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.
Paragraphs and dreams
Any man form
of everything dawned
Brings into earth
A time into all
A characters sovereignty
and the sinuous signs of
keeping the lion time of the divine
and body of reptile holds
On heavens pinnacle
and the course of hierarchies
It is the multiplicity in destiny
the Zodiac creates
The 9 whereas mysterium
it has it all together
In identical succession
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”.
We live in communities here in the West that have almost completely lost touch with an approach to life that has its roots in the psychic flow that our personality once originated from. For us, this means among other things, that what we call history does not exist in a meaningful way. Our thoughts of a past as “distant” events, of interior life, when they are recognized by us in our immediate temporal proximity, tend to be perceived as a common collective action in an event chain that somehow extends far back in time. What many now have realized is that this is a visualization in the present of a behavior that have always existed. History in this sense is that we intuitively derive an interminably number of the same type of behaviors, but now viewed from a timeless perspective of our psyche where our actions are understod to occur anywhere, at any time. In any culture. We sense that they have always been ”there”, in us, and that we personally recognize them as a human trait we share with all people collectively as a collectives projected individuality, its memory is what we call “history”. When we come to a turning point in our personal lives, it feels like we are in an endless repetition of similar behaviors. Our history seem to repeat itself. For many, it is also how we experience our present collective life through its endless repetition of old obsolete yet existing group behaviors. The question is for how long we will have to repeat our behavior before we accept its teachings and change. One such “timeless” experience of our psyche is what we want to like about ourselves, what we relate to in other people. That our own unavowed mistakes are put out there, we are what we reject in them. These are our own personal qualities. But we let other people embody them for us. We let them, or an idea they convey, carry for us what we don’t want to manage in our own personality. The implication of this is what we call history. But behavior is not history. It is what we are, and do to each other here and now, repeatedly. History is a term we use to relieve us from our present personal guilt in relation to other people, to avoid being individuals who are responsible participants in a collective life. In this way, history has turned itself into a personal and collectively projected confession. It becomes a mirror where our personal image is reflected back to us, not the ideal form which link us back to our origins as one of Natures manifestations in the infinite reservoir of interior life.
A “crazy” person turns everything into opposites. Both on a personal and collective level when he, or she act this out on other people. Anyone may be turned into an opponent which has to be confronted as part of an opposite. In politics, it is believed that this is for the good of all. But it only serves its own self-interest, or the preferred “good” side of an opposite to which we want to identify ourselves with. This is repeated almost everywhere in today’s society. People become addicted to self-interest. But our personal qualities, both what we like about ourselves that we relate to in others, and our own unavowed mistakes that we reject in them, are not to be found there. This is us embodied in them. They are our makeup mirror. And if we really look into it, we can see ourselves, how this works, and what excess of ourselves we transfer to others to carry around for us. Whether we like it or not, it’s really there. That’s the nature of the evil we let go of in the world. It is what we are.
I don’t know from where my being came. But my existence can be traced to the forms of our great psychic ancestors in the flow of life behind physical life. These ancestors also gave rise to all living forms, each founding a line of descendants comprising a living impression of its original living form, and their human counterparts, which are linked to us in the existence of psychic time. In these depths of the interior experience of raw Nature, the great ancestor beings dwelt and emerged by pushing themselves into psychic existence and to earth as they came from what we experience as our sense of timelessness, from what we consider past, present and the future, all in one. With it came also the explanation of the law which governs behaviour, the order of the world and of moral existence. This refers to the time of creation of all things as it is still unfolding alongside present events. It is continuously being recreated today as an experience of knowledge that is shared through a resonance in psychic time. Its meaning, not space and time connects all things. Psychic existence do not perceive space as distance. It is consciousness. And all spatial relationships in this space are primarily symbolic. They are an integral part of consciousness expressing itself as spatial order and form. And every form, humans included, are related to this order of things. It is the law of psychic identity. All characters in this timeless state are bounded by a kind of circularity, by what is psychic time; a cyclical, constantly recurring, essentially repetitive process which ensures the survival of all forms of psychic decendants through their reality of being, existing in the exterior world of physical time. As emerging descendants of these forms, the experience we have of our bodies becomes based on our psychic relationship to it. And if we lose touch with our psychic reality, the life of our bodies will act as symptoms for our failure.
Within our society, the loss of a sense of reality, in being in the present moment suffered by individuals, often reflects collective problems such as the devaluation of women, the projected narcissistic exploitation of individual human values or the emphasis on appearances rather than a meaningful relation to life. This corresponds to the traditional notion that the soul has been psychologically stolen by the attitude of the collective consciousness, that we have lost our connection to the flow of our deeper wellsprings of being. But if we tap into the flow of the psychic life of our culture by means of the relationship we experience as a reflected resonance in a shared consciousness of inner vision. Or experience it in the wilderness. In Nature as something that is actually inside our selves. We are experiencing the reality of this continuity of what we are across the barrier of the skin in the structure of our present moment where eternity is physicalized as place, which includes both our psychology and physiology. It is determined by the same dynamics as those which we obtain in nature at large. This is a genuine primordial experience of our communion with Nature as the flow of all psychic life. It is here it becomes a sacrament. Psyche and Nature are not separate entities. Psyche is the conscious experience of Nature. It is where it becomes conscious of itself. When I eat, it’s not just about quenching my hunger, getting the nutrients I need. It is also about the energy content in a psychic sense. When I eat this is transmitted to me. I experience a communion with the nature that surrounds me, and in a psychic sense we become one and the same. What it is I eat, how it is treated, and where it comes from is important to me. It also makes me aware of my relationship to the air I breathe and the water I drink. I experience this relationship in an absolute sense. That is why I spend so much time with myself outdoors. To listen. This experience is strongest for me there. I am that nature.
I have come to a place where I must allow myself to completely acknowledge my own experiences, to process them and merge with them without them being reduced to something else, either by myself or by anyone else. To take them at face value, and leave for others what they have to face of this on their own. Opinions about them doesn’t make any sense. It is just a defence against being authentic to oneself, and reduce everything to an attitude, or some dogmatic framework. My personal experience of inner and outer reality, of Nature itself have its own longings to re-link consciousness to its origins. It is as indispensable as a neurological imperative. It is not a matter of choice.
I agree with Jung when he says that; ”The developing (inner)personality obeys no caprice, no command, no insights, only brute necessities; it needs the motivating force of inner or outer fatalities.”
For how long has this not been a motif in my life! It is truly something that acts out of its own origin whether I have agreed with this or not.
It doesn’t matter where we place our original sense of wholeness. We will always experience it either as a loss of ourselves or as a dependency on where we place it, as a personal imperative desire for fulfillment from another party. From the outside, we become burdened by the impossible load imposed on us by someone else. Whether it is a person, a political cause, a religious or philosophical belief. The primordial sense of our lost totality is there. It is this numinous inner quality that is given to us as children. The demands, and the expectations that follow from our loss of it, are terrible. In fact, this is our transpersonal basis for personal evil. As a consequence, we do not reflect the I-ness of the existing shared connection we have of ourselves, between our individual sense of separateness, and the objective whole that is all our relations original experience of this wholeness. We just transfer it in the naive expectation that it will be fulfilled by someone or something else. We habitually try to control and dominate other people’s relationship between them and themselves. Only to maintain the view of a collective consciousness where everything is commonly believed to be a wonderful personal experience of the shared interior of the world as a mother in oceanic bliss. This is more than evident in people’s use of stimulants to self-medicate against the effects of the experiences we have of our separation from it, and the terrifying experiences that we initially have of ourselves in relation to a real and authentic relationship to nature, both in an inner and an outer sense.
All the world is happening in us. What we call ”the world” in an exterior sense is also within me. It is a constant stream of happenings and events that in its own way interacts with our personality. When we listens to this flow inside, it merges with the forces that organizes our impressions of what that is within. It has to be formulated and related to by them. Because these powers have their own voice in what constitutes our personal relation to the world, and we have to listen to what they have to say about it. Otherwise that ”world” will flood us, and turn our perceptions of it into a turmoil. Which will make us fall into a pattern of “picking” between opposites. Or we will just turn off in self-preservation and oceanic bliss since we experience our primordial sense of wholeness in its raw unprocessed form, and there will be no true “I” in it. The exterior world coalesce with the world within in the dynamics of what we are in the polarity between our individuality and our original totality. It is an ongoing reciprocal meeting with the outer reflection of this inner source. Either there is an axis between them. A pole acting as the worlds firmament. Holding it up for us as we travel it. Or there is just an emptiness. A void, and a vast barren and deserted land in a formless state of confusion that constantly floods us with its powers and confessions. This is how I imagine the meaning behind our great ”psychological” floods, and the ominous sense of the world’s doom. We picture our sensory perceptions as a flooding when they create havoc in our minds, and at the same time they destroy civilizations because if this is outlived, or staged there, in the world, we will tear it apart if we cannot hold it inside of us as part of our imagination. We ritualize this interior drama and play it out. The perception that we call fate always appear when something have to change. That is, it tells us about it, about our condition before the change occurs. It is the end of the world that was before. This compelling sense of fate is what sets our inner forces in motion for our coming change. Without knowing any details about it, this may very well be how we should interpretate Jung’s last visions before he died. It makes sense that this is where we can find most of the apocalyptic versions imagined by us as individuals when we are subjected to the overwhelming forces beyond the world of our I-ness. There is a reason why these kinds of visions are occurring right now, and it gives us a clear indication that we need to change something in relation to our world. It is not a coincidence that it is also about our environment, our climate and our animal husbandry.
It is not just me, I believe all people struggle with what is our moral experience of opposites, and of good and evil. But when push comes to shove, all that matters from any human perspective is the subjective experience by the suffering person. To maintain that what we experience as evil is something in the service of some higher good, is not of much use for that person. Why would they, or any human being have to suffer from what will be perceived as evil acts in the future, when they are affected by what are considered as evil acts independently of when they are struck by them. We suffer now. Our Nature do not distinguish between what is coming from nature. When harm is done to babies, or animals, or the environment, for example, it is never about if they have committed something to deserve what is happening to them. In an external sense, if I commit a wrong against another person, animal, insect or plants “Nature”, I will always fear what I know is an entitled repercussion because I’ve wronged its “Nature”. And that condition then constellates my encounter with Nature’s shared source inside my Self. It will become a phenomenon of my encounter with that; It belongs to that kind of experience. Or if I violate my “Nature” in what constitutes my totality by not paying attention, then it will affect my consciousness through its impact on me in a way that can cause me harm, or even kill me, when it affects my presence and my judgment in its attempt to draw attention to what I am missing in the relationship I have with the Nature of myself. We all experience great sufferings from this kind of meetings. But there are other intense experiences as well. Both painful and pleasant. They are part of our interior experience of life. However the affects its manifestations creates in us. It’s a manifestation of the Self; an onslaught of instincts. If one can relate to it with that understanding, then it becomes an experience with our own connector to the totality. And to life itself. Our world has all too well experienced what happens when we do not have this connection to ourselves.
We are all part of this totality called objective psyche. But we are also a part that owes its existence to the fact that it´s been able to separate itself, and exist like something separate of what it’s still a part of; being a living organic connection between the medium that it was born out of, and it’s own separatedness. This objective totality is the source which we are all connected to. We participate in it on a daily basis. Its within us, and it is expressed through us. It is our common source of mutual existence.
In every meeting we have with anyone else, we also meet in the polarity between our separateness and that source. It is a mutual meeting within the outer reflection of that inner source. Most of the time though, there is no organic connection between the medium that “we” was born out of, and the individual separatedness from that objective totality. Our relations tends to become confessions. Not an objective reflection of that inner reality, but a kind of superficiality of projected narcisissm. There is no perception of an effect of being a subject to this in which the nature of the connection between the ego and the self in our relations are both part of the same total organism, where what happens to us in this contact with the reality of this objectiveness, also has an effect on the other through the mechanism where we will let it undergo a tranformation in itself. By being mirrored by this other human or animal, insect, or plant individual in its own relation to the source of this objective totality, or original wholeness. Most of the time people only honor to control or dominate that which is others shared participation of this relation. It is what makes up the world we live in. Based on our being in this shared psychically subjective totality, this experience in itself gives us our lived definition of what we call evil. Any person still in their experienced contact with his or her’s native heritage will confirm this.
In an interview with Edward Edinger on Carl Jungs answer to Job, he points to and highlights a section in its last paragraph;
“The reciprocal action between two relatively autonomous factors which compels us when describing and explaining the processes to present, sometimes it is the one and sometimes the other factor who appear as the acting subject.”
Edinger himself has beautifully formulated this in this way;
“Since there are two centers, if that comes into conscious realization, then those two centers must collide; they must have an encounter with one another. That’s what happens when the Ego, which is the little center, has an encounter with the Self, which is the big center.”
What I like so much about these descriptions is that they express that what we are, is this living process between these two entities in our minds. Such as the experiences described by writers, poets, schamans, mystics, holy men and peoples of all kind in their encounters of this since the dawn of time. In its form of an outer reflection of an inner fact Edinger formulates this in his seminar about the defeat of the Ego in the encounter with the Greater personality like this;
“We are confronted with that inner friend or foe, and whether he is our friend or foe depends on our selves. The experience of the Self is always a defeat for the Ego.”
The experience we have of our meeting with this other psychic entity in us is something truly terrible. It completely shatters our personality and forces us down to our knees. It is the raw violence of an unconscious dynamism that roars up from the depths. A manifestation of the absolutely overwhelming power of the Self;
The absolute intensity of this experience, in its crushing onslaught is well described by Antonin Artaud in his ‘The Umbilical Limbo’.
A sharp, burning sensation in my limbs, muscles knotted, as if raw, feeling like glass, brittle, fear, cringing at movement or noise. Unconsciously confused steps, gestures and movement. Willpower forever keyed up to make the simplest gestures, renunciation of simple gestures, stunning, focal fatigue, a sort of exhausting fatigue. Movements have to be reorganised, a sort of dead tiredness, the mind tired by the exercise of the simplest muscular extension, the act of grasping, unconsciously hanging on to something, sustained by continuous willpower. Genetic fatigue, the feeling of dragging one’s body about, the feeling of unbelievable fragility becoming splitting pain, a state of painful numbness, a sort of numbness localised in the skin which does not hinder any movement but changes the sensation within the limbs so that the simple act of standing up straight is achieved only at the cost of a victorious struggle. Probably localised in the skin, but feeling like the radical removal of a limb and offering the mind nothing but tenuous, woolly pictures of limbs, pictures of distant limbs out of place. A sort of inner breakdown in the entire nervous system. Variable giddiness, a sort of oblique dazzling accompanies each effort, a thickening heat band gripping the whole surface of my skull, where heat patches detach themselves and move about piece by piece.Painful inflammation of the skull, gasping nervous tension, the back of the neck doggedly suffering, temples glassy and blotched, head trampled by horses. Here, we should mention the disembodiment of reality, that sort of break, intent it seems on self-proliferation between objects and the feelings they exercise on our mind, the place they belong. This instantaneous classification of objects in the brain cells, not so much in their own logical order but in sensed or emotional order, (which no longer occurs). Objects now have no smell or gender. But their logical order is also sometimes broken, precisely because it lacks an emotional odour. Words rot at unconscious commands from the brain. All words for no matter what type of mental operation, in particular those which trigger off the mind’s most common and active responses.
And in ‘NERVE SCALES’
I really felt you break down the environment around me, I felt you create a void to allow me to progress, making room for an impossible space, for what was then only potentiality within me. For an entire, virtual germination yet to come, drawn into the spot that presented itself. I have often got myself into this impossible, absurd state, so as to try and create thought within me. There are a few of us in these times, who want to cut things down and so create areas for life within us, areas which did not exist and did not seem to belong in space. I have always been struck by the mind’s obstinacy in wanting to think in terms of measurement or areas, in fastening on arbitrary states of things so as to think.Thinking in segments, in crystalloids, so that each form of existence remains fixed in the beginning and thought does not communicate with objects instantaneously and uninterrupted. But this fixation, this immobilisation, this sort of monumentalisation of the soul occurs BEFORE THOUGHT, so to speak. Obviously these are the right conditions for creativity. But I am even more struck by those unrelenting, meteoric illusions which send us predetermined, limited, planned constructions, those clear-cut segments of the soul, as if they were a great plastic page, porous to the rest of reality. Surreality is like a sort of osmotic contraction, a sort of inverted communication. Far from seeing any weakening in control, on the contrary control seems to me more assured, but control which instead of acting remains on guard and prevents contact with day to day reality and allows more subtle and rarified contacts, contacts reduced to a thread which catches fire but never breaks. I picture a soul, worn down and as if changed into brimstone and phosphorous by these contacts, as the only acceptable state of reality. But I do not know what unknown, unnameable clearsightedness furnishes me with their tone and sound and makes me feel them myself. I feel them as a certain insoluble whole, I mean doubt never affects this feeling. As for me, in relation to these disturbing contacts, I am in a state of almost complete immobility. You might look on it as an arrested void, a mental mass buried somewhere, become virtuality. An actor, seen as through crystal. Inspiration in stages. Literature must not show too much. I have only aimed at the mechanism of the soul, I have only transcribed the pain of abortive adjustments. I am really abysmal. Those who believed me capable of consummate suffering, great suffering, sustained, fulsome anguish, anguish which is a mixture of different things, an excited grinding of powers and not a suspended point-yet with lively, uprooting impulses, stemming from the confrontation of my powers with these proffered supreme depths, (the confrontation of great and mighty powers) there is nothing now but unfathomable depths, cold, a halt, -thus those who attributed more life to me, who did not think me so far fallen within myself, who believed me submerged in agonizing noise, violent darkness against which I struggled, -are lost in the shades of man. In sleep, my nerves are taut down my legs. Sleep came from the shifting of belief, the tension relaxed and absurdity irked me. We must understand intelligence is only an enormous contingency, we may lose it, not like a dead madman, but as a person living in life, who feels its pull and inspiration (not of life, that is, but intelligence) . The titillations of intelligence and this brusque reversing of roles. Words half-way to intelligence. The faculty of hindsight, or suddenly railing against our thoughts. This dialogue in thought. Absorbed, breaking off everything. Then suddenly this trickle of water on a volcano, the mind’s slight, slow slip. Finding oneself in a state of extreme shock, enlightened by unreality, with fragments of the real world in a corner of oneself. To think with the minimum of discontinuity, without any traps in our thought, without one of those sudden disappearing tricks my bones are accustomed to as energy transmitters. At times my bones take pleasure in these games, delight in these games, delight in ·these stealthy abductions presided over by my mind, my head. At times I am only at a loss for one word, a simple unimportant little word, to be great, to speak in the tone of the prophets. A corroborating word, an exact word, a subtle word, a word thoroughly steeped in my bones, come out of me to stand at the furthest limits of my being, and which would be nothing to most men. I am the witness, the only witness of my self. This covering of words, those imperceptible whispered changes of thought, this smallest particle of my thought which Iassert was already expressed yet which miscarried. I am the only judge in gauging their scope. · A sort of continuous wasting of the normal level of reality. Inside this crust of skin and bone which is my head there is a constant anguish, not like having a moral dilemma, or like the thought processes of those ridiculously fussy natures whose worries, like leaven, are continually rising to the top, but like a ( decantation) within like the dispossession of my vital substance like the physical and essential loss (I mean loss of essence) of a sense. A powerlessness to fix unconsciously the point of rupture of automatism at any level whatsoever. The difficult part is to find out exactly where one is, to re-establish communication with one’s self. The whole thing lies in a certain flocculation of objects, the gathering of these mental gems about one as yet undiscovered nucleus. Here, then, is what I think of thought: INSPIRATION CERTAINLY EXISTS. And there is a luminous point where all reality is rediscovered, only changed, transformed, by-what ?-a nucleus of the magic use of things. And I believe in mental meteorites, in personal cosmogonies. Do you know what suspended sensitivity is, this sort of tremendous vitality split in two. This necessary, cohesive point to which being no longer rises, this menacing, crushing place.
To call this anxiety. Is to watering it down with words and rationalize it away, which only deprives it of its true value of experience. In Antonin Artaud’s words we do come very close to experience his meeting with himself in his “answer to Job”, similar to what Edward Edinger makes perfectly clear in his seminar on the experience of ‘the encounter with the Greater personality’.
I think of science, and all culture as something which is the experience of the formless which can be differentiated from its origins in chaos, the shapeless original substance of psychic matter. And that we learn to grasp it by realizing that what we call I, that “thing” when it is turned into a symbol of itself reconnects to its original background of formlessness. It becomes what that is. And in this transformation it also mediates a relation to it. But first the physical aspect of it must also be transformed from its focus on procreation to becoming an embodiment of the totality of the constant recurrences of all life. When that transforms into psychic matter we become part of all Nature. To that which surrounds us at all times and in every direction. It is the air we breathe, the water we drink, the very earth that we are made of. The whole physical universe. All that supports us will become an aspect of what before was only limited to the objects of our sexuality. We become Nature and share our beingness with HER, with pure nature as an undressed personification of femininity in its formless aspect. She will become both our physical vessel and a psychic entity of beingness. Through the symbolic I-ness, we return to the source of the world as experience. It is almost like we follow our I-ness in its move into a formless symbolic character of psychic matter. The substance of which all things are made of and comes from, and the reality it now mediates from what it has become. We will find that one side of us is deviant, and that it is with this part we have a relation to ourselves and to its greater totality.
Edward Edinger formulates this experience in the words of psychology; ”The human ego is a part of the self as the objective psyche. It owes it existence to the fact that it has been able to separate itself, and exist like a separate entity, but still a part of it. Its got an organic living connection between the medium that it was born out of, and its own separateness.” Annoyingly precise. But since I have accepted the conclusion that every experience must be formulated into the typology of its time, I have to admit that it makes individuality understandable in its unique sense of a larger context.
This is an experience of something that every individual must consciously and carefully translate into a modern objective context, or they will never separate from the collective mind, and its impulsive unconscious life.
Every fixed ritual becomes a religion once it establishes. And then attention becomes focused on following the prescriptions. In the ritual we may remove the guilt of our original feeling of sin. Of breaking up from this. Since intense affects are manifestations of the Greater Personality we should not take personal responsibility for it. It is an onslaught of instinct, a manifestation of the Self. In the world of psyche, if I commit a wrong against another person I will fear that person’s desire for revenge. And that condition then constellates the Self. If I have wronged myself within–if I have violated my inner center in some serious way—it’s a violation of my sense of totality, which again can arouse the vengeance of the Self against the Ego. (“Edinger”.) It activates a defensive response from the me because it expresses deep feelings non-verbally, and opens us to the possibility of discovering meaning within the situation. This, we cannot connect to through the collective consciousness or its established facts. Because each one of us who has this experience has it uniquely. True rituals contains objective processes, not fixed maps of reality. These processes creates a drama within for us to enable and realise the underlying structures of behavior when it is time for us to do so. To leave behind our fixed and automated behavior to meet the forces behind them. Most social rituals, and religious views are nothing more than meaningless habits that sacrifice individuality. These rituals are empty when we participate in them without any meaningful connection to the values they express, or when we approach them without drawing upon the interioror energies involved. When we do, this is how we transform psychological processes into culture. We first establish our connection to what the australian aboriginal call the dreaming, and dramatize its content through a physical performance. We then turn them into social habits. In this way new processes forces itself onto the world from its origin behind the world. Of course I understand that this is just words, and they are useless by themselves. But its my way of putting my experiences into context. I am also human, and objectively speaking, I think that what I am an experience of in my Nature, is also something that is part of all humanity. We all have to do an outer reflection of inner facts, and it needs an individual mind to be recognized.
What I understand now is that all forms of psychology are basically a study of the processes behind our rituals, and how they make us behave, both individually and transpersonally, when they are raised, and constantly renewed in the relationship we have to our inner life and how we interact with nature and our culture.
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.