There is a level of mind where matter and the mind interpenetrate and becomes a subtle body or energy. It is as if we experience a communion with the earth as a living entity, and that our psyche has an earthly aspect that influences us. In this direct expression of the earth on the mind we have a psychological experience of the body as as matter. And in that sense it becomes non-local. It has no locality in time, and in itself it does not depend on any specific physical presence anywhere, its reality is experienced everywhere. It is eternal. All natural processes affect us personally here regardless of our ego. This is the innermost of physical existence, the past, the present and the future, where we find our true relation to the body we share with earth.
My true experience of the body comes from this psychological entity traditionally called soul. It is where I balance my existence and its relation to nature, where my physicality resides. Here is my relation to the world. How I perceive it. It is all pure Nature. From this experience I am called to act in relation to what is in it. To life. It is where my other being creates an outer reflection of an inner fact. The nature of that experience I call soul is what makes life flow from this other being into my world. It is where my raw Nature becomes my personal and human acts of cultivation. I think it is in these processes we can find the ongoing creation of cultural history of the human race. But most importantly, each individual has his own unique experience of this. This is a common pattern. Beautifully and annoyingly summed up by Edward Edinger like this; We have a psychological encounter where we experience our true Nature within; And that involves a suffering because it activates our self as something individually separate from the collective; there’s also our perseverance, because we have to stand up for our sense of beingness; and last there’s a revelation where the onslaught of instinct becomes a new living relation to how we experience life. It is almost like a living pattern of existence put to words. Disgusting in its rationality, because of how far this is from being respected in our time, but possible to accept as an absolute form of beingness in the living experiences of our individuality.
Our relation to the greater part of ourselves is not religion. It may look like it. But it is not. But it is an integral part of the inviolable in every human, and in all life. This was first formulated in the mental maturation process that traditional people encountered in the confrontation between the power of their own nature and the nature that surrounded them. That experience now comes back to us in the form of their notions that we transform into the current world of the dominant collective typology. We transfer and reformulate their images and symbolic structures of wholeness into objective facts. Our language itself, our attitude and its extremes in alphabetism, show in an exaggerated way how frightening a confrontation with these forces can be. The traditions of the introverted intuitive’s experiences and explorations of the mind are now being recast into the concepts and orientation of todays type, the collectively oriented extraverted sensation. Which means that the present collective consciousness relation between the individual ego and the self is now reformulated using traditional structures and images. This earlier mind, and its collective thinking, communicated their experiences in religious and metaphysical concepts. To me, it seems that we are living in a typological transformation into a new concept of our relationship to the eternal image of our inner self that traditional people first communicated to us. This does not mean that we have to mould our selves into this present type, or its attitude if its not ours. But it is certaintly beneficial to know about its preferences and how it expresses itself since we are born into it.
Once again, I am in debt to Edward Edinger for making this perfectly clear to me.
The dominant view of society on the societal traditions that we usually call “primitive”, is usually based on a perspective that mainly consists in our own lost connection to an inner original whole. It is our own broken inner experience of pure nature both inside and outside us. But our raw Nature is that life, it is nourishment, support, and strength. From within we are connected to the sense that it surrounds us at all times and in every direction. It is the air we breathe, the water. The earth that nourish us. It is the whole physical universe that supports us. Our experience of this is the whole world in a divine like closeness to the essence of femininity. This is our other half and the physical vessel of our wholeness. It is in this kind of ”primitive” awareness many people in traditional cultures experience their rebirth. And their relation to an intermediary or a second Greater personality. To our self. Where wholeness is not percieved as dogmatic structures of an imposed totality but a personal relation to all life. Inside of us we are born psychologically by this experience. It gives birth to a new connection to our self, and a genuine sense of community with all Nature. It is what really makes us human. To call this ”primitive” is a transference of ones own broken connection to this wholeness, because it is not something that can be approached or grasped with a rational mindset. It is about our relation to experience. But if we choose to describe our perspective on primitivity as the lack of a relation to its sense of wholeness, i think we are also close to its opposite which is the absence of maturity. It is about the maturation process to our inner self and its totality. And a person’s or society’s relation to this can always be seen in how it treats its indigenous people.
The greatest misconception between the western and the traditional mind is in how it relates to the experience of beingness. From a traditional perspective, all Nature, both within and without is processed as the experience of how everything is related to our inner maturing. Meaning, not space and time, connects all things. In the western world, people are taught to separate themselves from this kind of experience, and to deal with the mind exclusively as an external fact. It’s like a typological mismatch. The extraverted sensation of the Western mind, meets the polar opposite of the introverted intuition of the traditional mind. So in this Western or modern mind, the psychic experiences that our body conveys are cut off from its connection to the physical processes in their relation to nature. Hence the loss of the connection to our beingness that will relate us to an inner sense of embodiment, where our Nature will give birth to the reality that there are two entities in the Psyche. In a traditional sense they must have an encounter with one another. The Ego, which is the small center, has to have an encounter with the Greater one for life to have any kind of meaning, that is, a relation to the big center that always flows into the smaller Ego. Through the spontaneous act of Nature by our instincts, this experience will give birth to the absolute need for the traditional mind to approximate them psychologically to one another. They are taught to take pride in their perseverance to meet and endure this encounter, and to defend the beingness of their human Nature in relation to the onslaught of this Greater personality. To find their own personal connection to it. The western mind often never really come to this approximation. There is a collision between them, but no conscious realization of what this experience may hold for it. Obviously, in this way, i have my own experience of mismatch to explore with the collective mind.
Life really made quite a setup for me yesterday after having thought for quite some time about the overlapping representatives I always create of my self outside of me, of the entity I have within so perfectly described by Edward Edinger. It came to its full realisation in a long drive that took a day with my son in law. As Edinger pointed out, the second center is this other being, or the other person within ourselves. He formulated it like this; “It’s the representation of a friendship between two men, which is simply the outer reflection of an inner fact.” Similarly, I believe that this is what women do with the processes they share in their experience of Nature between them. The other person within ourselves reveals itself in the relationship we have to Nature herself. What became so obvious to me was that during our drive, I was doing much of the talk. But I also realized, that in spite of notizing him having trouble following me, I was still doing an outer reflection on the subjects at hand with my inner personality. I just had to try to make this Greater life flow into the life of which I was an outer reflection of. And I used my son in law for this. Now afterwards, I understand that it was a setup, it was one of these arrangements that life gives us so that we can access, and grasp some of its deeper significance. I must try to find myself another confinement, or vessel for the flow of this experience. I should not have to burden him or anyone else with these aspects of my own being.
It is like one must first truly realize that our beingness is nature itself, and as such that we are an extension of mother earth, which we are part of as its supreme being experienced as an outer reflection of an inner fact. Or we will experience her in her aspects of rage. She is the embodiment of our nature, and our physical vessel. If we accept her, our meeting with her will constellate, and give birth to the awareness of another person maturing within us. A transcendent entity that is larger than the ego. That is, the relationship we have to that inner friend of whom Nature herself would like to change us. She will make us aware of, that there is something more to guilt and vengeance beyond her in that transpersonal center of the Psyche. To that other part of us within. If I violate this inner person, it’s a violation of my relation to the order of my human sense of totality. Which will arouse its vengeance against my ego. I will experience that as guilt, or as an abusive oppression, a vengeance from an entity that is really coming from within. It is about this wholeness of life. That intense affect of an inner emergence. Anger, guilt, and anxiety are all direct ways in which we experience a defeat in our present attitude to the violence from this extremely superior invasive force that discharge itself in us. In our human reality. We learn about it in the transference of our defences to the physical world. This is also how we come to understand it internally.
This text is my reflection on a seminar held by Edward Edinger entitled: Encounters with the Greater personality. I am forever greatly in debt to him for what this made perfectly clear in me.
It is almost painful to see how Donald Trump is crawling under the weight of the inferiority he senses in his meeting with himself. And how he unknowingly tries to defend himself from the pressure he experience from it. He is constantly trying to divert himself through others from the criticism erupting from inside of him, and his relation to the transpersonal center of his mind in front of everyone, and just about the whole world. But since he doesn’t recognise the true source of this criticism as coming from within himself, he acts it out, and try to hide it from himself by transference.
What makes it so painful at times is that we are all like him. We can all identify with this hair-rising avoidance of an humbling confrontation with the maturing reflection of an inner fact suddenly appearing inside us, trying to correct our present attitude. Its quite a learning experience to listen to. But in Trumps case, it is constantly on the verge of being morbid.
..”the onslaught of instinct becomes an experience of ‘the greater personality’.”
– Edward Edinger
I use this quote because it shows in such a good way how psychology today is in itself a “meaningful coincidence” between an inner situation and an external event, and that there are coincidences that are stretched further than a single lifetime. Meaning now occurs in our present inner understanding of the mental flow of images that has arisen from a previous meeting between the collective consciousness and the underlying reality of the cosmic mind. These experiences and events have not been immediately connected to any visible causes because of the timespan involved. In the cosmic totality, everything happens simultaneously. Coincidences are always direct. But for the collective consciousness to pick it upp as such, it needs a single mind. A consciousness that can join them together. Without the scale of the cosmic reality, the experience is too large for it to be able to perceive that there is a relation outside the observer’s field of perception, so it will only be verifiable much later. And the connection is lost in time. But we can regain it when “the onslaught of instincts becomes an experience of the greater personality”. Which I think is slowly happening right now. This is how I interpret my experience of it, and how it relates to our contemporary collective consciousness right now.
Thought forms and images is the preferred state of our inner life. Individual minds anywhere experience this in our cosmic mind as energy waves containing information that is generated from their state of virtual potentiality. It means that our individual experience of this universality of mind can exist either as an experience of an individual consciousness, or as pure form. Thought forms and images have no conceivable locality in the cosmic mind, but they have its potential as an emanation out of a non-empirical cosmic background which contains the future empirical possibilities of an individual consciousness. Therefore we can only exist in a bodily state or descend into a virtual state. This virtual state is the cosmic realm of energetic non-material reality behind consciousness. Behind our actuality of visible phenomena, and the ”things” that surface of this hidden, invisible and non-empirical domain that doesn’t consist of any material structures, but of forms of consciousness dormant in this non local potentiality of an every when. I think that the visible world is something like the emanated visibility of it. While the hidden part is the unknown state of any consciousness in its purest form. When a consciousness appear it acts as a vessel of thoughts and images, for the cosmic mind that we think of as the material structures and events in the external world.
I think there is more to syncronicity, or the experience of random acasual happenings of meaningful connections in the psychology of kosmos, and its non-local events of wholeness acting in an evolutionary sense in what we think are random coincidents, than just unusual occurrences in the present moment. We are decieved by time. If we strech the timespan further between events and make them much longer than our ability to connect them, like a single lifetime, or multiple generations, we tend to disregard them as occurences of synchronicity. As something that happens independently of time. Or as a potentiality of a consciousness appearing out of a background wholeness evolving in the realm of an individual mind in any timeframe. Our consciousness as a form of that wholeness senses its loss of locality, and becomes part of this psychology of space in the form of a consciousness that is acting everywhere, both in a past, our present and in the future, and we interpret two or more different events as they are separated, but curiously appearing in the same moment of time. In reality they are individually experienced forms of this background wholeness, appearing not only as the same form of non-locality, but also as a cosmic property from which the form we want to call consciousness derives. It is this background property of consciousness that appears within us, in different versions of collective consiousness, but always in its own eternal presence, here and now.
How I orient myself in the world is basically my relationship to the energies that contains the vibrational patterns of our different states of mind. These states are related to my inner self, or to its inner body of knowledge that is experienced by the continous reflection on the dynamics of life. It is this connection that develops my personal relation to the collective consciousness. It is also this information that is expressed to me personally from this field of potentiality, and then transmitted to me in the energy of having a connection to a person or situation. It is always accompanied by some form of information. In this sense we are all presented with a kind of generic knowledge of potentiality. Of information we then apply to the collective consciousness when we insert it into the body of the physical world, and join it with our nature. This information is provided personally, again and again, until it is completely digested. If it is ignored, we sense a loss of meaning, of repeating ourselves. By changing what we habitually call thinking, to a question that is actually a kind of prayer, and our way of listening to this “field of potentiality”, we shift our “attention” to the vibrational patterns of being. We tap into a field of information beyond consciousness, containing the patterns that is given by the frequency of another way of orientation. We relate ourselves back to the experience of unanimousness, and the realization that we are one in our self, to where our consciousness is connected to its universal “cosmic” properties, and its true origin from behind life.
I BELIEVE IN INDIVIDUAL MAN HIMSELF
I believe in individual man himself,
in him who walks by himself,
not doglike following his scent,
not wolflike fleeing before man’s scent:
at once man and anti-man.
Come to our own communion?
Flee the over and the outer way:
Whatever is cattle in others is cattle also in you.
Walk the wide and inner way:
What is bottom in you is bottom also in them.
Hard to get used to oneself.
Hard to break oneself of oneself.
The one who does that shall never be cast out.
The one who does that shall forever be in unanimousness.
The impractical is the only practical
in the long run.
Ideas and theories are always going to be falsified because the predictions made on them are not borne out of the source of observations only. But also on our impressions of them. An idea, a theory or hypothesis is therefore always going to be what we imagine about our observations. We have to assume that all life somehow originates from beyond our imagination. And objectively acknowledge that nature consist of a content based not only on our imagination, but that it also depends on a source outside of it, and it is by imagination we try to access the knowledge about what it is. So our consciousness will always be about how we can cultivate our imagination. How we look at what appears between our impressions and our actions. Because the most important feature of objective reality seems to be that it is imagined. And if you listen carefully, that is what is studied in math. In theoretical physics. In chemistry and biology. In psychology, philosophy and the social sciences. In art litterature and poetry. In law we try to regulate what is acceptable about it. In the medical world how it effects us. We use them to work with and process our imagination.
I like the non personified concept of our consciousness as a derived cosmic property from the substance and records of an akashic field. It blends so well with the experience of the great unknown in traditional beliefs as a causal field of potentiality outside time where consciousness is divided into limited space and endless space. And that we are related there with each other, with nature, and with the cosmos. That it is what contains the constant inflow of information, a derived consciousness individually present throughout space and time as a cosmic experience in everyone of us at the same time everywhere. That it is a lived experience of the imperceptible records of potentiality we re-descend to when life ends. A consciousness which conserves and conveys all information in a unified field of life and existance as a materialized reflection of its reality.
I have always had rituals. Or personal sessions with nature created by nature itself. Which is natures own staged settings for its communication with me. In them, there is a kind of ceremonial for the flow of my connections to the hidden sources of meaning behind the knowledge in my continuous experiences. It is to keep them open when they appear, and to be able to work with them, to cultivate their information. Because of their mingling of my senses I cannot grasp their original or raw content immediatley. So I have this practice of acting as a psychosynthetical vessel for these moments where another kind of clear thought is expressed by nature, and in which my experiences are something like an imagined part of that existence. I try not to separate out any specific disciplines of knowledge from my relation to these moments of emergent meaning, since it is just life as it appears to me. This is something I have wondered about with people around me my entire life. Because most people like to imagine the same things about it over and over, and just follow the current established thought patterns. They are still going through the same primordial rituals though, but without the original connections to its sources. This collective source of consciousness then forces us to separate ourself from how we get to know things, and we lose our personal ability to orient ourselves in reality. To something we know more about from within than from any of our usual introjected convictions or collective beliefs. Rituals are there within us to verify and establish our personal connections to the sources of life. They want us to create personal settings for them. These processes or ceremonies, are what we must have in order to keep them up for as long as we can in order for them to express their intention. It is a dialog we have with our genetic heritage. They are our working knowledge with reality.
For a long time I have observed that what I unconsciously wanted to see of myself has been transmitted to others and that this now constantly reflects my reality in a way that exposes me to myself and makes me feel completely naked. Pulling back those strings also reinforces the psychic space I share with others in a way that makes it feel somewhat unfamiliar and new to me. I am so used to fill it out with myself only, being the only one there who inhabit it, that this space emotionally now reveals to me what I see in others of what should be my own relation to myself. I also cannot help but notice what the true reality of our relations look like in relation to that shared space of psychic life, instead of trying to control or dominate it through other people. I can no longer connect with others in a habitual way as they obviously do not have the same connections as I have to the forces that works in me. They are walking their path of life alone with the forces that act in the space of what they call beingness. Their path is not mine. And what is formulated for me in my space is not theirs. I have yet to find a likeness to mine. I have some clues. But for now, I just have to stop confusing mine with others.
Not everything that happens in our consciousness is personal. Some of what is shown to us evidently comes as personal instructions. But there are also instructions given to us as human beings. There is a voice given to us, unique to everyone. By not recognising it within ourselves, we come to lack the opportunity to confirm it in others. This creates a vicious circle of abuse where we try to dominate and control other people. It hides us from each other and the daily mystery of a personal life together on a psychic scale. Just as “Mother” nature gives us our deepest personal experience of being, she is also a shared experience. Everyone have this sense of her presence in a beautiful sunset. And the laws of her shared power and energy is in us all when our bodies are involved in the experiences given by her. With our bodies we are her. We are that nature. She embodies the physical and moral laws of being there, in that place between our impressions and our actions and in a sense of real presence in the world. Which is between this mentor, his incursions and the acceptance of her in our lives. Their union also gives birth to an impulsive, personally experienced, strong willed daughter of nature with powerful instincts and moral values. But still, most people believe that they alone are everything displayed in their consciousness, and since they have never learned to listen to the source’s beyond it, they must fill in the void that arises with new content from the collective consciousness continuously. This will create an eerie sense of absence and is what is constantly transmitted from generation to generation by our fathers. We learn from them how to handle this as mere distractions, and what we should accept in ourselves. How to adapt to their collective consciousness. It is also the reason why being can be seen as something deeply painful and scary. Something we must expel from our experiences because it frightens them. Here is a big difference with traditional thinking and the ”modern” mind. Because instructions that are experienced in a personal way are respected as such traditionally. They are respected as something that must be thought of and handled personally, alone. The general instructions that occur are given to people as a whole. They are not treated as something that can be bought or sold as a commodity. Or held on to, except as part of the constant renewal of the accumulated knowledge of psychic experiences common to all. They are not intended to be kept away from others since they come from a source shared by everyone in our beingness. So the laws of nature that we experience from within do not just seem to lead us in a personal way, but at the same time, it seems that nature uses our consciousness as a canvas for our impressions, and for our creative ability to formulate both a shared, and a unique experience of the world. To me in that sense, science and psychology share the same source. But from different perspectives. One from within and one from without. But it is all the same.
The difference between christian-ism and a more down to earth relation to our nature is the alphabetism of christianity. It talks about “another world”. But that world, the same as with the nature of this world, can really take care of itself without that. It doesn’t have to be regulated in words. It is a personal relation to experience in any world, and in that sense it doesn’t have to be manipulated in any individual or preconcieved way by “religion”. You have an experience and a communion with nature. With the essence of reality. Something that permeates all creation. It is something we are exposed to all the time. One just have to go outside and listen to it.
The attitude of the collective consciousness that we, our politicians and our media must face in our actions is that we try to provide people around us with something different from what they already have within themselves. It is not up to us or anyone else to replace what has already been in people since the beginning of humanity with something else. There is already something to develop there that we are trying to understand the importance of, as this constantly tells us something about ourselves and our lives. The real problem is that people do not take this internal relationship and what it communicates seriously. I am talking about reflection as a cosmic property in its own right. Not only in relation to consciousness but also as something from beyond consciousness. Something we commonly identify as opinions and then confuse with reflection. Reflection is an act of awareness, a listening to the personal teachings that is using our life, and everything that occurs or happens in it as a means of giving instructions. This is a solitary thing. Something between me, my interiority, and my life. So no one should in any way interfere or meddle with the inner experience of someone else’s relation to the greater perspective of personality that comes to us from between our impulses and our actions. With our communion to the personal unseen. And since this relationship is deeply personal, and only exists for that person when he is exposed to the powers of his existence through reflection, no one should try to force himself to come in between this and him or her. If we do, our inner life will only become a contradiction in terms. This is a personal thing not be formulated in creeds, or forced upon anyone who is, or is trying to get in touch with the interior relations of his life. Its good though to have someone close who really knows whats going on. Because from time to time it is extremely demanding to confront it. Not least to keep our “opinions” to ourselves.
Not too many people around me really know what it is like to live within a close relation to the beingness of the great grandmother being who is the mother of all our mothers, or with the original relationship to the primordial reflective intelligence of all our grandfathers father. They constantly appear in the empirical world and act in it. The entire visible world is an emanation out of their non-empirical psychic background. It is in their domain of reality that our consciousness becomes a cosmic property. I think this experience can be described as how we feel after we have been initiated.
Damn you all for what this uniformity in our collective consciousness’s way of looking at existence downgrades my personal interaction with myself. This is what makes me feel cramped, forced and unpleasant. It is what creates a high tension and an forced temperament in me. But really, you have to forgive me for that, I’m just doing everything i can, trying to defend my inner voice from being completely deprived of its own living reality inside of me. I am just not you, and I never will be.
I must admit that I don’t have much appreciation for academical psychology. For me, neuropsychology that deals with the physicality of the human mind has a greater merit to me than the current statistical and historical approach of academic research. But none of them are really taking into account the immediate personal experience of our human reality here and now. All life, in every moment, is really my impressions of that experience. And since everything around it unwittingly tries to make it a collective one, exclusively focused only on the consciousness of the collective individuality in past tense, my nature in the form of my beingness have resisted the temptation of such an unbalanced one-sidedness. It is in the collective consciousness that we store all the imagination our psyche transforms into culture and science. And of course, I realize that this one-sided focus on the collective consciousness that affects the view of how we try to understand ourselves is quite natural because we, as individuals are all part of the knowledge stored in it. After all, it is what becomes our personal relation to cultural life within our lifetime. But it does not take into account the presences of the existential information we get out of a variety of different internal events and its forces that has accumulated within our minds over a longer timespan than a single generation. Which is what intervenes in our personal reality outside of the views of the collective consciousness and of the academic world. It is against this one-sidedness my nature resists.
Strange things begin to emerge in a society if we idolize the collective consciousness in the form of a person, a movement or an ideal, and then create doctrins or symbols out of it. We will then submit to this person, or the “cause” of a movement, and then ignore the impressions and impulses that do not fit into the now idealized narrower form of what the content of our collective consciousness really is. We abandon our natural instinct to make personal reflections of our experiences, and end up in a rational jumble of academical contradictions. Our access to moral considerations based on what life is, becomes second to making assumptions about perceptions of what it should be like. True reality loses its contact with direct experience and we become stifled with theoretical ”issues”. We then hide most of our connections to the collective consciousness in these types of relationships to emphasize our need to control others. This is a distorted and sadistic picture of the relationship we have with the original psychic energy in all our forms of fathers. I think much of the abuse of people’s trust we see in all leadership around us, from the personal to the collective, originates from this. It is this idolizing identification that enables us to create our dictators, our despots, and the grandiosity we sense in our ”knowledgable” tyrants. All these suddenly appearing movements in media, or political causes also emerges out of this. We leave it to these ”happenings” to decide something that must grow out of our individual relationship to ourselves. Because in the end, we are all alone in our individual reflections of the collective consciousness that will shape the minds of our future.
Yesterday I took a hike and went into the forest surrounding the place where I live. I do this on a regular basis. Usually I have a deep sense of being in a physical symbiosis with nature when I am out on these walkabouts of solitude. But this time, I felt distressed. I had a hard time relaxing. To find the frequency that gives me a clear sense of place. So I started to do what I always do. To listen. This uneasiness was really causing me a discomfort, not in anyway related to where I was. And it dawned on me. This was the part of me that I used to connect to for getting things done. A kind of heroic focusing on achievement. It had nothing to do with my present beingness. My hiking trip. This part of me was more of an “old” part. Not something that I connect to and use today. It was this heroic feeling of making a cause out of an impression that consumes you when you are young. Something one projects into someone or something else when you where in need of its energy to focus on what you where doing, and bring that to its completion. But now it was really causing me a great discomfort, and stressed me up. I really felt bad. But I started to listen in on what it was doing, and I calmed down a bit. It was definetely something I brought with me. It was like a “person” that was forced on to me from the outside, and it linked me up with this energy within me which I was very familiar with from my past. But now it was just causing me a lot of distress. I really felt that I had to defend myself from its intrusion. And since I brought it with me, i concluded it must have been triggered by something beyond me. So by having a kind of dialog with it, I began to understand his intentions. He was trying to turn my hike into an “achievement”, a cause. As he always did with everything when I was younger. But in my current situation, I had no need for that. So, why did he appear to me at this moment? The answer emerged into my mind. When I am not in my “being” spending time on my own, with myself in close relation to nature. I am connected to this collective individuality. And that individuality comes from the mind of my relation to the collective consciousness in part transferred over to me by my father, and by other men. It is what I identified to and related to about him. It was his relation to his collective individuality that I was relating to now in the woods. It was his introjected aspects of a collective consciousness and its behavioural patterns that was projected on me, which I brought with me into the woods. And now this ”personality” of the collective was badgering me, it wanted to push me forward. To make me heroic and turn my beingness into a deed, and my impressions into an action of achievement. But here I was, alone in the woods. There was no need of any such thing. I started to calm down and come to, relating to where i was, and resettle myself in my being. I realised that this was something I have carried around inside for a very long time. It was making me feel cornered, frustrated and tempered in a lot of situations. It was an act, something I was suppose to be with others, outside of my being. This, I could not submit to. It is not what I am, and certainly not what I should be out here in the woods. This collective consciousness of our parents that we learn to relate to as our psychosynthetical or psychological “fathers”, do not create a solid relation for us to distinguish our impressions from our actions today. Many of us has lost the ancestral relation to that kind of mindset. We do not learn from old people by example how to find distinctions within ourselves, to personal relations of that kind on our own, to this form of solitude, and to the individual beingness we learn by our mothers connected to earth. Instead their needs to conform will turn us into collective beings outside of our own reality without a genuine physical relation to nature. We end up in a lifelong extension to their conformity, and in a personal emptiness of eternal achievements leading us nowhere. Just to show what we are good for. We act on every impression, on every idea. And while we turn them into words, we also turn them into “things”. But out here in the woods, there is nothing of that, there is only the knowledge of reflection created between the impression and the act. And everything instead turns into an “act” of listening. What I really learned out here in the forest today was, from where our mental stress today actually originates.
The way I currently understand public opinion is what I think Freuds super-ego refer to, and also what Emilé Durkheim meant with a collective consciousness. Together, they both correspond to how I visualize what the overall beliefs and morals of the “general public” are. Which I think is the source and creator of the mindset of the collective individual, and his or hers projected narcissism. It is the loss of ourselves as a transferred adaptation to society through the collective consciousness of our parents. Which in turn restricts us to a collective agreement on what kind of spontaneous imagination we allow ourselves to have. This creates an attitude that completely obstructs us from an access to the reality of our being, and without this, there can be no moral. Because there is no being, no shared body of nature for us to experience, and certainly no shared immediacy of our own nature to the spontaneous acts of our world that make us related to all life in a psycho synthetical way. My consciousness gets split into two halfs. One with this collective consciousness which i have always wondered about. How do I relate to that “content”? The other part is our shared nature where the reality of my being are. But our crowd-mentality of today is not set-up to include that, and our collective individuality do not provide us with any space for our nature to come into being, to emerge into beingness. So there is no way for people to become humans. While there is nothing of this kind today in our collective consciousness that can act as a container for the space we need to be able to relate back to, to the intensity of our living nature, we just let our frustration mix itself up with others over this loss, and then we tear each other and the world apart.
Most leading officials in our governments today acts as martyrs and avoids responding as humans to questions about the actual reality of the people they are ment to serve. They pretend to suffer from their cause, and then beg people to vote for them, to end their sufferings, just so they can legitimize their underlying projected narcissism. Like them we think we have to formalise our relations, and disconnect from our beingness. This is what happens when we, like them, are too committed to a cause, forgetting about the true nature of our being in relation to our imagination and the outside world.
To experience something other in oneself is more to me than just a personal involvement in a force that we have avoided in our contemporary limitations of established and accepted personal functionality. There’s much more beyond that. Any individuality, mine in particular, in itself always questions the dominant attitude of a society’s relation to place. Because we are so accustomed to pairing personal growth with a constant piling up of known facts, and its thinking on how to defend this chosen stack of what we know from what we may have missed, that we have forgot how to participate in the interiority of human experience. We blaime others for what we have missed. For being foreign to us, having an imagination or a mindset outside of our own. I agree to that we differ from each other in what we imagine, but not in what their underlying processes are. If that were the case it would not be possible to share anything with anyone else. Thats why we are so connected to everything. And thats why our nature is so deeply connected to place.
The I-ness of the world separates us from the reality of beingness. Of our relations to it. Since the content of consciousness formulates our “wordview”, it becomes confused with distance. But consciousness is a space which can only be expressed in symbolic order and form. Today it is primarily used as our inner I-ness of a collective identity, we identify it with our “model” child within, and its projected narcissism. In this way we only learn to confirm what is, to name “things” and tear ourselves apart in a madness of antinomies. We grow up to “think”, and create spatial orders of things. But we exclude the order of our interior experiences of the world which can only be expressed by our imagination outside of time. Our world is an imagined place, and we refer to it with a narrative which directly relates us to being. Consciousness is expressing itself in this narrative, in the symbolic content of its own order. It is not created by our superficial I-ness. Consciousness relates to our knowledge of beingness, apart from I-ness and its existence. Being, runs as a resonance in the personal relationship we have of space-time, and its timeless origin that constantly flows into our consciousness, thus creating this direct knowledge of an appearence in all “things”. It is individual existence in itself. In the past, present and future. It is also the explanation of existence. It is our connection to the “between”. To our reality, physicalized and grounded in the streams of raw nature, and in the actual moment of an existence in beingness as place. By this I-ness, we obscure the personal experience of “knowledge”, and turn everyone into an alphabetic structure of history where we are separated from our internal experience. From here and now, and the order of forms created by an energy that is transmitted into consciousness, where it is always held in symbolic integration to the visible world. A world which is shared by all beings, but not by the isolation I-ness creates of itself in consciousness. It is an invasive I-world mostly determined by someone elses structures. This view kind of dissolves the sharp boundary rationality maintains between what we refer to as nature and as culture. But I see nature as unlimited in its manifestation, as containing mentors and guides, in all its forms of energi.
If we deny ourselves contact with our own nature’s undeveloped, and unfiltered expectations, as they first appear in us and become separated from us in the form of our projected non-reflecting narcissism, which we unsuspectingly place on the world. How can we blame others for their ignorance in doing the same? For their inability to face the reality of that “child” that we cannot face within our own being.
Is this not how we end up in an endless chain of frustration where we blame each other and our society, and were we just get lost in our collective individualism and leave it to the world to suffer from our ignorance.
Is it ever our own responsibility to really deal with this?
Our present world is dependent on how we relate to its “imaginary” expectations. Because it is our own abandoned voice that we hear when we listen to people like John Trudell and Greta Thunberg.
So when we come to choose who will lead us, that choice will then determine how we want to shape our contemporary societies. In what collective surrounding we want to place the expectations of our interior “child”, or being. People in the West suffer greatly from a shortage of an awareness of this exprience in its leadership. Our leaders are still trying to produce this imaginary “child” through words. By a thinking that our impressions and actions are the same. And more and more people have begun to turn against this lack of facing true reality. They have become reluctant to place themselves in the hands of words and ideas instead of actual community service. Anyway, whatever the the choices ahead that are made on the road by us when guiding this “child” as individuals, I’m not too optimistic about where we’re actually going, because most people seems completely oblivious to this.
I believe that psychosynthesis must be the perfect contemporary term for religion today. I mean, it just fits in perfectly. And I mean it just as an application of a unifying concept to the content of the intense and self-organizing experiences we have that goes beyond our one-sidedness to exclusively define ourselves as individuals based on how we value ourselves in our physical context.
It almost transforms itself into a definition of spirituality, which is why it makes it such a good and useful choice to begin with for this purpose.
Every person essentially exists eternally in a timeless realm between two worlds. This eternal part existed there before the life of the individual begun, and continues to exist when the physical life of the individual ends. It is the being of us that is part of the flow of life itself, and it is this part we share with all life. In this way we become connected to everything. It is what we are made of. Thats why people with an indigenous or traditional background have such a respect for life. They constantly acknowledge and share this middle realm in the present physical world. They know we are all part of it. That we live in a world which essence makes everything primarily “interiority related”, and that this has its own inherent context. In this sense, everything we can really say about this experience is expressed by our imagination. And the way we choose to depict it is how we try to make it human to enter life and come into being. This is how we try to find our relation to the “soul” of the world.
I am brought up with a belief that our innermost nature and our true being appears as forms, and that these forms appear as physical structures of thoughtlike concepts in our mind, not as things that separate us from them, but as forms of energy that we are a part of as much as they are part of us. These animated forms are not words, like I am not a word. They are the living reality beyond words. Words do not create our experiences. They turn them into things. By words we think we create the world anew, but the world was already there, right in front of us, and it is still going to be right there regardless of the words and ideas we use to separate us from our experiences of it. It is what we are. With words we transform the world and ourselves into different kind of ”things”. To objects instead of beings. This is what characterizes the view we have of our nature, and of people in our society today. Christianity has caused great harm with this. Not just to people in the north by introducing this “wordview” as a replacement for what already existed there. It is one of the reasons that people suffer from the sickness of alphabetism, and the belief that we may force ourselves into an existence by words instead of our sharing of beingness.
My stepdaughter’s four-year-old is used by the oldest boys at preschool to express what they have to suppress in the child they now grow up from. This is quite ”normal”. They are playing with what they experience as unacceptable behavior in their family/community through him. Making him act out or say things that they have learned to surpress because it has nowhere else to go, and he is among the youngest and is still credulous. He has not yet developed a mental container for his inner processes. And the older boys are trying to separate out what they can’t retain in themselves. In this way he will learn that the world is at least partially evil and can be deceptive as he grows up. I think this is also how we create our ”blaimers” or scapegoats. Our family conditions will play a decisive role in what path he, and of course, all of us takes from there. If he identifies with the role they give him, he will only see his value in what the family/community finds unacceptable. Or he may choose to use others for what he does not accept in himself as the other boys do and thus completely submit to the moral norm of the family/society to become like them, and then blame others for what he had to surpress in himself for psychic balance. Starting this eternal cycle of abuse all over again where the connection to the continuous developement of interiority gets lost. I consider it especially fortunate if he chooses a third path. That he retains the belief in how he expresses himself, not through someone else, and not to fulfill someone else’s need for him to carry what they regard as unacceptable. But by having a sense of trust in what he is, and really feel secure in how he transform his nature into culture, regardless of the moral norms it adheres to.
The lost space we have within is most clearly visible today in our expectations of individual athletes and competing teams. It is also the driving force behind our politicians and their followers. Our repressed and affective child, or being, which we are a duplicate of, acts on our behalf as if the athlete does what he do for him, not because of an appreciation of what the athlete actually do for his own sake. All teams’ support culture is based on this child’s expectations of the team in the same way as if the team is competing for them. This is the case in politics as well. This child have expectations on how politicians compete with their convictions. But beyond the party line’s ideology they are all actually just officials in a position they have temporarily been assigned to, to lead important community services. They are there for everyone else. Regardless of what personal ideology or beliefs thay have. Journalism highlights this very clearly. But unattended, this child will make us think that our impressions and actions are the same. That other people or “beings” do not exist. Just our expectations of them.
I have always had a relation to a kind of source in a middleness as a part of a relation to infinity. A space that existed before everything. It’s like an interior non-empirical realm that doesn’t consist of material things, but of forms from which everything then emerges. Its like a part of us is the offspring of a separation between that unfolding space and nature itself. A beingness where our model or preformed original individuality appears. Creating this expanse together with a true relation to nature, and to earth itself whose forms appear as physical structures of thoughtlike concepts in our mind. Its like experiencing the living reality behind imagined creation as the vertical experience of the flow of life in an opening to the universal depth in its perceptivity of influence and inspiration. A kind of beginning caused by the union of a psychological space that all things are made of, and the very substance of which every psyche is in its material form, in Mother earth. In relation to them there is this personal being. Our duplicate who lives in the world of the middle as a child, and it is tied to every person in a kind of fate. But the influence of this expanse and ”our” relation to earth cling onto one another in an eternal embrace, leaving no space for our individuality, for any light and air of the world to get through. Consequently, this interior twin, this child, is trapped in their eternity. Fighting for air and for beingness. This is the empirical world as an emanation out of potentiality. These forms of energy are very real, even though they are not immediately visible to us, but they have the potential to appear in the world and act in it. Ask anyone in love. Or anyone who is opposed to something. It is the interior world of our imagination which transforms itself into culture by our actions.
Listening to the quarrels in the current collective space of projected narcissism, and to the politics of a lost cultural memory, which is the reality as it is conveyed by today’s journalism. Is to listen to how we add our personal problems to our shared space and then merge that with our collective individuality. By further adding to this mixed up complexity, we blend the unprocessed reality of our interior space from which we are cut off, with other people’s personal problems and lost sense of having that beingness. We then try to recruit others to a cause where there is already too much of a “cause”, and hide our loss of being a person in our own right in social issues where we then constantly try to recruit more and more people into our own sense of isolation, and then spread this madness around us in our sufferings and lack of genuine relationships with others on a personal level. No one really asks the important question; How do we bring our personal values as individuals into our social sphere, instead of constantly trying to create the fear that this space will become violated by us and others, acting as recruiters to some cause, where we just isolate and distance each other further from the reality and experience of our own true nature. Which is the flow of psychic life that lives in everything, and all things are made of.
We have these presences which formulate our energy when they accumulate over time. They transform our experiences of individual consciousness into a living existential confirmation of cultural imagination when they emerges and come into being to embody this nearby realm from which all beings originate and visit us. They are our forgotten ancestors beyond what our thoughts want to accept about the interior reality of this world. We are standing on the edge of our collectives lost memory, but we still carry its traditions like a second identity, or angry twin, showing us a direct connection to these forms of life and a world of nature. On a personal level, they are most often manifested when our creative impulses are compulsively transformed into facts, or into a policy that we materialize by turning them into impregnable ideas, which are accompanied by the raw instincts of our nature that we ignore. This is the reason there is a constant revolt inside all modern societies. It is this petrified human view that will also ultimately always leads to its collapse. I think it is about individual mental hygiene. This angry and frustrated twin is the one who is telling us if we are losing contact with our true nature. If we do not respect the processes of transforming imagination to culture wherever it occurs. Because he is the offspring of mother earth, and without a relationship to her, he will roam around in the wild without any close contact to real human relationships. No wonder he goes crazy and doesn’t trust people.
When it is incomprehensible that the transforming of imagination to culture is natures vertical system of the world, or interior pillar, that we are not restricted to the one-dimensional horizontal world we are custom to, and that a vertical cosmological image of an axis involves a conception of a break in the homogeneity of the world as an opening of a passage between different states of our psychic life. We loose the representation of what makes certain places special to us. We loose our connection to life and to earth as we enter it from a world within in adolescence. With this axis, we transform our world. This is expressed by the communication we have with it. Because it forms an important link to our reality. Today this image contains a view understood only as hierarchies in collective individualism. But hierarchies are distorted projections of this image as a center of our world which connects people both to the above and to the world below by reflection. We live and travel up and down on this axis, and we find people along its entire stretch. This is our opening to transcendence and to a vertical world of a naturally maturing consciousness. But as long as we see this system of the world not as a dimension of having access to a psychic realm beyond projected narcisissm or collective individuality, but as something material in the sense of socio-political or philosophical ideas forced on people around us, we will not have this kind of communication with ourselves. Because behind all our different combinations of hierarchies is this experience of a center, a world that lies around an internal axis that we climb up and down together. This vertical climb does not depend on any combination of collective identities such as gender, race, social class, profession, nationality or religion.
There is a fundamental and underlying similarity throughout life that organizes and integrates our experiences. It is also so consistent over time and space, and creates such an identification to my person that it gives rise to a specific sense of relation to being in its procedural form of reflective experience. I perceive it as the great animating force of unity, of “an interior type of constant renewal”, that dissolves the boundary between nature and culture in a way that makes us understand humanity and nature as one. It is this notion of a cumulative, practical and subjective experience of the environment, and the collective experience of the relationships that we as humans enter into, where we become participants in nature’s own emerging process of reflective self-awareness and continuous rebirths in the cycles of life.
In the movie “The Wind (2018)” we get to follow how we face our interior life in the shape of a woman. Like her, it is done with a disconnected collectives mindset, stuck on the prairie without a living communion to the environment. So that place becomes forbidding and it will be perceived as something wild and hostile that must be cultivated. That’s why it turns violent on her when it is being neglected for trying to relate her back to its origin through her. In this way, the woman comes into conflict with her own interior in the form of a vision of a ghostly priest when she tries to force her collective individuality to the land during her attempts to apply a relation to nature, outside of nature’s own inherent moral conditions. But her true nature is much closer to the earth and wants to use her connection to reality as a means of reinterpretation, and to create a new perspective on their relationship. But her principles of life seems to be in contradiction to the personal nature of her unprocessed mind and religious views. She fails to establish a relation to the flow of her imagination, and to her life as an ongoing individual process connected with earth and to a reflection on her relation its imagery. As with people of today, this is driving her out of her mind. She get lost in herself, and in the end, she becomes a victim of her inner world, and her own nature as it tries to be recognized even without her commitment. To sum up, this is a frighteningly realistic movie on what is happening to us in the world today. As individuals we get lost on the prairie. Our inner house is constantly assaulted by forces out of our control. We try to keep them away with a compulsively rational attitude. With ideas about what it is that haunts us. But no ideas can prepare us for this reality since our ideas are that reality. They emerge out of it. Also, we can visualise this movie as an image of a collective, as the raw unprocessed nature of what may be behind the attitude of the west and the impression we get from modern United States. And looking at it from yet another perspective, if we don’t listen to that continuous voice we have of mother earth, to being, we will get lost in it. Her dreams in our interiors will become confusing and incomprehensible. The relationship we have with our living environment will turn itself into a nightmare.
In a way I imagine that people are coming from a living “subterranean” depth of psychic origin. Its like we are beings in an energy field of potentiality in which we are undifferentiated from every other form of life. To experience this we have to go to the regions ”under” the world, and transform our physicality. It is after we have emerged from this potentiality that we distinguish our place of origin from anatomy and physical appearance although it is still present in us. But still, we are constantly growing and developing this reality through our birth and by the relationships we have with other people, and in this way we are also continuing this extended world by constantly processing it in our contemporary relationships. I think it is out of this we experience our identity, and it is as much procedural as it is relational.
We all need calories and carbohydrates along with a variety of nutrients and minerals of this earth to live. These nutrients are energy. We are made of this earth and we need elements of earth that contains its potency. It is this energy that flows through all life. We get this energy through animals and plants when it is transmitted to us by ingesting it as food. In this way, all life is a sacrament and we pass it on by transforming this energy as our mental conceptions into social reality. The meaning of this is that we have the ability to become persons who know the difference between the interiority and the physicality of the world. And without an interior relation to earth there can be no morals. We have no integrated experience of space and time, and of this energy as a unifying life force behind the emergent structures of culture and society. Of nature and our environment. This energy constitutes the ever-unfolding process of reality and it insists on a space of relations based on its own conditions.
We all live in this basic underlying continuum of ontological similarities that organize and integrate experience. It is so consistent over space and time that it actually extends beyond what can possible be described by any singular timespan alone. All life emanates from this active principle. It is what I always associate with intentionality, the endless return of all there is, of creation, of creativity, and of the interiority of all forms of life. For me, this is the ever unfolding process of reality.
I have spent most of my time since my late twenties trying to deal with what was then the emergence of new forces that came to the surface from within, and to adapt them to my life. At that time I also had to become them. It’s been a while, and I’ve been trying to find out what form they have by formulating them, trying to make them human, following their purpose to find out what this means to me and listen to what they have to say. This was something that came naturally to me because at that point in my life I felt that I had to take back my projected identity and retrieve it from the group or collective mind to integrate it with my own true nature. My old forms and their expressions have since decreased in strength. The energy they had conveyed was no longer there, and their old purpose was no longer serving me in my life. The new energies that appeared to me at that time are still here, but in a larger sense as subjects in a we-field, and I am more there with them than they are here in me. I’m still trying to bring them into my life. They talk, I listen and wait. Above all, I wait all the time. Since I always have to compare my impressions with them, let them articulate me and hope that their origins, which I share with other people, also link me to my own.
We have experienced the colonization of psychic reality and its resulting disregard for the societal systems, its beliefs, and support structures, fundamental for us in processing the experience of nature as representatives of an inner realm we have elaborated to culture for generations. This was something central to the well-being of people and communities. But our cultural body of today no longer supports the reality of this connection. This intrusion into the human world of morals and society have wreaked havoc in people an created an illness that manifests itself between the agencies of our shared nature, behind the scenes of the visible world, and the definition of ourselves as members of a greater community. People no longer know how to contain or express the activity of their own invading nature. And the societies of today cannot maintain that integrity, so people feel separated from their communities by the intensity of felt inner experience and turn against its lack of facing true reality. This is what every upheaval of a modern society is really about. Its about our projected narcissism and its one-sided collective individualism. And speaking collectively, it is the extraverted opposite of the madness in the Middle Ages. What I am trying to say is, we should be very careful with what we add to other people, since the problems of being an individual often stems from the crushing demands of collectivity and its unrelatedness in being cut-off from a genuine connection to the forces of our inner nature. It does not matter how skilful or well thought of a theory about the psyche or diagnosis is if it doesn’t relate to our personal experience of psychic reality.
When solitude becomes compulsive like in an illusory blame, thinking about ourselves as a one-sided, non-related, self-sufficient being, we deny the inner reality of others as well as we deny our own. This seems to happen when people are not aware of what we add to others, not realising what that contains. Most people just become frightened by this sudden experience of fragmentation and turn to group thinking, and some put their beliefs in a special group as a body for this unsettlement. Often characterizing themselves as equally special or chosen by elitism. They don’t see it as projected narcissism. Or as an unrelated collective individualism. All kinds of tragic things then happens when we are not ready to be visited by our raw unprocessed nature that formulates itself through us in the realm of our shared psychic reality.
We fall victim to isolation. And to the individual problems of other people thinking about themselves as singular beings cut off from the reality we share from within. Contrary to this, solitude is about being present in what is behind the world. With or without the shared presence of others.
There is this compulsive force or quality inherent in us. It is as if nature itself wants to re-link our mind to where it came from. To its origins. And if we don’t do it and process our raw nature, or develop our relation to it. It will just continue to use us for its own ends and live itself out in the world without us. We will just tare ourselves, our relations and the world apart.
Wait, isn’t that what we are doing right now?Seeking fullfillment at the expense of others. Displacing our relationship to how we imagine our unworked nature within.
There is an active, intelligent consciousness in the space that is us. We turn it into a common me and our relationships between you and me in an independent interaction. It is like a timeless body of now, everywhere at the same time. It is also a body with a kind of shared participatory power and knowledge outside of the individuality that is common to all of us, and in this way it is also a non-material experience of an immediate space of information that wants to be expressed by itself through us. Here we take the invisible to the visible and materialize our non-material reality. Our senses are part of this space with our impulses, and we cease to exist as a property of mass and become patterns of psychic energy. These patterns, or forms of energy, determine the true nature of our relationships, and we visualize the order of this information as we interact in this shared energy space between us.
We move into it, release our physical energy, show ourselves, and then flow apart, but we can stay in touch and act as if we were one thing, no matter how far apart we are. We are these shared mind-like forms of a potential that finds its reality in us. It both directs and coordinates our flow of life whether we want it or not.
It is as if our choices are being routed and meandering along an internal roadmap.