for a massive increase in information processing. It is absolutely no exaggeration to say that, once this new form of language has been learned, our reality, our "world", will be utterly transformed. In a surprisingly short time, no one will remember what our present world was like.
Lately, I've been thinking a lot about language and how it conditions consciousness. I've also been thinking about evolution, what it is and how it works. I've come to the conclusion that the story of evolution is the story of language. I'm using the word language in a broad sense to mean: a medium or carrier of information. Evolution has nothing to do with survival. If it did, we would have to rate humans as one of the least evolved species on Earth. Cockroaches, amoeba, and bacteria are all better at surviving than we are. No, evolution is about the capacity to acquire, transmit and utilise information.
The language common to most living things is that of sensation. Our senses allow us to receive and transmit information. When you sit and converse with a friend across your kitchen table, it isn't just words being used. You are seeing your friend's posture, expressions and gestures. You are hearing the tone, emphasis, volume and rhythm of his voice. Through your sense of smell, you are picking up subtle chemical signals that tell you about his health and emotional state. If he touches you, you would know even more. So if the two of you just sat there holding hands, you would be communicating.
Speech is actually a hybrid of sensational and verbal language. The language of sensation is confined to percepts. Spoken language allows for information of a new and expanded type. It incorporates concepts. With speech, we can convey information about things not present within the field of sensation. Speech lets us partially transcend time and space. We can talk about what was, and is no more. We can make plans. We can pass on messages though intermediaries. We can make up and tell stories. We can name the objects of our experience. The names are still tied to sensation though. They have a real vibrational connection to the realities they represent. That's why the sound of equivalent words from unconnected languages are often very similar. The subconscious mind cannot distinguish between words that sound the same. For this reason, the word "want" should not be used in affirmations or magick (unless you want want).
Writing leaves sensation in the dust. Written language allows for another expansion of information. It further transcends the limitations of time and space. Language is intimately tied to our perception of time. I'll come back to that. Now we can read the exact words of someone long dead or thousands of miles away. The invention of writing marks the beginning of history, as compared to myth. Most of the institutions of civilisation and all of our advanced technologies were made possible by written language. Philosophies and ideologies also depended on this development for their existence. It is nearly impossible to overstate the effect of writing on consciousness.
The development of written language has been problematic in a number of ways. It has made it possible to lie to ourselves and each other. Just try lying to your dog. Our heavy reliance on it has impaired our ability to understand the language of sensation. So, while it permits access to new kinds of information, our sensational awareness has atrophied and been greatly reduced. This sensory disconnect has also resulted in our confusing of words with the things they refer to. We tend to think we know the objects of experience because we know their names. As a result, we really don't know them at all. In the graphic novel series, "The Invisibles, Entropy In The UK" by Grant Morrison (thanks again, Ben), one of the Invisibles is given a drug called Key 17. It forces his mind to perceive any written words to be literal reality. Written language actually does have this effect on our minds. The difference is one of degree. For example, almost everybody knows that the day/night cycle is due to the revolution of the Earth, not the movement of the Sun. However, that is not what we experience. Now consider how we describe it. We say, "the Sun rises" "the Sun sets". How different would our perception be if we said, "I approach the Sun" "I move away from the Sun". And what about those objects of experience that have no names? George Orwell, in "1984", describes a "development" of verbal language called "Newspeak". The purpose of Newspeak was to reduce the ability of people to think, by shrinking the vocabulary they could access.
Written language relies heavily on left-brain cognition. A parallel type of language that is utilised by the right-brain is symbolism. There is a large area of overlap between verbal and symbolic language. Poetry, fictional writing and films, cultural references, and unfortunately, advertising, occupy this area. Whereas speech is derived directly from the sense of hearing, and writing (while read with the eyes) is phonetic (therefore still based on sound), symbolism is mostly visual. Sound occupies a lower frequency range than light, so we would expect symbolic language to be capable of carrying far more concentrated information than verbal language, and so it is. A picture is worth a thousand words. I used to work as a professional diviner. I read Tarot cards, Runes and astrological charts. All these are symbolic languages. Understanding the meaning of the symbols was the easy part; translation was often a problem. In many cases, the gulf could only be partially bridged by relying on metaphors and stories, word pictures. I know for a fact that symbolic language allows one to entertain concepts for which there are no words. If sensational language is pre-verbal, symbolism is, to some extent, trans-verbal. It allows for much greater connectedness of ideas. Words are confined to carrying relatively specific and finite information; but the realities that symbols refer to are like vast webs that branch out and spread , combining and interacting with other symbolic realities. Mathematics is a symbolic language. It is not fully translatable into words.
To be continued...
My life has been pretty chaotic lately. Externally, the building where I live is undergoing extensive repairs to it's foundation. It's been jack hammers, concrete drills and skill saws 12 hours a day, since mid-July. It's supposed to be over by the end of November (fingers crossed). It's been difficult to think clearly, much less write. The outer world is of course a reflection of the inner. The two are like a Rossetta stone, the same information in different "languages". My consciousness has been undergoing a corresponding foundational reorganisation. More on that in a bit....
Sometimes I entertain myself by envisioning scenarios in which the light triumphs over the darkness. I imagine different ways it might play out. The time we are living in has been prophesied about for thousands of years. It is forecasted to be beyond "interesting". Intuitively, I sense that it's resolution will have to do with a certain myth relating to prophesy. There are several versions of this myth from many different times and places. It goes like this:
1. A prophesy is made.
2. Someone hears the prophesy who wishes that it not be fulfilled.
3. That person takes action to prevent the predicted fate.
4. The attempt to thwart the prophesy is the means by which it is fulfilled.
One example of this myth is the story of the servant who meets Death in the Baghdad market place. He sees Death gesturing at him. The servant panics, runs home, and begs his master to lend him his horse so he can ride far away to Samarra. Later, the master visits the market himself and also sees Death. He asks Death why he had frightened his servant. Death replies that he didn't mean to frighten the man. He was just surprised to see the servant in the market when he knew they had an appointment later in Samarra.
The myth of Oedipus follows this pattern also, as do the biblical stories of the slaughter of the innocents by King Herod, and of the events surrounding the early life of Moses. The fairy tale of Sleeping Beauty contains elements of this as well.
What these stories and others are really about is fate. Fate is a concept that has fallen out of favour in modern times. I suspect this is related to the suppression of the feminine in our culture (fate is always female in mythology). It is my understanding that fate does exist. Not everything is fated, but some things are. I consider it a protective fail-safe that ensures that events planned by the universal intelligence or by the soul prior to incarnation will occur. If fate did not exist, there could be no prophesy. In some cases the reverse is also true. In the above stories, we see how prophesy acts as fate's servant, ensuring it's fulfillment. Fate cannot be tricked; it foresees all.
There are parallels to this in our present situation. We are scheduled for a planetary rebirth, an evolutionary leap. This is fate, so it's going to happen no matter what. There are certain factions on the planet who are doing their very best to make sure this doesn't happen. My intuition tells me that their own actions will help to bring about the shift. I suspect they will go too far and expose themselves. It may be they've already done so. This ties in with the literal meaning of "apocalypse" which is "revealing". What would happen if the Illuminati were caught on video doing something so shockingly heinous that it could not be suppressed or explained away? Perhaps a really devastating security breach at a Bilderberg gathering? Videotape evidence of the pedophilia parties attended by the rich and powerful? Or maybe the ET presence and long time cover-up becomes irrefutable fact? My partner, God I Am, thinks it will be the swine flu plan that will back-fire and bring them down. The possibilities are legion. Their arrogance has already made them careless and they have plenty of rope with which to hang themselves. I'm putting my money on fate.
In order to make sense of the 2012 phenomena, it helps to understand how we construct our experience of reality. The dream state offers useful parallels. In the dreaming state, we construct a personal symbolic world. This world is a reflection of our inner reality. The subconscious mind represents our inner state as an external world and even peoples it with "others", who are really aspects of ourselves. In this way, the subconscious allows us to process information that we have trouble making conscious.
In some ways, waking life is similar. It is a mistake to assume that the world we perceive is the same as what actually exists. It is our mind's interpretation of vibrational signals. Not all of these signals are accessible to our senses, since they lie outside the frequency range that our senses can access. The mind also edits the signals it receives. It does this to avoid information overload and to maintain our fixed beliefs. This editing can result in serious distortions of objective reality. Like the dream state, the waking state reflects inner content by means of symbolism. It does this on both personal and collective levels. We experience this as synchronicity, fateful encounters, accidents or illness arising from psycho-emotional conflict, mind over matter, etc.. 2012 is a symbolic attractor, thrown up by the collective subconscious. The specific date does not matter in the way you might think. It's purpose is to make conscious what we have repressed and provide us with a collective focal point. There is a clue to this realisation in the suspiciously long list of potential or expected catastrophes in our near future:
Unintended results of technology, such as health problems due to GMOs and EMF pollution, run-away nanotechnology, LHC black holes, ionospheric disruption due to HAARP
World-wide revolution/social collapse
NWO global fascism
Earth changes, such as earthquakes, tsunamis and floods, super-volcano eruptions
Impact from space objects
Massive solar flares
Radiation burst from galactic center
Return of, or invasion by negative ETs
Many are also predicting more positive, but still enormous changes:
Evolution of our species
Positive ET contact.
All of these scenarios represent big changes. Their convergence on this time is no coincidence. All of us are sensing, either subconsciously or intuitively, that everything is about to change. We know in our guts that transformation is both inevitable and necessary. Different individuals perceive these changes in whatever way corresponds to their inner feelings about this change. Some are afraid of what is coming and feel helpless in the face of it. Of these people, some envision disaster and some take refuge in denial. Others understand the necessity of change. Of these, some are optimistic about our ability to respond, but others feel despair. In the next few paragraphs, I look more closely at these different attitudes.
Many envision the approaching changes as catastrophes beyond their control. If you are anticipating the literal "end of the world", it is because you refuse to admit the necessity for inner transformation. You are projecting it outside yourself as a way of refusing responsibility. I wish I could say that your attitude is harmless, but it isn't. You are contributing to the fear vibration. This makes positive change more difficult for us all. Those who respond in this way are often attached to the status quo. Those who own and control the main-stream media fall into this group. That's why 2012 is always presented in a fearful, negative way on TV and in movies. The Mayan prophesy does not predict the end of the world, but the end of a world. Main-stream accounts never mention the fact that this "world" began in 3114 BC. So what is ending and/or being transformed, is what began then. The fact that the forces of stagnation and tyranny view 2012 as a disaster, should be cause for optimism.
Some who are not prepared to accept responsibility for change, respond with denial. "Nothing will happen", they say. Some go so far as to insist that our near future will be much the same as today. This is the sole impossible scenario. Change is the only constant in this universe. You would have to be amnesiac, or very young, to not see that huge changes have already occurred over the recent past, and that change is accelerating. Most who subscribe to this view don't believe that nothing will change, but that nothing fundamental will change. However, if nothing fundamental changes, there will be consequences. These consequences are not far off and they will be the cause of major changes. We are rapidly approaching the natural limits of both natural resources and the planet's ability to absorb our pollution and abuse. On the economic front, collapse is immanent. The system has intrinsic flaws that render it unsustainable. You cannot have continuous growth on a finite planet. The system is also based on debt which can never be repaid. Up till now, the result has been a rapidly widening income gap as all the real wealth in the world is sucked to the top. This cannot continue without total social disintegration. This has been happening for some time already and is very close to boiling point. The only way to temporarily fend off total failure of the system, will be to give power to create global currency to the IMF or the Bank for International Settlements. Please research the policies and past behavior of these organisations. If they are given this power, things will change dramatically. Unless you are very well positioned financially and lack all compassion for your fellow humans, you will not like the results. Our economic system has other, deeper flaws. They are philosophical rather than structural. These involve distortion of value, as well as a perversion of the purpose of society and individual persons. These flaws will lead to social tension. Those who are charged with "maintaining order" will continue to remove and violate basic rights and freedoms. Either global fascism or the fall of the present system is inevitable in the near future. Also, in case you missed the news coverage, a global pandemic is expected to occur this fall and winter. It is predicted to result in millions of deaths. It will affect your world. Make no mistake. This is your future if "nothing happens".
Some of us do accept responsibility for our situation. We see the necessity for change. We know that surface changes will not be enough. It is going to take a revisioning of our purpose, individually and collectively. Old and discredited paradigms of reality must fall and be replaced with truer conceptions. We are commited to this work because we know what is at stake. It is nothing less than the evolution or devolution (possibly extinction) of our species. It is a species with nearly infinite potential for greatness.
Sadly, many of those who accept responsibility for where we are, don't believe they can do anything about it. They sit on the fence. "I can't do anything by myself, little me. I'll wait and see what everybody else does." Most of these people believe that 2012 is something that will happen to them, or not. If this is what you are thinking, the following is going to sound harsh but you need to hear it. The German people, during WWII, refused to see what they prefered not to see. Some of them did see, but closed their hearts to their fellow humans. Do you think they should have acted differently? What would they have needed to do, to put a stop to the Nazi insanity? In the end, they were not prepared to do what they knew was right. Why? Because nobody else did. They are no different from you. Your inner intention and commitment affect everybody else. Check your experience. Have you ever been part of a group that has gathered for the purpose of sharing and raising consciousness? You feel different. Things seem possible, that didn't before. The sooner individual members of humanity commit to evolution, the sooner our insanity can end. At some point, this group will get off the fence together. This will be felt all over the world.
Some are afraid to hope, for fear of disappointment or failure. Do you think that if you commit to voluntary evolution, you will expend your energy with no guarantee of reward? You are caught in illusion. It is not "your" energy that needs expending. It is love, that needs to flow through an open heart. The experience of being a channel for this flow is a far greater reward than any other. From this perspective, giving and receiving are one. When you open your heart, there will be some sadness as well. You will feel with the many who suffer. When this happens, remember; your willingness to feel this is what will end it. Before you fall in love, you don't know if it will work. You could be badly hurt. Do you then never love because you might be disappointed? You might, but that would be pathetic. No, usually you take a chance because the possibilities are so compelling. What stands to be gained or lost by all of us, in the near future, is far more than a happy or failed love affair. If we don't even try, we will certainly fail. That would be pathetic.
2012 stands as a strange attractor in our near future. Listen to your intuition. It's not about what will happen. It's about what you will choose.
What is free will? Some say it defines a human being. Others claim it is an illusion. The more I think about it, the more I realise that everything depends on the definition of a human being. In other words, we must first know what we mean by "I". In earlier posts, I have written about the two "I"s: If Thine I Be Single and Is It I? To sum up, my observations have led me to conclude that there are two distinct entities that refer to themselves as "I". One is the spiritual Self and the other is the (false) ego.
The aims and characteristics of these two are so contradictory that they can't both be "I". One of them must be an illusion or an impostor. Both have their philosophical defenders. The camp that claims that the ego is the real I, are the Social Darwinists, behaviorists, etc.. These people insist that all our thinking and behavior is predictable if the causes are known. They refer to the ego's characteristics (such as greed, aggression, etc.) as "human nature". The spiritual Self is claimed to be imaginary, a psychological defence against the fear of death, or a way to cope with suffering.
Those taking the other view, that the spiritual Self is the true "I", are the spiritual teachers, mystics, shamans, etc. They base their assertion on direct personal experience. It is impossible to offer proof to one who has not had this experience, and yet it's truth is undeniable to one who has. In general, this group has not done an adequate job of accounting for the ego's existence, except to say that it allows for "free will". In "Is It I?"(see link above), I examined the predation theory. This theory is based on a particular interpretation of Gnostic teachings as well as "the topic of topics" according to the Yaqui sorcerer, Don Juan. This constitutes a better model of the observed facts than any other I have come across.
An assumption is often made that free will has something to do with choice. I think this is an illusion and a red herring. The appearance of choice is a result of flawed perception. From the point of view of the Self, there are no choices to be made. The Self doesn't need to weigh it's options. It doesn't need to think or make plans. It simply acts according to it's nature, which is Love. The false ego seems to make lots of choices, but they are not really choices, they are calculations and strategies. It's "choice" will always be a result of it's programmed beliefs. Someone who knew what these beliefs were would be able to predict it's "choice" every time. It simply acts according to it's nature, which is Fear. So it's not about choice, it's about awareness.
The false ego doesn't even want to be free. It wants to be in control. Being in control is not the same as being free because the controller is bound to that which he controls. Control is the opposite of freedom. The ego can never be free in an absolute sense. This is because it is defined by it's separateness. From it's point of view, it is only free to the extent that it is in control as opposed to being controlled. In the world of the ego, coercion is a given. So from the ego's perspective, "free will" can only mean the freedom to control, which is oxymoronic nonsense.
An analysis of freedom and coercion would be incomplete without including the subject of money. One of the accepted definitions of "free" is "not costing money".
Anything valued in monetary terms is not free because it can be owned. Also it's value becomes both relative and finite. If a person is valued in monetary terms, he is not free. He becomes a commodity to be bought and sold. This might seem like stating the obvious but it (if it's truth is clearly seen), has serious implications for "civilisation" as we know it. Money is, and can only be, a technology of coercion. To attempt to build a just and moral society based on money is akin to trying to bake a cake with a hammer.
Freedom can only exist for the Self. From it's point of view, it is absolutely free, always has been, always will be. Because it is all that is, there is nothing that could control it and nothing that it must control. It is what is, regardless of whether it is known. So it isn't a matter of the Self gaining freedom, it is already free. It is a matter of the Self knowing what freedom is. In order for anything to be known, contrast is required. The true thing must cast a shadow, that which is not, in order for it to know what is. The ego is this shadow. The process doesn't end here. There is an experience beyond knowledge, called understanding. At the point of understanding, the shadow is seen to be illusion and it's function is complete. Those who have realised enlightenment confirm this. For them, the ego is no more.
On the basis of all the above and on my own certainty that the Self is the true "I", "free will" should be defined as: the Self acting according to it's nature (which is Love), to realise it's possibilities and know itself. When we realise this we will free ourselves and each other. We will know that "I want you to be free" means the same thing as "I love you".
Phillip K. Dick holds a special place within the science fiction genre. He is deservedly celebrated for his mastery of the "mind-fuck". If you are a fan of his writing, you are someone who enjoys having their mind fucked good and proper. I am one of these people and I know that some of my readers share this inclination. I dedicate this post to you and to Mr. Dick.
There are some ideas that the mind tip-toes away from without really looking at them. There is a sense that such ideas are too dangerous to formulate, much less entertain. They might upset our foundational assumptions and put our sanity in peril. But these sorts of ideas are the ones that expose the lies we tell ourselves. And what is sanity anyhow? I've decided that only one who is enlightened is sane. Apart from that, it's only relative. Then it becomes a matter of how coherently you can function. If your foundational assumptions are flawed, the answer is: not very. How would we know if we never checked? If the Truth is what is sought, it can withstand all questions. In fact, it demands them. This is why aspirants to gnosis will go out of their way to entertain "dangerous" ideas, questions and possibilities. That's why we take entheogens. That's why we love movies like "The Matrix" and novels like those of P.K. Dick.
So, without further ado, I will proceed to share this contribution to the honourable tradition of mind-fuckery. This idea had been skirting the edges of my consciousness for some time and I had dismissed it. Quickly. Today I was discussing the control system's plans for the world with my partner. He said what I had so often said and thought myself. "How can they, with all their knowledge, not know that their aims are impossible to reach? Unless...." (at this point I had to finish the sentence) ..."They know that they are serving Infinite Awareness and they are consciously fulfilling their role, which is to wake us up by reflecting our blindness back to us as starkly as necessary." In order to do this consciously and without faltering, they would have to be fully enlightened. My partner felt that this possibility was plenty weird enough to be getting on with. He's going to write about it on his blog as well. I had to go a bit further. "What if it's not just the elite?", I said. "What if everyone who seems to be deeply unconscious is actually already enlightened and they are all perfectly playing their parts in order to test the few who are still actively seeking?" That would mean that it is only those of us "on the path" who have still to awaken. It is we who are the slow ones. When we do awaken fully, all the "others" will remove their masks and take a bow. If this were true, (and I'm not saying it is) we might perceive our task as a whole lot simpler. Perception affects experience. Therefore, regardless of it's truth, it is useful.
The conscious adoption of random beliefs for the purpose of shifting one's experience of reality is the very heart of Magick. Peter J. Carroll, in "Liber Kaos" refers to it as "sleight of mind". It is this aspect of the idea that I found so fascinating. Later, when we went for a walk, I pretended it was true. I imagined that all the people I saw were spiritual masters in disguise. Some of them deserve Oscars! It produced in me an exhilaration and wonder that I cannot really describe. You'd have to try it. As an exercise in consciousness it is pure gold. I want to stress that there is no necessity of committing to this belief (or any other) in order to make use of it. In fact, I'm intuitively certain that it would be a mistake to do so.
The Aztecs engaged in the practice of sacrificing humans to the Sun god. Most people today would consider this barbaric, but the Aztecs had nothing on us. At least the Sun is real, and necessary to all life on this planet. We practice human sacrifice also. The "god" to which we offer up our victims is called the "economy". In contrast to the Sun god, the "economy" is an invented abstraction. When it comes to scale of carnage the Aztecs again, lag far behind. Consider the thousands who starve to death daily for want of little pieces of paper and metal, worth nothing but what we believe they are worth. And let's not forget all the other sacrificial victims who have perished in banker-engineered wars. How could the "economy" have survived without them? Then there are those who for various reasons, are not economically productive. They are kicked to the gutter, considered human garbage. We treat murderers better than that. I guarantee you that, if and when, some future civilisation unearths the debris of our own, they will conclude that the "economy" was our god. How embarrassing. How shameful!
If you look up the word "economy" in the dictionary, it simply means "management of resources". In this sense there is nothing wrong with it. In practice, and as commonly used, it means something else: the monetary economy. Henceforth, when I use the word, it will be in this modern, perverted sense.
Every time I hear the mainstream media, or anybody else, talk about saving the economy, I feel like I'm going to hurl. Why should we want to save it? It's sick. What has it done for us, that we should want to save it? It has turned us into slaves and whores. It has robbed us of our freedom and our self-respect. It has turned this beautiful, bountiful planet into a prison with paper bars. How do we not see this? Could it be that we are members of a mind-control cult so pervasive as to be invisible? It certainly has all the characteristics of a cult, including myths, dogmatic unquestioning belief, and vicious punishment of heretics. There is no shame in having been brain-washed, only in consciously choosing to remain so. Let's examine the mythology, and see if it holds up. Myth #1: The economy is an efficient means of managing resources.
No, it isn't. The economy thrives on waste. Planned obsolescence is an obvious example. It is not economically profitable to make things that last. The economy demands that "goods" be produced as cheaply as possible and last a very short time so as to keep "consumers" consuming and feed the profit machine. Another example of this fallacy is "manufactured want". Goods are produced that no one really has any use for, then we waste human time and creativity on advertising to make people want them. The economy is incredibly wasteful of human energy. Most of the work that people do, doesn't need doing. "Primitive" societies that lack our labour-saving technologies, devote far less time to work that we do. It is sad to see brilliant creative people, who would love to share their gifts, working as tele-marketers and factory slaves. Myth #2: The economy is the driver of innovation and progress.
Wrong again. These things are the result of human creativity and curiosity. The economy has interfered with progress whenever it has threatened vested interests. There is no need for us to still be using fossil fuels, for example. Free energy technology exists, but is not made available because it is free. Likewise, medical advances are suppressed to protect the profits of the pharmaceutical industry. Up-to-date discoveries in the fields of physics and biology are not mentioned in grade-school science classes. This is not because they are hard to understand, but because their paradigm-shattering implications threaten vested interests. Need I go on? Another way that the economy has hurt progress is by making us stupid. The brain develops as it is used. Survival needs are taken care of by the R-complex, the reptilian brain. This is it's oldest and least evolved part. The economy, through it's insistence that everyone (except the elite) earn the right to exist, causes us to overuse this part of the brain. Scientific research has shown that a foetus whose mother experiences survival anxiety develops an enlarged R-complex and a shrunken prefrontal cortex. I suspect this is the explanation for social conditions in areas where poverty is most prevalent. In our modern technological society, we have the means to sustainably feed, house and educate everyone on this planet. The only reason we don't is because it would hurt the economy. If people didn't have to worry about surviving, who would staff the third world sweat-shops? Myth #3: Economic growth will lead to greater prosperity for all.
Um, no. Within the economy, the more scarce something is (including money), the more valuable. That is called "supply and demand". These are presented as natural forces. They're not. In order to maximise profit, both are manipulated. "Surplus" food-stuffs are dumped rather than distributed in order to keep prices high. Through advertising, wants are created (where none existed) in order to increase demand. In Vancouver, at least 15% of housing sits empty because it is "investment property" while hundreds are homeless. Low unemployment leads to inflation, so it is deliberately maintained at a level that suits the hoarders of capital. This level is called the NAIRU (non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) by economists. This is the reason central banks raise and lower interest rates. There must be losers as well as winners so the rats will keep running, faster and faster. Also, because of the pyramidal structure of the economy, there must be a lot more losers than winners. Myth #4: The economy is the best/only way of organising society.
Not so. Society is organised through communication. If money were to disappear tomorrow, we would not suddenly forget how to speak and write. People would still be capable of organising for common purpose. Everything that wants and needs doing would still get done. People are naturally social and cooperative. Most of us want to contribute something for the benefit of others. The challenge would not be in getting things done but in finding ways to occupy ourselves once all the unnecessary labour ends. Those who are not able to be "productive" do not represent a burden to anyone but rather an opportunity for caring and generosity. "Organising", in the context of this myth, really means managing (as in slaves or livestock). It means forcing others to do what they would otherwise refuse to do.
Myth #5: Money is simply a means of facilitating exchange. It reflects intrinsic value.
I was curious about how and why money came to exist. I assumed, as do most people, that it evolved to expedite trade. When I did some research, I discovered that it was actually created for the purpose of paying tribute. It allowed the rulers to amass and store more wealth than they could in a grain-based economy. In other words, it was created to facilitate hoarding by the wealthy and powerful. This is still it's primary purpose. If money reflected intrinsic value, goods and services would be traded for those of equal value. If this were the case, there would be no such thing as "profit". Profit is the result of fraudulently or coercively trading something of lesser for something of higher value. Profit is theft. It should hardly need stating that not everything with value can be commodified. This obvious fact is increasingly sneared at or overlooked.
Myth #6: Economic activity = democracy = freedom.
This is a particularly nasty lie, as it plays on noble instincts to deliver just the opposite. The economy does not promote democracy (as officially defined, "government of the people for the people"). It concentrates power in the hands of the very few. When was the last time your government defended the interests of the people over those of the elite? Exactly. This is not the result of corruption, but the result intended from the beginning. The monetary economy was invented by the rulers to control the ruled. I have deliberately chosen not to make a distinction between capitalism and communism, since both are monetary economic systems and both are coercive and enslaving. One is secretly, and the other openly so. That is the only real difference. This false polarity has proved very useful for the controllers, since we would all prefer to believe we are free. This also allows for circumscribed debate, which never addresses the real issues.
To return to the Aztec parallel, it should be pointed out that most of those people believed that what they were doing was right and necessary. Their priests and rulers told them so. When the promised results failed to materialise, their solution was... more of the same. Some of them must have known that what they were doing was cruel and insane but they didn't see any alternative. Sound familiar? This brought about the end of their civilisation. Somebody should have said something.
There are alternatives to the monetary economy. The natives of this region (Pacific North-West) had a gift economy until it was outlawed by the European colonialists. The movie, Zeitgeist Addendum proposes a resource based economy. There are other possibilities as well. Actually, almost everyone has had the experience of a non-monetary economy. We call it "the family". What will be fundamentally required is awareness, vision, maturity and cooperation. It's going to be up to us. We will have to trust each other and ourselves. The psychopaths who are running the show don't want to change. The first thing we need to do is wake up and stop supporting the insanity. The rest might be easier that we think.
Note: This essay might seem to include excessive use of quotation marks. In many cases I am employing them to indicate abuse of language. This is one of the hall-marks of mind-control, that words and phrases are used in ways that reverse or pervert their proper meaning.
I find Synchromysticism fascinating because it possesses features that are utterly novel and and unique. It truly reflects the mood of this modern era in which we live and yet is a reversal of it. I am referring to our age's banality, it's obsessive focus on the trivial and meaningless. It reminds me of the yin/yang symbol which depicts the extreme of one pole spontaneously flipping into it's opposite. The subject matter it employs is usually pop culture, eg. TV, comics, movies, advertising. This might appear to reduce it's value for consciousness development, yet it does not. As an exercise in awareness, it is comparable to mindfulness meditation. As I see it, the subject matter and interpretation is less important that the act of noticing symbolic connections. This practice trains the mind to remain awake. I think it can lead to greater levels of awareness by developing the habit of paying attention and seeing patterns in what is attended to.
The people involved in developing this field are mostly young and technologically inclined. They have spent most of their lives in a culture of over-stimulation. I am in awe of the way Synchromysticism has succeeded in integrating this noisy confusion and turning it to the service of awareness. In this sense it has parallels with the study of the Qabalistic Tree of Life, which has been called a "filing system for the mind". Any type of information may be sorted in this way, from the mundane to the profound, and symbolic connections begin to develop between them. The capacity to attend to information in this way will lead to conscious contact with the intuitive mind.
In the study of the Tree, a student would usually begin with the more abstract interpretations and work towards the concrete. Synchromysticism seems to reverse this order. I do not see this as negative. It is to be expected that the level of interpretation will vary according to understanding. For example, in a Tarot reading, the appearance of the five of wands might indicate an argument, a psychological conflict, or an spiritual ordeal. The determining factor would be the plane of inquiry. Thus a "spiritual" interpretation is not necessarily more correct than a mundane one. It is the recognition of the "note" rather than the "octave" that is important. Ultimately, through this process, ALL is seen to be an expression of the One.
The main stumbling block of symbolic mysticism, is literalness. This error is just as common among traditional symbolistists, when an absolute distinction is made between spirit and matter. In Reality, no such division exists. I have come across the idea, although rarely, within the Synchromystic community, that the "Illuminati" are implanting all of this symbolism deliberately. I think this assumes far too much intelligence (and power) on their part. It does happen, but not as often as these few imagine. Most of the time it is an expression of the fractal nature of the "reality hologram". So while the symbols associated with the Illuminati do reveal their intentions, they are as unconscious of this as most people.
Should any readers be unfamiliar with, and curious about, the phenomena of Synchromysticism, here are a few links to prominent sites: The Blob The Secret Sun CentrePortal
These sites carry links to many others.
What does it mean to be a "grown-up"? I started asking people this question the other day. It quickly became clear that very few have seriously thought about this. Almost everyone felt adulthood to be a burden to some degree. The differences were mainly of degree of acceptance. Surprisingly, no one considered it a purely chronological event. In other words, reaching the age of majority does not automatically make you a "grown-up". Although most people I talked to were surprised to be asked such a question, all were eager to discuss the subject once broached. Responses fell into two main categories.
The quickest responders said something along the lines of, "I'm not a grown-up. I'll never grow up!" Interesting, age was no indicator of this attitude. These people associated growing up with capitulation to conformity and the end of laughter. They refuse to let play turn to drudgery and growth to stagnation. Their childhoods tended to be curtailed or unsatisfactory in some way. The adults in their lives were not positively perceived, as a rule. They also had some experience of being outcast from society. Personally, I am more sympathetic to this view.
Those who did consider themselves "grown-ups" were slower to reply. All these mentioned responsibility to others, usually family. Those without family ties felt a responsibility to their social roles. They expressed a wistful nostalgia for childhood, lacking in the other group. Their conception of adulthood was also tied to externalities, such as appearance, and specific milestones, like becoming a parent or building a career. They were generally more conservative. As children, they were more likely to look up to adults.
I, who am naturally introspective and have had more time to think about it, proposed another definition. When presented with it, everyone I spoke to thought it appropriate. It is likely that this agreement reflects the culture of the Cascadian region, where I am. To me, being a grown-up means not needing to be told what to do. It means I have the emotional maturity and experience to make my own decisions, based on actual requirements instead of inflexible rules. I think this instinctive claim to sovereignty underlies both the conservative aversion to government interference and the liberal philosophy of tolerance. I wish the former would be more willing to extend this freedom of self-determination to others and the latter would realise that responsibility can't be legislated.
Sadly, the way our civilisation is set up discourages (or even forbids) this sort of personal sovereignty. Our religions demand infantile obedience. Our economic systems in particular, are rooted in a coercive "stick and carrot" mentality that assumes our inability to regulate ourselves. We are encouraged to believe that chaos would ensue if we didn't have some authority figure standing over us with a whip in one hand and a big bag of toys in the other. The opposite is true. A proliferation of rules and regulations in every area of our lives denies us the right to ever make responsible choices for ourselves. Our ability to self-determine atrophies from lack of use. As a result, we remain forever childish. We are rendered unable to trust ourselves or each other. All this is no accident, and a dream-come-true for the control system. Is it any wonder that most of us consider being a "grown-up" such a drag?
Humanity's current operating system has become obsolete. It is now clear that, if we continue to use it, we will become extinct. The old paradigm has certain flaws that render it vulnerable to corruption. At this point in time, the corruption is so advanced that the system is about to fail. Everybody knows it deep down, but most are still in denial since they don't yet see an alternative. A rapidly growing number of self-referent and visionary people are now in the process of installing a more advanced program. If all goes well, it should be up and running within 3-5 years.
The new paradigm isn't really new. It appears and reappears throughout history. For this reason, it has been called the Perennial Philosophy. It is the core understanding of mystics in all traditions. It is the reality paradigm that corresponds to and stems from Gnosis. The founders of all religions knew it, but the religions themselves are hostile to it since it means the end of their control. It flowered during the Renaissance in Europe when philosophers, theologians, mathematicians and artists of different places and cultures came together and pooled their knowledge. The invention of the printing press helped it to spread. Legacies of this period include Humanism, the Tarot, the Qabalah and Hermeticism. The movement was suppressed by the Catholic church by means of the Inquisition. The Inquisition was the attempted murder of an idea, a noocide. I say "attempted" because it could not be destroyed, only driven underground.
The thing I find most wonderful about this new/old understanding, is that it is arrived at independently by those who reject received reality, and set out to discover it for themselves. These are people who refuse to believe anything just because somebody (or everybody) else says it is so. And yet, they all come to the same realisations. This is the nature of Gnosis, that it is discovered rather than learned. It makes use of any tradition or none. The printing press of the Renaissance finds it's reflection in the Internet of today. So, for the first time in centuries, we have a model of existence derived from reality instead of imposed upon it.
For this reason, it has natural coherence, which the old paradigm lacks. Coherence is an amplifying factor. Because of this, the Perennial Philosophy will soon become more powerful than the imposed beliefs of the control system. The control system had coherence of a sort, but it was an artificial coherence. It has required a great deal of energy to maintain and, as it's instability increases, it will need much more. The new paradigm has been selected by evolution since it will allow humanity to thrive and grow, whereas the old can lead only to extinction.
I know this is happening because I can feel it. The tipping point has already been reached. The sense of anxiety that was present only six months ago has gone and been replaced by joyful anticipation. Many others have sensed this as well. In the words of John Lennon, "You may say I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will live as one."
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one." - Albert Einstein
One of the major flaws in old paradigm thought is it's literalness. This gives rise to the fantasy of the "real world". There is no such thing. To borrow Aleister Crowley's metaphor, it is "as if some one had seriously maintained that a cat was a creature constructed by placing the letters C.A.T. in that order". This is analogous to the mistake of imagining the physical world to be reality itself.
What we actually experience is a symbolic representation of a transcendent reality. This reality has no solid form, but it does have meaningful information. The illusion of physicality exists for illustrative purposes. The details of how we represent that information to ourselves may vary without changing the meaningful content. For example, it is an energetic fact that human beings serve as the food of a vampirising force. This force has been experienced as extraterrestrial reptilians, the ego, the demiurge, the Illuminati, Satan, the R-system of the brain, archons, fliers, etc. The old paradigm would insist that these can't all be right. Within the new paradigm, they can and are.
We cannot hope to understand reality while confusing symbols with their meaning. We already apply this realisation to the dream state. Few people take their dreams literally. The forms of the dream are understood to be symbolic even though they seem quite real and solid to the dreaming self. The exception to this is the lucid dream. Sometimes, we become aware of dreaming while in the dream. The last time this happened to me, I'd been having a lovely dream in which I was running. I did not notice a cliff edge that was hidden by long grass and I ran right over the edge. I fell a long way down and I fully expected to die when I hit the ground. Instead, I landed softly on the sand of a beach and was completely unharmed. The shock of this caused me to become lucid. I suspect that most lucid dreams start this way, with some shockingly anomalous occurrence that compels the dreamer to question the reality of the dream.
There are direct parallels of these invitations to lucidity in waking life. UFOs, miracles, synchronicity, fire-walking, the 11:11, and crop circles (see Neil Kramer's post on The Cleaver "The Beautiful Paradox") all fall into this category of phenomena. As Neil Kramer rightly points out, to focus on the physical aspects and causes of these things is to miss the point. These are wake-up calls. I have very recently been delighted to discover a field of knowledge called Synchromysticism that is based in this view of reality. This term, coined by Jake Kotze, is defined by him as "the art of realising meaningful coincidence in the seemingly mundane with mystical or esoteric significance". It is possible to interpret the "real world" as though it were a dream, with the same illuminating result.
The inherent insanity of literalness is most obvious in religious fundamentalism. It doesn't matter what religion it is. Those of us who are relatively sane would feel sorry for these people if they weren't so destructive. Fundamentalism not only misses the message, but usually reverses it completely. Ironically, science, that megalithic bastion of literalism, is being overturned by it's own findings. Open-minded physicists and biologists are beginning to twig to the fact that matter is a projection of consciousness, a fractal hologram.
Brain science is helpful in understanding the error in perception. We have become overly dependent on left-brain thinking. The left-brain is just like a computer. It's job is to receive, store and manipulate data. It lacks the ability to understand anything. The task of interpreting the data belongs to the right-brain which employs symbol, myth and metaphor to create meaning. This is the reason that spiritual teachers so often use parable and poetry to present their knowledge. These speak directly to the right-brain, assuming it is functional. The ability of the right-brain to do it's job has been impaired by our education system's obsessive focus on data collection and retrieval.
Fortunately, Infinite Awareness has it's own agenda. I doubt if we could screw it up, even if we wanted to. It will accomplish it's purpose as us and through us. It has already begun.
I came across this the other day: Timothy Freke Bath 2005 Absolutely One-derful!
People are at war with themselves. This is true of almost everyone. There is a good reason for this; it's because there are two of you. One is your spiritual being (Self) and the other is the ego. Both refer to themselves as "I", and both issue directives. When you choose to follow the Self, the ego pitches a fit. If the ego is obeyed, the Self withdraws. Unconflicted existence requires that only one of these two "I"s prevail. Either choice results in greater effectiveness.
Choosing the ego is more common, and I think this is what the control system means by "illumination". This choice results in the pure psychopath, and this kind of person is undeniably effective. He has an enormous advantage over those who are still in conflict because he operates without restraint from the Self. This path is more common but not less difficult. The banishment of the Self requires some pretty horrific conditioning and the control system has spent centuries perfecting the process.
If the ego is abandoned and Self is chosen, the result is known as spiritual mastery or sainthood. This is less often achieved, and part of the reason is that most of us don't know that a choice is required. We are led to believe that compromise is not only possible, but preferable. The control system encourages this belief, as it provides them with an ineffective populous that they can easily control. They also use every means at their disposal to feed our egos, making them harder to overcome. These means include the media, the economy, social prejudice, materialist science, and the education system. They have given us religions that teach us to worship the Self-realised Ones instead of following their example. The suppression of the feminine is part of this strategy also.
The control system sees that the unrestrained ego is more powerful than the ego/Self duality, so they think they have chosen well. They may think they are going to win total control over this planet but they have made a fatal miscalculation. Their mistake relates to power. The ego is unconnected to Source and therefore dependent upon external sources of power. The only power it has is what it can steal, and it can only use power that matches it's own vibration, eg. fear, avarice, depression, lust, hatred, etc. The Self, on the other hand, has it's own, infinite power source. The Self is connected to this source of power through the heart chakra. It is the Love vibration and it is limited only by the openness of the heart center. It can't ever run out and it can manifest miracles. When we connect to and channel this power, we rob the ego of it's food. If the ego is not fed, it is weakened, and eventually departs or dies.
The Love vibration is key to the overthrow of the control system. Because it is unlimited, it can poured out indiscriminately to all. As it is absorbed by those who can use it, it multiplies and grows exponentially. It won't be on the six o'clock news, but this is already beginning to occur. Those who are sensitive to energy can feel it. The wholly ego-driven, who are unable to use this power, are becoming increasingly unstable and in many cases, physically ill. This is a very good sign and nothing to worry about. If things seem to be going haywire right now, we should see this as a healing crisis. A new world is being born.
Will the real "I" please stand up.