Kategori: Natur

The word democracy is quite meaningless. Its a word. We denote whatever personal character traits that we like to it. So it has always been about individual psychology, to where individuals put their personal relation to inner authority, the power of their self, when they give it up for someone else. It is precisely here the word democracy is useless because personal authority is confused with external power, and more about people displacing their personal relation to themselves with someone else’s relation to how they want to be related to, and how they want to be acknowledged. That person will then become something of a substitute of individuality in between another person and what that person actually is in himself. History have shown that when people does that to themselves within the institutions of a government, replacing a specific functionality or role with that of a person, adapting to that instead of its official function, the word democracy is what is often used as something to avoid personal responsibility. To hold one’s own person accountable to ourselves, and facing that power of being. Looking at history, whenever that has happened, it has resulted in an authoritarian society. We seem to forget that it is about the psyche of individuals. When it is given up on, when people become unconscious about their own relation to the personal authority of the self, that society looses its soul. It becomes a word. But not only that, it also looses its relation to the transpersonal humanity in its individuals. And when that happens, history will repeat itself. This is what I see behind the rational materialism of our world today.

Psychology is one way that we try to connect to the recognition that we are in a communion with life. We love the inarticulate purity of our communion with the experience of innocense, with the child that we have been, and still are by way of the instincts of our human form within. In this faith of existance in instinctual life, people have always seen the mysterious wisdom given to us from behind life. Psychology is todays recognition of this past traditional attention to the invisible forces that guides us through our instincts, and from which we also come into communion with the beingness behind all creation, and the souls of every creature though not necessarily souls conscious of themselves. In this world we are all an embodied force of this mystery of energy and information.

There will always be people who do not want to meet what they experience between themselves, their person and the human being they are inside. Or confirm that beingness in others. We cannot help them. They will always make others feel bad about themselves because they reject it. And they will always move that conflict around. No one can change that but themselves. But those who are really important are those who are there and those who are still innocently unaware of that presence, and who dares to face the authenticity of their encounter with mankind’s human part within themselves. Who has an ear for his or her’s own part in our relation to it. For what they feel, and what they experience that emerges from this meeting between what they perceive as their own person, and the human within us. We believe that we can protect ourselves from this confrontation by an isolation in thinking and feeling. And defend ourselves by turning the inner conflict we experience with it into a conflict with others. I wonder if we can ever be completely genuine to ourselves in what we feel and experience without our surroundings punishing us for it. Which makes people suffer. Is seems to me that it is not possible to live with only one side of us, with only the person, without the constant dialog we must have with the human being within us, or without sharing it with other people. Am I not just a part of the same endless repetition then, of the same eternal conflict that I blame others for? Our news and our social media broadcast this constant conflict that we carry within us everywhere. And most of us just ignore it and continue to spread this disease further. There is a another invisible pandemic, it is also one where we are all super-spreaders, but it derives from our morbid conflict with ourselves.

So this is what happens when the human being in me talks to my person. As a person, what I recognise as me in this world, is quite insignificant. But that is not the case with what I am as a human. It is only this human being that I also am that is important. Because it’s this human being inside of me that I have to learn to live with. And then it hits me. What do I do? Why do I put others into that conversation? This really calls for an answer. And why does that make me feel bad about myself? I do it because it is primarily with the human being in me I relate to my person, and to other persons. It is not for others to do it for me. That’s just my thing, what I have to do for myself. But it is with that human being in me that I relate to the personal relation others have of the same kind, to theirs. I am approaching any human being in this way through my person. Not just my own. It is that which makes me feel bad about myself being human. I am being collectively hurt and ashamed not as a person, but as a human being.

When I mirror this world I become what it does not want to see about itself. It is not something I want to be. Most often people just provokes the hell out of me to become like that. It is what the absence of beingness creates. But for a long time I have tried to resist that impulse, and I try hard to develop some kind of relationship to it. Because most people make other people feel bad about themselves just because they don’t want to listen to, acknowledge, or live by their own experiences and feelings. They are afraid of their own being through others. This is how the human in me speaks to my person. How we meet, and how I am educated about my self. I am the product of us walking together.

Most people today are so preoccupied with personal ideals, having the right opinions, constantly looking for them and themselves everywhere. Just to replace others with what they want to see of themselves to cover a sense of loss of their human part, and what they have forgotten about beingness. It is like living in a mental ice age. No one wants to see the awful things that come out of it, and from those that live around us in this. Of what is happening in our immediate vicinity. What our senses tells us about our absence of having genuine relationships. We relate to each other with our limitations. Not with what we are, but with how we think we should be. With fear, and with what others might think of what our feelings and experiences are, and not in a real life. Having a sense of authenticity. It’s like being emotionally handicapped in the world. What is the point of being in it if we do not allow ourselves to relate to what it really is instead of what it should be. We are all the children who learned this lesson, and we have learned it by heart, we know it without thinking about it. And we teach our children how to continue to be like this through our own limiting behavior. I truly hate it. It is awful to see and experience up close.

We are the land … that is the fundamental idea embedded in Native American (and all) life. The Earth is the mind of the people as we are the mind of the earth. The land is not really the place (separate from ourselves) where we act out the drama of our isolate destinies. It is not a means of survival, a setting for our affairs … It is rather a part of our being, dynamic, significant, real. It is our self …

It is not a matter of being ‘close to nature’ … The Earth is, in a very real sense, the same as our self (or selves) … That knowledge, though perfect, does not have associated with it the exalted romance of the sentimental ‘nature lovers’, nor does it have, at base, any self-conscious ‘appreciation’ of the land … It is a matter of fact, one known equably from infancy, remembered and honoured at levels of awareness that go beyond consciousness, and that extend long roots into primary levels of mind, language, perception and all the basic aspects of being …

Paula Gunn Allen, Laguna Pueblo

This morning as I was just spacing around, and I stumbled a cross this piece of text that perfectly describes what I needed to hear about being at this particular point in time. It corresponded exactly to where I was right now. Stunning! It seems that there really are no coincidences in life, its more like beingness is always the right place at the right time. Here nature is wonderfully acting as a remote contact to this particular content, and in guidance by the self in the mind of the earth.

I have this alter ego. A kind of second personality I put out there. With him I have a constant discussion with myself. Something I have had my entire life. I use him to relate to my self. To act reciprocally with my world. When I do, i put him in context, and we talk about what it is that he wants to bring up. That which he want me to pay attention to. It is related to what is beyond myself. By contemplating on it, it extends my consciousness and make me more aware of life. Without him, I would just disappear into a world of psyche and be overwhelmed by the flow of the unconscious and the invisible properties that constitutes its presence. Like many old people do when they haven’t attended their relation with him. In sami he is radien-giedde. He is my human form. That which make me human. All living things has one. He is related to our true name. When he leaves, we die and move into the afterlife of his world. A world in which all life have their true form. In sami that is called saivo.

Because of the collectivity of the psyche and the intense pressure that results from the loss of a living connection to our parents’ archetypal images in us, we identify with a transferred collective exponent of ourselves as an external compensation for that unconscious relationship, which we develop and use in all experiences with an authority when we are under the spell of, or influenced by the primordial parental images in us. By not being initiated into inner life, we identify with them through a metaphorical simulation of individuality as we uphold a psychological balance for ourselves through a symbolic compensation of the wholeness we must maintain between the inner world shared by humanity and our personally experienced environment. But by interfering with our archetypal origins by mistaken identity, we confuse our relationship with them even though they are autonomous collective beings in relation to us. This will make us become dependent on a constant recognition of them through our parents, and on what inner contexts that has created. We will be characterized by their relationship, to their archetypal world, and then compulsively live out our own unconscious archetypal experiences. I believe that many of our most common public diseases, social difficulties, and the political turbulence we experience daily in our modern society can be traced back to the fact that we are never initiated into the background of the primeval archetypal image of our parents. With the consequence that we live in a constant symbolic compensation to them.

If we could eliminate the conscious, Jung believed there would be little or no difference between one human being and another in the original unconscious psychical content. He saw in the formulation of the experience of the unconscious, in its interior, the archetypes, his assumption that the fundamental structure of the psyche is uniform.

Traditional peoples, when speaking metaphorically, talks about this as the very first time, before consciousness, and of a not yet embodied conscious mind. As if all there was then, was a vast cosmic amniotic fluid that our preconscious spirits or archetypes emerged from and transformed into a world behind the world. Before this there was no self awareness of any kind. There were no conscious mind around to experience that, except from our psychic ancestors, thought of today as archetypes. But traditionally they were thought of as spiritual patterns of behavior which biology today refers to as something that recurrently underlies all life. Humans forms and animals lived there, but there was no difference between them. A person could become an animal, or a plant, and an animal could become a human being. They all appeared the same and spoke the same tungue. Thats why children and animal infants are believed to have this ability. There were bears, plants, reindeers, trees and birds, but as soon as they turned into each other they were all the same since there was no projection of this unconscious material reflected back from any consciousness in the physical world. It was thought that the first to leave it were the shamans, and that people later learned from them how to reenter this pre-conscious world, and its undifferentiated field of forms were all natural elements each could transform into the other as they changed presence in this bodiless psychic substance. As a potency of the same source. This primordial time was the underlying events of the perceivable world. It was experienced as an endless flow of consciousness of which we are mostly unconscious. Something we still are today. This metaphorical language of traditional peoples was common knowledge to them. Something we are beginning to learn about ourselves again in psychological anthropology. We are beginning to understand the direct experience the creative language needs to be able to describe the transformation of our timeless autonomous flow of consciousness into culture.

I’m like any other man. Picking and choosing of what fits, conforming, being harmless. Detached and isolated in parts of the total impersonality of the consciousness of mankind. Once I was thinking that in those parts I am something else, I am outside of it. That I am not part of the self inflated game of stereotyping and isolation. Thinking that those thoughts that I have made my own are my personal thoughts. Making them a ”thing”. An object of my mind. Which creates this fictitious mindset for myself only. Transforming myself into a non-being. Just to avoid the true weight of the content of my awareness. To stand there. In it. To open myself to it. To what it really is, and adjusting my eyes to its dim light and sometimes total darkness. To its reality. ”To the desert of the real”, contemplating on my emerging metaphorical vision. Which is not an idea. Or a concept. Or my individuality as something that unconsciously goes on repeat with ”ideas”. With an indoctrinated blindness to the autonomous flow of the psychic substance we are made of. Of our lost images and its memories in the shape of a future that only repeats the past. I live in these confused collages of broken self-images outside of my actual living context. The context of beingness. In short, someone else’s unfinished puzzle. Like any other man. It is what I am. I’m in it. I want to be in it. But it not is possible to be there without breaking ”things”. To be different, and to feel socially awkward. It’s part of my re-evolving, and to find out what really happened to me in my second birth, years ago, in my psychic awakening.

The great grandmother being has several characteristics, and our first meeting with her as Sarakka can be very confusing because it is she who relativizes everything and mixes time and space in constant dialogue. She is the shuttling to and fro of opposites, of arguments and affects. She is our self-regulating and constant compensation for all contradictions and inadequacies that we are constantly trying to balance and adapt to. She exists in all the opposites that we constantly experience as an external and internal division of all that is. They are all united in her, the mother of all opposites. When she is not respected, she can drive anyone crazy.

Like Uksakka, she is the inner consciousness, the place as a passage, an identity that arises in conjunction with a place that she has made accessible through our senses. An inward-looking towards stillness and inner concentration. She is the enlightenment and understanding personified. Her path is inner truth, trust and insight. She is an access to were we entered this world, to the place were we where born. To the threshold in our transition from the outer physical place to the inner experience of what it is in itself. She can make us forget to live.

In Juksakka, she is independent and self-sufficient. She makes us emotionally distant, and fills us up with ourselves. We have a sense of being enough in what we are. We do not constantly make ourselves available to others, and we fiercely defend, protect and take care of the integrity of our inner self. She perceives it as a weakness not to be able to take care of our inner being on our own terms. She is the instinctive knowledge and truth of nature and the immediate experience about the knowable. In stark contrast to the affirmed and immovable in consciousness which is just seen as something lifeless, a repetition of what is, what have been, and always will be. Instead of the personal in constant renewal, something that we must always be in. What we are as individuals in our physical and intellectual relationship to nature. She’s also close to the source. Watching over its purity and early innocence. She is the one that keeps us alive because she is both demanding, challenging and protective at the same time. When she is not respected, she becomes terribly cruel, heartless and destructive. In that sense, we will really become absolutely ruthless.

As Radien-akka / maderakka, she is the constant return of everything. Our physical sense of belonging, of truly being part of life. To be a part of, and in everything that is. She is life as a constant recurrence. The moral conditionality and the concern for everything temporary, of beingness just allowed to be what it is. She is the care and concern for everything created and the physical feeling of closeness to it, and its dreadful disappearance. Our feeling of the temporary in an inner timelessness that we also are. She is the enbodiment of Nature as something constantly present, our bodily communion with all life, a sacrament and the incessant renewal of life itself. Without her presence, We do not exist. Nothing could ever exist.

She is all of them, and none. Because she is just one. But we have to live them all.

We victimize people by way of the group. So group guilt means that an innocent person can be held responsible for the moral abuse of his entire group. But isn’t it also the other way around? Isn’t personal guilt what we should hold the group accountable for, as it is what we do as a group when we conform to what it does against the individual?

I was searching for Jungs thought of the self in childhood and came across this text by Joel Taylor Ryce.

”.. Jung was concerned with the relationship between the partial and total personality and envisaged a totality so as to understand the particular from the whole. It is the development of the psychological individual as differentiated from the general and collective psychology. The child, however, does not need to give deep consideration to what is generally accepted. Children tend to take a collective or one-sided view, as an individual standpoint if that involves becoming free from one-sided tendencies through a symbolical solution which would require that its opposites will be given complete equality..”

This is not just about the self in early childhood, but just as much about how it acts as a regulating factor in all people. Even in adults. The Self as that child in all of us. But only recognised as a compulsory regulating conviction, or as symbolic ideals re-establishing personal balance. With the underlying process as the one Jung described above.

He continues: ”An example analogous to this general idea would be how easy it is today to see in society how little people are able to let man’s argument count, although this capacity is fundamentally indispensable to a peaceful national or international community. To the degree that one does not admit the validity of the other person, he denies the ’other’ within himself the right to exist, and vice versa. A symbolical solution to the inner dialogue of conscious and unconscious, which the transcendent function can enable, which is a ”touch stone for outer objectivity”.

A similar insight that Jung formulated has also been formulated in a different way by Native American Lakota people as follows: ”When a person loses his/her 7th Direction(The Self), he/she falls into a pattern in which he/she attempts to separate everything into two opposing extremes (i.e. good vs. evil); thus, creating a fine line between them. Also, this person will try to always agree with one of the extremes. Doing so creates tension and stress, as this person seeks to continuously either try to prove his/her opponent to be incorrect. This person will also try to convert his/her opponent to accept his/her views. If this person cannot convert his/her opponents to accept his/her views, then he/she tries to oppress these opponents. This reveals this person’s need to control others who are different than him/her-self, as well as his/her fear of those who are different than him/her-self. If this opponent chooses to react to this oppressor, this opponent becomes a victim to the oppressor. Soon both the oppressor and victim need each other to exist. This creates an unhealthy cycle of abuse which leads to death and little (if any) soul development, as the thought processes of both the oppressor and the victim become addictive.”

These similarities that, regardless of time and space, for some reason have been revealed to me in my reflections on myself, my grandson and my world just when I need it, actually make me speechless. How can this be??
It’s actually remarkable.

There are no coincidence on this life’s path, we are always in the right place at the right time as we move further and further into it. Whether we are driven by our conditioned adaptation to our parents, or a society we are an inflated and impersonal extension of, or if we are in the presence of the powers of our creative psychic ancestors that direct us and always provide us with the knowledge that we need. We can ignore them, but it will only cause us to constantly defend ourselves against the powers of their influence through others around us. That will make us live in a self-inflicted vulnerability, as we must constantly compensate ourselves externally for what is going on in relation to our interior life. This is what we experience in ourselves and in many of the peoples who lead our governments and companies in the world today. It is also this conflict within ourselves that our rationalistic mindset’s thinking of psychology believe we can medicate away with different types of drugs, or superficial therapies. But they are still going to be there, and act upon us. We experience them whether we acknowledge them or not. It’s just life in emergent search for the patterns of energy it imagines, or dreams, in the psychological walk we call life.

The problem of convictions is self-centered isolation. When our beingness first met the full weight of the collective mind through our parents, and the world, it felt threatened and overwhelmed, so we learned to seek security in convictions by pure self-preservation, and then we isolated our minds from the spontaneous flow of the consciousness of mankind as a totality, as an experience of the content of the collective mind as a whole. Of a consciousness in which we are all a part that connects everything in life. We still seek security in isolation. With ideals. Which is the very opposite of what it tries to achieve. By ideals we actually provoke the very thing we try to protect our selves from. Just look at USA, Russia, China, the constant tension in the middle East or North Korea. Just listen to them. This is what we do to ourselves. What we create from biases. Political or otherwise. We create our own sufferings and we burn down our world at the expense of others who threaten the vulnerability of our ideals that we aggressively protect with our isolation. Ideal’s that are only parts, or small fragments of the whole consciousness of humanity.

The creator energies of our interaction with psychological ancestors, in their bringing all things to life, is what teaches all the people they create how they are related to the animate and inanimate world around them, and to these forces in themselves. No matter which way people go, we step on the earth. In our beingness it is deeply felt that the earth is the primary source of sustenance, revelation, and spiritual energies. These interrelationships are ones of interdependence and inter-responsibility. It is in living in a relationship with them that we ultimately becomes human.

I dress myself
with the Milky Way
To enter
into this world
Looking
at all the forms
that came before me
I can see you
but you cannot see me
Because behind the night sky
of life
we are invisible

The composition of consciousness in its projected form is a fragmented vessel that we merge with the image of our fathers, and with all kinds of different authorities. They will be its first bearers. We conform to them, and idealizes them in parts of consciousness, and we split our consciousness up into these projected parts. Later it matures to the experience of the human consciousness in all its width, and constant renewal. Becoming the content of humans and the ancestral forces that created the world. Not literally but as a living reality. It expresses itself as experiences of image and form. A psychological landscape in its own right. Its like a stream of psychological phenomena in constant movement. Tranforming mind to culture. Traditional ”beliefs” are based on that insight, it connects all things as a resonance in space-time consciousness, and we become the entire humanity. Any woman knows this.

We think that the constant movement of thinking make us progress, evolve, and grow. But our thoughts is not intelligence, it is the movement of past human experiences, of our accumulated knowledge. Of all mankinds content of cultural traditions, and manner of behaving; Economical, political, religious and social behaviours. All the knowledge we have gathered together through the centuries. And all our best and worse behaviors, common characteristics, beliefs, dogmas, and rituals. All this is what put our existence together. It is what make us humans what we are in the world. The experience of this content is what we call consciousness, and it relates us to all humanity. Everyone of us confronted this with our inner selves when we entered life, and we continuosly add to its experience by living with it. Even identifying with fragments of it. Thinking, this is what we must be. Conforming to what a particular environment prefer of it, and reject other things that is also part of it. Even blaming others for a particular content which we don’t want to acknowledge. Consciousness is filled with all of that, and all the kinds of things of thought that has ever appeared in man. Its content is non-local. Because we are the entire humanity, and all that is in it is the movement of thoughts separated as individual thoughts moving around from one thought to another in the consciousness of every man and woman. Thoughts that are shared by all. Belongs to us all, though they must be perceived by an individual. The qualities and character of the content of consciousness is not limited to just one individual. As a collective sum of human thinking, consciousness is only personal in the sense that this movement of our thought also creates time. It is an engine of memories, knowledge and past experiences of man. The sum total of all psychological products of mankind. The stored and accumulated experiences of all that we can access by our thoughts. But they spring from the past. So the source of our thinking is partly dependent on accessing the past. We think that if we act on our thoughts, we create our future. Sadly it isn’t so. We just move our past into another thought, thinking it is the future, and then repeat ourselves. We invent things, have all the gadgets, but it is still the same content we refer to about humanity. The movement of the world, and the individual movement of thought in consciousness are the same. Nothing really change because we do not access, or deal with the present. We use our thinking only, which makes us live in a perpetual past.

Be gone! Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Peterson. All of you alike. Hush away! You missionary leftovers of collective faith. I want to clear my mind of that kind of intelligence. I see my own behavior in you. Stuffed and inflated, victimized and puffed-up in scope and intensity. Compulsively living up to this sense of an all-knowing grandiosity, which was never ours to hold for anyone else. Whoever gave it away, their ideal image of themselves did not belong with us. It lived of of us, fed on us. Its a fake glory of identification with someone elses self image. Their projected self-reflection. It was never ours to carry. Be gone now. And stay gone. I am not interested in carrying what is your victimized imprint on my behalf. Sacrificing my self for what is your conditioned ideal image of your self. In essence, it is an externalized image of a distorted self in the image of another ones authority. A leftover father image blended with our selves without a personally shared relation to the products of psychological phenomena we all participate in. You are just too merged with the contents of the collective. See you around.

I have always felt uncomfortable at compensating for how others define themselves through something other than themselves. Its quite a devastating experience. By implication, it means that I have to share the guilt they feel for doing this, by dressing myself up in their sense of hypocrisy, and in their bad conscience for abandoning themselves, and accepting their sacrifice and try not to become a victim to it myself. This is what seems to be the moral behavior model for the societies we live in today. We force others to take on this sacrificial role by our projected narcissism. To identify with something other than one’s nature within. This is how most people are created to function in life today. In behavioral bondage, constantly looking to be redeemed by others, far away from their true being trying to merge with the consciousness of the collective. It’s never about how I relate it to myself. What is going on in the relationship between me and myself. Instead, we act as projected victims through someone or something else. Where we try to have a relationship between our ego and a substitute sense of our self. In doing so, we force each other into the same sacrifice in order to be seen or heard, particulary so with young people, and we become victims to that projected impersonator of our self, and live it out through others. It is a vicious cycle of psychological childhood.

If I am constantly making moving images of timelessness in my interior life, it is what I call reality, or time. Looking at the movie Captain Fantastic from this perspective, I reckon it takes a snapshot of our time. Like a mirror image of our contemporary beingness it becomes a self portrait of the collectiveness of inner life. The matriarchal relationship to women and to the great mother. It is represented by Viggo Mortensen’s wife as a connection to our beingness that is so deficient and sick that she takes her own life. When she leaves her children and her husband, she leaves them with a close relationship to the great mother from whom we all descend as an aspect of pure nature. But she is now dead and has to be renewed. Viewing our selves through this family, we have to confront her reality and stand up for what she represents. The film is then about the family’s attempt to fulfill her last wish about how she wants to be returned to earth. To her true mother, and the encounters they make with a distorted view of her, and the demands that others have in their compulsively conventional and lost relationship to what she represents. She wanted to leave by being flushed down a toilet, and from that perspective, mother nature has begun to restore our relationship to her, as a psychological consciousness in the sense that we also have to share her within our physical existence, with all life. But that means we have to sacrifice our current attitude. She must first die. Be flushed out. We have to give her back to herself. This is what they fight for in the movie. The right to have a living relationship to her true reality.

We are so used to live out of a technical context of conceptual thinking that we spare ourselves the direct encounter with raw experiental invisible facts from within. And because we are not familiar with being presented to invisible facts, we are alien to them, and disconnected from our psychic consciousness. We should really try be to become familiar with these facts.

Strange things start to happen when I unknowingly transfer my ”ideal” undiluted inner form of myself on to something else. This mixed identity will at the same time reduce my individuality and my self-awareness in relation to my now externalized preconscious ideal Nature. This will create an artificial ideal personality for me which I then force on to others, an ideal personality that constantly try to prove others wrong in opposition to it and then reject everything that cannot live up to it. It works to compensate for the decrease in value it experience in that projected relationship, both outwards and inwards, if it cannot convert others to the ideals that personality have created for itself. Either I go too far in it identifying myself with an ideal self in a kind of super ego, or I will diminish my I-ness to the same degree in my relation to were I place its unadulterated being. Both parties will be devalued in one way or another. Because it is in this living duality that I am constantly an external reflection of an inner fact. I experience this as a dualism, a relationship of opposites. That’s how I make others suffer what is happening in my own compensatory relationship to those timeless ideals I relate to as the values of my pre-existing form of pure Nature, or my self, with my personal I-ness of being. It is something that does not belong out there. It has to be handled by me, alone. Its not for the world to carry it around for me.

At some point in our lives, because of having a physical existence, we are forced to distance ourselves from our ideal state, from our original pre-existential form of identity, which, not burdened by a developed self-consciousness suddenly materializes itself in an unfavorable world where it then becomes distorted due to the adaptation to the internal shortcomings it compensates for in our parents, and the cultural environment it is exposed to. On account of the necessities of external conformity, we unknowingly create timeless ideals for our selves based on its primeval existence behind consciousness, and out of convenience we shape it to control the onslaught of our inner life, our original shame, and the sufferings that it had to endure for being what it is. We then dress ourselves in its ideal dream state and transform it into a conventional slumber. It then becomes a strictly conditioned personal ideal, and we tribalize it with biases. But there is always an existential confrontation that questions its limited life and its beliefs. The wound is there. And we find it in our views of others. In how we relate to the world.

Most of us are beings living the psychological residue left by past behaviors. But this conventional state is not the pinnacle of our psychological consciousness. In fact, the conventional way of being and state of mind are considered as suboptimal by most of us, we look at it as inauthentic. Yet here we are. It is more than obvious to me, that we cannot live on our intellectual capacity alone, just look at what our lack of moral and emotional development leave behind.

This humble sacrifice to our Nature that we share with all life, this power that we try to influence in our daily lives through an unconscious subservience to its constant presence, and the profound impact it has on us in our attempts to maintain an outer and inner balance in our lives, in that sense, our indigenous peoples are far ahead of our modern view of inner and outer health in relation to what it is that ultimately determines the relation we have to our human existence. They know that we must sacrifice something for the gifts given in our enchantment of their knowledge, and that we must also let them leave us to return back to their original interpersonal source. Otherwise we run the risk that these forces will tear us to pieces.

Our psychic consciousness is no longer acknowledged in relation to the powers that constitute our timeless inner flow of universal human experience. We try to influence them to get them to assist us. But not by sacrificing anything of ourselves in a living relationship to our experience of them, only by trying to control everything and everyone in it. In fact, we can only approach them by acknowledging our dependence on the absolute influence these forces have over us. It is in their field of energy that we can create a relationship with the powers at work in us, in our psychic consciousness and the constant impact it has on us.
The mountains have always possessed this kind of knowledge.

We always carry with us an inner attachment to the place we come from, or we try to create something that should resemble it in order to maintain our contact with the underlying origin from which we arrived to this world. Here we find why many are drawn to nature, to solitude. Or to the spending of time outdoors hiking, in self-consciousness. I think this is a calling from our inner psychic origin to our being and to our psychological rebirth. It brings to us our ideal inner presence and to an encounter with its preconscious existence. To life in its essence. Both within and without.

James G Cowan describes it in this wonderful way when it comes to Aboriginal people in Australia.
”A mans(or womans) Dreaming is all that a man(or woman) owns. It is a metaphysical possession linked to the place where he was concieved. In a sense, it is a concept of origin which a man possesses from the moment he is born. No one can dispossess him of his Dreaming, nor can anyone paint it without his permission. Such a dreaming is ritually revealed to a man during an initiation. Prior to this he owns his dreaming unconsciously, without being privy to its esoteric significance. But once these have been revealed to him he is entitled to express his dreaming only at prescribed times. Thus his true identity is made up of a combination of his totem and his country which are all derived from his place of conception. It is not possible to detach these from the man(or woman). Without this, it inevitably results in a decline of (our)Nature to renew itself.”

A week ago, I stayed longer than usual in the state between dream and full wakefulness. This time it had a special meaning because what I dreamed and what I was in the waking state was consistent and emphasized both sides of the same experience. As I floated over to my waking state, my attention remained unchanged and only transfered from participating in the dream as an observer to ”thinking” in it actively in my wakefulness. The content of the dream was the same and only shifted to my usual inner reflection of what appears by itself from somewhere beyond me. This made it very clear to me that the flow that we are a constant part of and originate from is the same thing regardless of my waking relationship to it. Whether I’m awake or not, and regardless of my ”awake” opinion about it, or what I think or feel about it, I’m still a part of it. It is from here that we enter life. This was the purpose of the dream. And that ”dreaming” intervenes in my life whether I am asleep or awake. I am there as an active participant whether I acknowledge this relationship or not. This is what I’ve lived with all my life. Perhaps this in a different context could have had a different meaning. But now this ”dream” came after I for a while had doubts about the importance of the flow of life for me due to our culture’s strictly one-sided reliance on how we should relate to the waking side. Also, a week or so later, I opened a book I have had for a while that I have not yet read and I encountered this text.

”A man is both himself in one sense, but he is also ’another’ in the sense that he participates in an earlier, transitionary form of existence. His totem, whatever that it may be, becomes a mirror in which he can see reflected back at him his ideal form prior to its manifestation as himself. This means that embedded in the idea of totemic identity is the primordial encounter with the unmanifest Principle and the realm of manifestation in the mode of duality. A man only becomes ’himself’ at the moment when he detaches himself from his ideal state(as the transitional type in the dreaming) and takes up the garb of conditional existence. Implicit in the concept of totemic identity is this relationship between the the transitional type(unburdened with self-consciousness) and the conditional world of mortality and change. The totem, however acts as an Ariadne’s thread, allowing a man to find his way back to his preconscious existence in the Dreaming. He finds himself forever linked to his own origins, both as a spiritual being and as one of nature’s manifestations.
-James G Cowan”

Edward Edinger a jungian analyst formulated the same experience like this:

“This other being is the other person within ourselves–that larger and Greater Personality maturing within us. It is the inner friend of the Soul. That’s why we take comfort whenever we find that inner friend depicted in a ritual. For example, the friendship between Mithras and the Sun god.

”It’s the representation of a friendship between two men, which is simply the outer reflection of an inner fact. It reveals our relationship to that inner friend of the Soul into whom Nature herself would like to change us. That other person, who we also are, and yet can never attain to completely. We are that pair of diascury, one of whom is mortal, and the other immortal. And who, though always together, can never be made completely one.

“The transformation process strives to approximate them to one another, but our consciousness is aware of resistances, because the other person seems strange and uncanny, and because we cannot get accustomed to the idea that we are not absolute master in our own house. We should always prefer to be ‘I’ and nothing else. – Edward Edinger. ”

Life does not just happen. It is built into episodes. And its contents appear as parts linked to each other. I think this is the teaching that makes us human. Also, many of our culture’s problems seems to come from an absence to our inner flow, and our current view of its presence in our daily lives. The scientific equivalent of the psychic encounter with the unmanifest Principle and the realm of manifestation that we participates in, is the evolutionary thought. That is, ”the outer reflection of an inner fact”.
I also believe that this is what Richard Dawkins and Jordan Peterson fail to appreciate in an evolutionary and existential sense. Since self-consciousness forms the basis of every human being’s experiences of himself and the world we belong to. It is too gross an intellectual tool to explain all life with a psychic product such as evolution. We imagine our physical relationship to the world with psychic means as we reflect on what it consists of, and formulate the processes that create it. It is not just an external phenomenon. It is also an inner personal relationship transferred to the outer. It is what we transmit that makes it alive. For good and for worse it is how we do that that fills our news with what we make of it.

I dont like ideas. I kind of like to disregard them as such. They are not direct experience to me, or represent the flow of my reality. But sometimes they do picture experiences in a consistent manner. So when I come across criticism’s of someones work in regard to ideas which I find convincing because they try to formulate an experienced reality, I always pay attention to how any critisism is played out. Often it just challenge the idea as such. Not as if there’s a better or more convincing way to describe an experience. The prevalent view often seems to be that all idea’s should only represent themselves, to have an end in itself, and to stay untouched by any immediate reality. This is were I think science, culture and organized religion are today. It is almost as the purpose of criticism is to make all influence of personal experience vanish into thin air. To make the person behind it disappear and remove it from its relation to life. Perhaps it is completely missing, or it is simply ignored. Anyway, it is quite a disturbance of my interest in a subject. To ideas, and to the relation I have with people around me when I recognised it.

Paganism was the way nature was freed from impression. Religion was the way people freed impressions from psyche. Psychology is the way impressions is freed from transference. In whatever way we experience it, we are involved in a deeper connection between nature within and Nature without. It is only our view that changes. Whether we look at it from the outside in, or inside out. The connection is always what it is. It doesn’t evolve. We just learn to endure its energy and formulate its content, and that it also involves a transformation of personality.

The experience I have in trying to be a thousand different things, of what we get of one another when we relate by habitually present knowledge and facts about everything, and to conform to all kinds of different social settings no matter how inhuman they are, is usually just to satisfy our personal imprint of masculine narcissism. The image we have of it within in a transferred form. Their need to be seen for what they ”know”, their achievements, how they want others to appreciate them. In short, their projected individuality as an end in itself. Transferred to us in this way, we will become just like them. But when they are no longer there, it is obvious that we are trying to correspond to all that by transference, and that our perceptions of what is around us, the collective mindset we try to adapt to and value, what that is in our social environment, excluding what genuinely appears as our own virtual teachings of individual potentiality coming from within ourselves; this is now the same need to be seen, to be confirmed, that they have carried for their fathers that makes us try to respond to the generally recognized and accepted ways of the collective consciousness without reflecting on its personal significance. Its ideas and categorical thinking, its ways of reducing how we relate to our own nature, to others’ and to Nature itself in our personal life in order to experience existence. That there is more to it than meets the eye. A personal value in another sense. That it is not either regressive or defensive to reclaim it. But something that creates a tremendous amount of energy. Even far into life. Mostly, this disturbance is what adolecence is all about. But we can also just take a look around to find it in ourselves.

Meanings are not like life in nature. It is mindedness in the sense of intelligibility. It is Radien-neide or soul.

We use the limitations that constitute our own personality to control others.

More and more people today seem to be addicted to a kind of pop psychology, with trendy diagnoses and drug-based therapy. Only a few people realize that we must do ”psyche”, or experience it as the phenomenology that it is. That we must personify it as an expression of its own origin, as a quality of inner infinity and that it actually is a disorienting confrontation, where one has abstracted from one’s own thinking what the phenomena say, and listens to what emerges; that our thoughts and impulses exist and extends beyond ourselves. And to find out what they are. What they have to say. It has to be realized by a kind of initiation, and revelation. That it is the empirical basis in all of us who produce psychological phenomena. It is were imaginations become social realities. It is not the collective consciousness, or the conditioned and cultivated mind that achieves this. The products of psychological phenomena transforms our culture and individual’s mind when it merges with the collective consciousness. It is in the individual consciousness that psychological phenomena inevitably get their first appearance. Theoretical prejudices and preconceptions as well as motivations arise from our self-interest because they are identified with the goals of the collective consciousness and therefore are not considered as something that originally flows from the place where thought and mind have made their first appearance. Which is what frames the horizon for the concrete experience of individuals or peoples. Every one of us inevitably shares this consciousness that tries to hold the natural world within us conceptually. It is our mode of being in the world. It reveals to us, this relationship we have to ourselves, what we really are, and this process that strives to approximate us to our Nature, the world, and to one another.

I have this being, an inner personal wholeness that is connected to a kind of totality, and that is shared by the whole body of humanity. According to old Sami conceptions about these experiences, they are conceptualized in Radien-giedde and his all embracing father of totality, Radien-attje. They are in substance something that is beyond and larger than our Ego. They cannot be completely embraced by it, and therefore they cannot be defined, only experienced. Their names are something we assign to them. But what they really are is an experience. An outer reflection of an inner fact. Behind this notion is the relationship into whom Nature herself would like to change us. This Nature in sami is Radien-akka, she is the source of all that appears in a differentiated world, encompassing all aspects of mental appearances and earthly existence as the primal waters of our beingness. She is our intimate relationships with our bodies, our selves, other people, Nature, and the cycles of life. Because she creates, nurtures, births and protects all new life. She is the bodily experience of our union with physical life. Our mother Earth. A connection which is brought to us by our inner experience of wholeness through our personal self(Radien-giedde), and his connection to the totality of Radien-attje. Without this experience we are empty, and have no substance. We are completely materialized. But beingness also has its personal entity within. Her daughter. An awareness that is processing life as an inner organism shaped by our sense of her as a mind-like experience in its own right. She is Radien-niejta, psyche, our sense of the character that surrounds us in the human ”atmosphere”, traditionally referred to as soul. She is the daughter of the earth, of our connection to Radien-akka, of growth and fertility, but she is also the daughter of the underworld. In that aspect she is named Saivo-niejta. Our fateful guide of potentiality, and our sense of something inviolable. Of Nature’s incarnated morals. Here I am acutely aware of the fact that I am now putting names on, and imaging experiences. Thats the Nature of our relationship. But this is as close as I can get without ruining the direct experience I have. Also, what I imagine here has been there since before I had any ability to give it any shape. So no matter what opinion I may have about it, this is something that experience itself has given to me. A family of experiences, and another kind of awareness. A place from which everything that exists emerges from, and then returns to in an eternal cycle. Which is saivo in Sami. I do not pretend to be traditional about this. Or adopt Sami culture as my own. I only describe my experiences as they have spontanuosly developed inside me with images that I did not have to question. It made perfect sense to me.

As long as one’s inner personality is in a functioning container, and has a natural sense of the wholeness that we were born with, then what we experience will be absorbed by the images it produces. Transferred to a belief or idea, or a rational ideological commitment, it will give us a kind of projected self-esteem and an immunity to the direct reality we make on being human. But if this inner experience of our totality is watered down, emptied, ignored, or destroyed by the collective mind, it exposes us to the direct experience of beingness. And to the total power the independent psyche has over us without the benefit of the buffering effect of a tradition, or the one-sided rationality and the structural beliefs that prevail in the Western world. This experience is also the one we experience when we dis-identify ourselves from the subjective notions that characterize our time in order to try to form an objective view of what we are experiencing. It is an extremely painful and frightening experience to have lost the sense of our original whole and then try to reunite with it. Since this is preceded by an absolute emptiness, which when it is again assimilated by listening to the emergence of the effect that it in itself has behind the intensity of our suffering, and as a result of us having to replace our habitual perceptions with the direct experience of the forces that act on us from within. Which at that same time, also serves as an opening, a window that opens us up to our own reality and the origin of all life. Our personal opinions, our ideas and theories is now questioned in relation to this, because the conclusions we draw about them are not only derived from the external source of our observations. An idea, our opinions, or a theory is also what we imagine about what we observe. We need to assume that life in some way originates from beyond what we imagine. And objectively admit that Nature also consists of a content that is not only based on what we can observe about it, but that it also in essence depends on a source outside of that, and it is by reflecting on what this content is that is transferred to life by us that we get access to the knowledge of what this reality is.

In one of life’s cycles, we go from being descendants to becoming ancestors and then back again. If we do not honor this experience, we will never learn anything of what this is and what it means to be human. This is something we constantly transform in our emotional bind to our body, to something less material, and abstract form of images and mental representations, and into culture. The experience of which, when it is expressed makes community life possible. Without it, there will be no personal relation to what we are and from where that potentiality of life emerges. We only get lost in the flow of our original psychic whole.

Human culture is based on the creative imagination that arises in the insistent tension between our projections and personal reflections, which ultimately seems to be rooted within a greater imagination of the the world as a projected reflection of an unfolding universe. ”There is a realm of the universe that we can’t see. It is a background of nonmaterial forms, not things. The forms are real, even though they are invisible, because they have the potential to appear in the empirical world and act in it. In fact, we must now think that the entire visible world is an emanation out of a non-empirical cosmic background, which is the primary reality, while the emanated world is secondary.” – Lothar Schäfer.

Call it childish or naive but it is the essence of what we once were within. It is a fact that through our instincts we are always united with our Nature, and through our intellect we are then detached from it. But through the ”language” of our imagination we are again reunited with it. It is in this background we experience the connection to the wholeness of the world, since the underlying reality of the world is not matter, whatever that might be, but of imaginal non material patterns of relationship. We use our imagination to describe the exterior world as much as we use the world to describe the interior world of imagination.

In an extremely inhuman way we have come to reduce our human nature and simplify how we relate to ourselves and to other people so much that when we look at what we are, it is something that is more like unconscious machines than human beings. If you hurt a person by being condescending and that person expresses their sense of what has been done to them, or if a person in some way sense the intense pressure coming from its emerging internal life, then from our rational point of view it is just the bodys automatic response system. Just like the sound of a mechanical doorbell when you push the button. That is our current collective view of our human nature. How we relate to ourselves and to others when we exclude our personality from the reality of our experiences. Experiences are just a push of a button on a nervous system followed by a doorbell sound. Which means that if you hit a child, an animal, or expose anyone or any ”thing” to suffering, the reaction to it is just a response coming from ”its” nervous system. There is nothing personal ”in there” doing the experiencing in between. That place is empty. The individuality projected on the collective knows nothing about it. It does not matter how we try to describe our experiences. It will be explained away by its agent, the nervous system. From a human perspective, this mechanical view of reality is what I hear when I listen at the ”sound” of the world. It is the sound the attitude of the collective consciousness of our society has towards life.

The giant Stalo is described as a ”one-eyed” and cruel giant wearing black iron clothes. I think he represent what we are in our projected narcisissm. When we merge completely with the collective consciousness, and its inhuman one-sidedness which will then appear as this giant with black iron armor for clothes. As a young boy I had to learn to defend myself using my wits to keep him away from me. This is what a collective attitude does when it is dressed up in iron that make us impenetrable. The stalo then becomes our individual wholeness transferred to the collective and portrayed as a wicked, man-eating unintelligent and easily deceived giant. Often fooled by our supressed psychic condciousness in the shape of the children he intended to eat. This is something we do not acknowledge as coming from us. Those children is what we once were, a relationship to the whole of life we still ​​carry within us through them. When we loose this we become giants. We extend too far beyond what we are. And our one-eyedness in the shape of a stalo will make us just like him, a little sluggish and slow because as giants we do not have any presence in ourselves, in our own feelings. We have been completely transformed into collective individuals. And that tend to make us feel vulnerable and stupid, so we become self-defensive. This is something that everyone faces and must overcome. Otherwise, the stalo will just eat you. It will swallow us whole. We will become what he is. This is what I was told when I was young, what I then experienced in people without really being able to define what it was. It terrified me. As I grew up I saw them all over the place, and now I have found him in me. Which means that I have to wrestle him every day when I get out of bed. It has never been about if they exist or not. It’s just about if I am able to confront him for what he is, for what he represents in me, and if I will make him a friend or a foe.

The experience of having an ”empty inner sense of wholeness”, is what I once encountered following the loss of beingness to the containment of it in the collective consciousness when I was growing up. But it was also about having to suffer the loss of a traditional container for it as a psychic, inner experience at the time of separation. Because as long as one is contained in a functioning container, what we experience will be occupied by the particular images it produces, a belief or idea, or rational concept of ideological commitment. Whatever it is that will make us feel good about ourselves, and give us a kind of immunity to the reality of being human. But if our inner sense of totality is ”empty”, it exposes us to the direct experience of being, and to the autonomous psyche without the benefit of the buffering effect of a tradition, or the one sided rationale of structural belief that prevails in the western world. This is an extremely painful and terrifying experience of the loss of wholeness, and an absence which is then only assimilated again by listening to the emergence of a something that comes from behind the immense intensity of our suffering. But at the same time this empty center act as an opening, a window that will also open us up to our own reality and to the origin of all life. To the spontaneous insights of our greater personality. If that center is filled up with more comfortable state of affairs, ideological or whatever, it is not that window anymore. I see this empty center everywhere in people and the world around me as people habitually try to transmit the fear they experience of a direct confrontation with their own inner existence through external means and through other people. Which means that they constantly have to recreate themselves through an opponent who is either opposed to the content they want to fill their being with, or merge with it in order to try to create relationships that give them acceptance and justification in life for the emptiness they otherwise experience. Much of what is behind what is destroying our world can be found in this. The ”world” reflects back our loss of this wholeness by our function of evil.

Being is wholeness. It is the true sense of absolute totality we experience when we are young. Also, it is the most sacred feeling we can bring with us as we grow up, and the very foundation of our perceived existence. Without it, there is no personal psychic life. All about it will be collective. This wholeness is what fills the whole spectrum of life with its meaning. Wherever, and however we try to define its appearance. Immanuel Kant formulated it something like this; the human psyche pours into sensory data all the forms of perception and the categories of understanding which then create the total view of our world. This is also what we do when we dis-identify ourselves from the subjective experiences of our time to get an objective attitude on ordinary experience. I believe that the very essence of the cultural and spiritual wave of the 1960s, its search for a different kind of spirituality with the personally experienced wholeness as its ubiquitous center, which everyone shared, was something like the hierarchical and authoritarian view that existed until then could no longer offer. By the 1960s, the western world have had enough of it, which was expressed by the movements that then occurred. Everything seemed to be about this experience of wholeness, about our being, and how this new experience of the world and ourselves in it could be possible in contrast to what it looked like at the time. This corresponds to what we are all going through at one time or another within ourselves as individuals, but in a transferred sense. All personal experiences tend to get lost when projected into movements or ”ideas” because there is no dis-identification of the inner phenomena from the objects that carries them. So they tend to get dissolved and in the end, the original experience is distorted. Only the object as a used medium will still be around when the inner experience is gone and the objective rational mind takes over. Which was what the seventies was all about. But our wholeness is still there. It needs to be taken care of personally as the collective path has been tried and tested, and shown not to work without the inner guide of phenomena that gives them its meaning. Also, not everyone who follows a collectives mindset, does have personal access to this experience of being and its original sense of wholeness. They are in it for other reasons. This is more than evident in many of us, and the leaders we rely on today.

Because we are surrounded by a culture that exclusively defines us through our professional roles, and which is based on how we look at ourselves from on our collective identity. When we transfer ourselves to it, we overwrite our original individual sense of an inner wholeness and our relationship to it, because it is this wholeness that is our inner communion with the absolute source of our personal life. Through our projected narcissism and our neglected dependency on a personal relationship with this inner totality, we create an attitude on the verge of hostility which will constantly create adversaries to the view we have about ourselves and which we have created solely for how we want to be addressed. But the transmitted experience we have of a larger whole do not belong to someone or something in a transferred collective state. Separated from that horrible condition, we describe it as a psychological connection, and an experience-based relationship that we share with each other. Early traditions carried this inner intensity and embraced the insights made of our interior experiences. If we transfer them exclusively to the collective view others have of us, we will constantly perceive everything and everyone as a threat to how we prefer to be seen, as they seem to be questioning the values we convey through that personality. The inner experience of this is a shared one, but how it is worded differs between people and the groups we adhere. Trying to overwrite it in others, or falsify it, only distinguishes people from the relationship to how our interior is perceived, and people from each other. The power and intensity that creates meaningful personal relationships to it will still be there though. A child who protests against this abuse from his parents is matched in our societies by the protests we see in all communities against the same abuse regardless of what form we give it. It’s the same pattern over and over but expressed as an attitude when it is completely merged with a collective identity. Every child mimics his or her’s parents’ behavior when learning to relate to their inner whole through their parents. And criticism or punishment for expressing themselves as they do, even though the child merely mimics and reflects their attitude back, because it is the only way the child has learned to communicate with this experience as it is projected on to the parents, this is what creates a vicious circle that repeats the same falsification of the underlying whole that every child try to emulate. We can see it clearly in any political debate. And we experience it as a sense of; Why can’t they just do what’s right? Everywhere in our collective roles we have to constantly oppose, which has arisen early in our lives when our inner whole has been exposed to the pressure of all wouldas, couldas, shouldas. Where neither our parents nor a tradition has been able to carry or reflect the experience in itself in a way that has kept it intact and then respected regardless of how or where it finds its personal expression. When we are young we need a placeholder to be able to assimilate and survive its intensity. To learn how to relate to them. To safely wear the experience of wholeness. There is an underlying structure that we are part of, we express it differently because we are different. In fact, we are completely alone as being the only one of our kind. But still, we are all part of the same underlying experience of wholeness. What makes this such a complex experience is that around it we have created a social structure where upbringing is based on an old authoritarian system of oppression where we destroy the ancestral connection we have to our primaeval psychic whole. We train people to become professionals, but we do not teach them how to become human beings.

When we come to this world we already have a relationship with the psychic totality we brought with us. Through our bodies we have also brought with us the physical affinity we have with all life. The body we inhabit is in itself a psychological experience. And our parents then become our first interface to it. Whether they lost it or just choose to not perceive the reality that this is; when we project our inner determinants on to our parents, we will assume their attitude to them when they are reflected back towards us. We will come to believe that if we act like our physical parents towards this experience, then our behavior will be the appropriate one to reflect back to our parents. Our interface with our original psychic ”ancestors” is then replaced by our physical parents projections on us. In the worst case scenario, we will lose contact with our own sense of wholeness and the physical proximity to all nature that we create through our bodies. We will have a hard time experiencing a genuine physical relationship with life and being a close part of it. And if we are limited by too much care, or by a constant intrusion of their fears about the dangers of life, then we will be disturbed in our experience of life also as a psychological relationship. As a dynamic balance between projection and reflection. Between our psychic experience of life and its physical presence. Under these conditions, we will develop a mask against the outside world that will be corresponding in substance to the experience we received in the transfer of those who first came to wear it. Usually it’s our parents. For example, if we constantly try to protect our children by blaming them for their incessant curiosity and appetite for life, then this will fill them with an attitude of blame in the meetings they will then have with the authorities who may carry something from this original transfer. We will, so to speak, create our own physical or mental problems through others, and we will never understand that it is we who created them. It’s always someone else’s fault. An opposite effect of this is if the psychic transfer of the original whole has not been carried by them at all. Then no future authority can hold it for us. It will be perceived with distrust, and as a meaningless restriction on our psychic life. We will not find any external application of it because none of them correspond to the original experience we have. Here we never become aware of how the inner experience is associated with, or can be applied outside of it, because it is overridden or falsified all the time. A tradition that can still deliver dynamic content related to the intensity of this would make a big difference. If, on the other hand, the physical transfer remains unaffected, and experienced in its original sense, then the world as a bodily experience may become both deep and intense. Our own physical being can then become one with both its own nature and the life it is part of, and surrounded by.
In the creative language of traditions we might say that this is the serpent that moves eternally towards the unmoved father and moved Mat(t)er. It is what creates a pillar or an axis that holds up the world.

Through my grandson, I have understood how important the psychological relationship to the experience of wholeness is. To have it in a sense of belonging to a place and to the nature that surrounds it, as well as to the people who are in it in the form of the relation they all have to this psychic whole. Nature then becomes a physical relation, and it also becomes the experience of an energy-filled kinship that characterizes how everything in it is connected to each other. In my youth, I often experienced this as a sense of a psychic presence to this one-ness that I understood to be what everyone else also belonged to. I also experienced it as an idealizing force, and as an overcrowding. But I never imagined it as if it were entirely my own. I was in it, as it was in me. And all kinds of evil deeds in the world, peoples stress, injustice, sadness, anxiety or fear, all of what I experienced around me was something I related to psychologically, as if it had no relation, or living connection to that sense of an entireness. That was somehow lost. And the physical presence this wholeness created in us that everyone was linked to, was something just forgotten along with this sense of feeling of closeness to Nature as a psychological connection to place. Since I myself always had to re-link myself to it for my own wellbeing, I also thought that this was what everyone else was doing when needed to. I even thought it was self-evident to reflect this in others. But to my astonishment this connection was most often gone. Leaving me with with a sense of being strangely unrealistic. Or extremely naive. But through my grandson, I have realised that this is not just something related to children or young people in their development, and an expression of a kind of charming world aversion, something on the verge of autism. Instead, it is a very important part of our ability to self-consciousness and to be able to create a psychological relationship with other people. No one should have to endure to be simplified and reduced to a world of just do’s and don’ts to please other people in the sense that it doesn’t take this wholeness into account. We should carefully let every personality in his or her mind develop their identity in relation to this experience from where we all emerge. That is why, I have always had with me a kind of ”totems” when it comes to this relationship to wholeness as a place, or something in it that relates to it, and a traditional craft that constantly reminds me of the contact I have with this shared inner world of wholeness I come from. Without this, my individuality would disappear and my existence would have no meaningful inner synthesis with my experience of the world as an aspect of this shared experience of primordial wholeness.

I have come to distance myself from the collective consciousness so much that, based on how we ”should” look at ourselves only from the outside in, leads me to the strange experience that if I try to describe myself solely based on the generally accepted concepts and perceptions on which these are based, I will lose contact with myself. And if my underlying absolute ground of existence is based on a direct experience and on ideas founded on insights formed in my interior, then this will not be perceived as real in an external sense. My experiences will never be recognised or mirrored because they can only be validated by my personal description of them. It is as if the very source of our existence, from which everything originates, does not have any reality outside our collectively recognized notions. But regardless of this, there is a structural and personally predefined order of psychic forms that can most easily be described in the encounter we have with them as being forces that form the absolute foundation of how we experience the world. They are there, and they relate to me no matter what ”design” principle I choose to describe it with. What makes this different for me is that it was already there for me before I could describe its inner order through the influence it has on me. There was already a kind of transpersonal behavior of something that can only be described as my first and most distant ancestors, which exists in an interstice and they emerge from this unknown and purely psychological origin. Of course I understand that the neglect of these issues is partly due to the unilateral dependence of our culture, and on our external identity. But by not listening to that other center, to the other second inner voice, or to unilaterally emphasize, and constantly make us dependent on external impressions, is like living in a culture that suffers from an obsessive hyperactivity disorder without any relation to its source. There is nothing there, we become empty in between our impulses and our actions. We even make this disturbance our accepted normal. And when this constant activity coincides, most people have no access to their own voice and the experiences we make in our encounter with it in an internal conversation, but even then they seek most explanations for this voice, not in the encounter with them. With the personal experiences we do, but in external forms of collective acceptance. No matter where we come from and the real inner experiences we make individually and in isolation from the enormous press that the influence of collective consciousness has on us. There are layers of generations of original experiences and how we collide with them in personal relationships within us that will also form our absolute basis for how we view our existence with value and meaning. Of course, I do not know how others perceive this, but based on this way of thinking and when I listen to how people reason today they actually seem ”crazy”.