Stefan Stjernberg.com

We carry all the different states of the great mother within us, who simultaneously appear on several different levels. On a fundamental level, we see no difference between her and our needs for closeness and security as a vessel for our inner person, with those she represents herself to with us. She also acts as the unpleasant dark background that we can sense in our early relationships. Or when they have stagnated and become practical compromises that suffocate our inner person, either in our professional or private life, or in both. At a higher level of psychic reflection, we see her as something separate from others that surrounds us and embodies the entire inner reality we experience with our inner person at its center as the mediator of our interpersonal connections. Here she also appears in the form of a carrier of our cultural relations in the sense of the psychic space that make sure to safely and considerately pay attention to the inner person also in others. But she also affects us at her highest psychic level where she conveys the insight that causes us to transcend the limitations of pure reason. When we enter her realm, we experience it as pure nature. She appears to us as nature itself, whose psychic space is experienced with our inner person in that which all potential forms of life consist of, and of which we are a part in a multi-leveled, embodied and constantly recurring sense as our mind’s own built-in learning process. In its constant rebirths, in all the different abstract living forms of life which undergo the underlying transformation that timelessly repeats itself to our reality. There is a wonderful description of her in Sami tradition when she ends up in urban environments. Outside of them, in their outskirts, her presence is perceived as a wise helping figure when we are having a hard time in relation to our inner person. But in populated areas she is seen as an intrusive and disturbing gossipmonger and blabbermouth!
But before we get to her, we must endure the trials that confront us as we find ourselves in the center of her cultural personality. We have to face some of the traits separated from her that have been passed on to her daughters, and experience the dichotomy it means to sense the moods of that psychic space that surrounds us is something that also emerges from within ourselves, and respect the expressions we are confronted with in it as if it too exist independently of us. And finally meet the feminine character that forces us to unconditionally face that irrationality we dare not express of them in ourselves. If we don’t, she will make our vulnerability vindictive and defensive, and even make us turn against ourselves and destroy us. If we just wave it all away and their presence is not consciously confirmed by us, they act as seducers and psychic tormentors corresponding to what the meaning of the Latin term succubus refers to as a composite experience. Its invisible influence and the intense anguish that results from it. Which all men in their adolescence have experienced. But few have realized as a psychic reality.

When we encounter the saints of the superego, within us or in others, there is a great risk that the person within us is short-circuited in its connection to the content that constitutes the source of its main relationship. We risk ending up in a kind of eternal trickery to its influence on us, and turn us into constant wisecrackers to its supercilious attitude together with an impulsive cunningness as a defense of the psychic integrity of our psychic person, if we slavishly conform to a society’s unspoken conventions. Where instead of relating to others in a genuine way, we end up in a relationship in which we create martyrs of ourselves in our relation to having our own emotional experiences, while we at the same time try to save others from their’s as saviors when we identify with their martyrdom as our own. Our imperious attitude will make ourselves saints which constantly seek out and provokes others to be villains. We identify our own personal psychic content with that of others instead of the influence that is derived from our objective psychic properties, and we force others to bear it like martyrs for us. In this way, the demands of the superego may turn us into constant jokers, or to adopt an attitude of being impregnable wiseacres that sacredly ally us with the commands of the superego that we then transfer onto others, that is, the total devotion we force ourselves to have to the inadequate connection that the collective consciousness has in its relationship to our inner person, so that it does not break the fragile vessel it represents to us and to people around us.
Just listen to how we treat each other in our own relationships. In our own society. Its relation to other countries and to our native cultures. We constantly push each other to become saints or villains. This is also the essence of all media. All in relation to that which relies solely on the superego, our tacit agreements with it and its commandments. We sacrifice what feels genuine and true within us and try to save others from their misdeeds so that they don’t have to see what they are doing as long as we can maintain a blind eye to our own role in it. We become its collaborators and peers in our sanctimonious attitude and arrogance towards the suffering of individual people. In this way, we can have our saintly relationship with the collective undisturbed and instead make others look bad in our own standoffish insensity, and then blame our own need to break the superego’s influence on us on others, while forcing them to play the role of the opposite of our saintly attitude. Have we not all been brought to earth, and reminded of this at some time or another in our personal relationships when we have become too rational and academically or politically haughty instead of maintaining our basic inner humans involvement in the collective consciousness, and the world as psyche or soul.

When we fail to be vessels for our inner person embodied by Rádienáhkká, who is the one who is the prime cause for our inner person to be reborn by Máttaráhkká, that also transforms and transcend pure reason. We are not initiated by Máderáhttje into the inner self-organizing principle of life, there is no distinction made between them. The source of energy found in all there is of Rádienáhttje, and all its concrete connections to the corporeal that emerges from him as the one who unites all opposites in the psychic space we turn to with the person within us. Traditionally conceptualized in the old Sami world by Raediengiedte in his relation to the world as form in the space of Rádienáhkká. Besides being both the messenger, a villain and a saint, a martyr and a savior when he is undeveloped, and the one who guides us in there, and the person within us we travel with in a world whose background consists entirely of our psyche, and the original psychic androgyny that is made conscious by us, as that which is within us, and which surrounds all that is.

— —

When we fail to be vessels for our inner person embodied by its psychic space, which is the prime cause for all rebirth and transformation, which transcends pure reason, then we are not initiated into the inner self-organizing source of life, the energy and its forms found in all there is, and in all its concrete connections to the corporeal that emerges as a union of all opposites in the psychic space we turn to with the person within us. He is a messenger, but in his undeveloped state he is also a fool and an imperious bonehead. A villain and a saint, a martyr and a savior, besides being the one who guides us there. He is the person within us that we travel with in a world whose background consists entirely of our psyche, we are together in the original psychic androgyny that is made conscious by us when we accompany him in what is within us and that surrounds us at all time, in all that is.

Thoughts and ideas are images that illustrate a given context, they are not opinions. Opinions identify us with selected parts of our collective body of knowledge and as such tend to exclude other perspectives and ideas even if they originate from the same primordial psychic experience. If we merely refer to ideas as something that exists in our collective consciousness, we are just confirming that it is there, pointing to its existence. The genuine connection we have to the psychic image is short-circuited and we are thrown out of it. It is cut short. There is simply no interaction between the image we refer to, and its origin as a psychic experience we share with others. Our perception of both our relationship to others and ourselves becomes distorted as our opinions, and their ties to a selection of collective ideals become what determines the conditions for how those relationships should look. Which ultimately also becomes what sets the standard for our behaviors. Not that we interact with an independent but common background experience with our inner person there.

I have thought for a long time how to be able to translate the psychic patterns of my life experiences and transform its forms into terms that make them sociably accessible not only to me when I experience them, but also make them useful when I try formulate what it is that invoke them when I speak to others. Through a series of events seemingly independent of each other, I stumbled over the description of attractors. And if I use the mathematical field of dynamical systems and my mind as such a system, and the definition of attractors with jungian archetypes interchangeably, and merge that with the old Sami conceptualization of the world, I think I come very close to this. I am not saying that the psyche is applied mathematics, but what I am saying is that mathematics may well produce a kind of theoretical image that attempts to represent some of the psychic processes that go on in relation to our cultural conceptions of them within a person who is more of a thinking person I am. I am just connecting to the image here.
An attractor in this archetypal sense is as I now understand them within the experience of my own mind, a subset of a psychic structure’s phase space that the psyche over time tends to be limited to for certain individual variations of this structure’s initial values and states, and which the psyche’s own internal dynamics means that it cannot leave. In the attractors phase space we are going through the different states of an attractor until we, by the patterns of our experiences, are lead to a conceptualization of the attractor itself that pulls us in to its phace space. When I speak of Máderáhttje or Máttaráhkkáh, or Rádienáhttje and Rádienáhkká , Saints or villains, martyrs or saviors, I speak of them as the conceptualization of attractors and the different states our experiences are building up within us as our psychic maturization, and how we are closing in on a specific attractor as an aggregate of all of its personal states together with its own internal conceptual formulation. Sáráhkká, Juoksáhkká and Uksáhkká also represent states within their own phase spaces as attractors in themselves which lead to the experience of something greater than the states of their own attractors, and to the non-material psychic reality of Sáivu. Máttaráhkká and Máderáhttje serve here as initiators or guides to the primordial causes consisting only of energy and form, which we embody as psychic representations that unite the intellectual with the imaginal in Rádienáhttje and Rádienáhkká. But no matter how we describe them, what terminology we use, we do it from different angles, and from different states of the subset of a psychic strúcture, and in the phase space of an attractor whose different states are personally experienced. This means that we use the terms we find most appropriate when trying to explain similarities in what we perceive to be the same original experience. Regardless of whether it is a scientific or a cultural attempt to transform the concrete emotional connection to the body into less material and abstract forms of psychic images and representations of the mind.
I also believe that it is precisely here that we come to the realization that there is something that stands in opposition to the collective consciousness, of which our individual consciousness is only a part, and that its content originates not only in its opposite but it has arisen from something that we can only relate to with our direct experience of it. However we then choose to describe what that is. The strange thing about the scientific world in my opinion, is that it does not realize that it produces illustrations of psychic thought processes that are pictures of our psychic involvement with the world around us.

A child identifies with and is influenced by the psychological or physical experiences of others as if they were his own. It’s almost a definition of a child, and an experience we all share in our own way. An adult person embodies his own experiences and refers to them in words and abstract formulations that make them more psychically accessible in their individual and less material form independently of others. As long as we do not act like children, and confuse our relationship to the collective consciousness with that of others, then others will not have to be confronted with what we have to face of it in ourselves. Many difficulties and much suffering we encounter by our individual experiences of it originates from this confusion of where our own person ends and others begin. If we do not see and act on the basis of the limitation that our personal characteristics present, we are still children in relation to our psychic being, and others are forced to bear the relation we have to it as if it were theirs. Almost all personal disputes and suprapersonal wars between groups of people have their beginnings in this. For such people, neither Máderáhttje nor Máttaráhkkáh, or similar objective psychic properties like these in Sami, have any reality in their relationship to them or to other people. Functioning as attractors in a set of states against which an individual psychic structure develops in a culture. Their inner person is not yet present, or born, and cannot distinguish between what belongs to them and what belongs to others. They constitute some of the forms to which we are ”pulled” as a result of a certain process and its influence on us in the psychic field of energy, experienced as the states or moods they create in it. That’s why it’s so destructive to think we can change others instead of going through the inner trials of changing ourselves. We only reinforce the righteousness of others in not doing it. We are just making them villains and ourselves saints in the service of the superego, and our saintly attitude makes us as big villains to them as they are to us. Acting as children, we are only instinctive lightning conductors for other people, for different social groupings, and the attitude of entire countries.

If we are not in touch with our inner person as an intermediary and reference to the embodiment of all that is with Máttaráhkkáh, then we are in Jahbmeáhkká’s world of all that is unborn because she is still confused with a motherhood in the form of a parent or in one or more physical persons, things or ideas. Of all that is potential and without psychic or physical form in that which have not yet come in to being. She is the dark nightside of Máttaráhkkáh where we suffer as martyrs or see ourselves as liberators and think we can help others from here with the help of the consciousness of the collective, from where we also identify with the superego without the relationship it must have with our inner beingness. We make ourselves saints and thereby force others down into Jáhbmeaimo and make them feel like guilty apostates. Here, this sense of inferiority or its grandiose identification with the superego is forced upon us, which will make us oscillate between trying to be saints or taking the role of villains, outside of any genuine interpersonal contexts. But we are stuck in Jáhbmeaimo, and this is a pre-reality. This is where we meet our inner parent couple, our inner person and our ancestors. All those who never got out of here, or just arrived here trying to move on. We cannot do what they have to do for themselves, but we can show them the way with our inner person if we do it ourselves. Our coming to terms with the dual nature of Máttaráhkkáh, and the opposites we are forced to deal with there may serve as their guide. Because without that, we will have to stay. But there are those who still can help us. We have psychic ancestors who have the knowledge and insight we lack. They are our inspiration while we are in Jáhbmeaimo, and will come to our aid. Their voices come in very handy in desperate times of need.

A couple of nights ago I followed my night ego down into his world where he showed me another companion of mine who I have kept at a distance for a long time to give me an opportunity to absorb the meaning of all his antics. Actually what he revealed to me was a pair of opposites where our scoundrel forms one end of two extremes. Our inner varmint and our inner saint. The saint is the adaptation we make to the morality that comes from the embodiment of the human being within us. Where we become vessels for its influence on us and our psychic reflection. The rascal is the one who is constantly on guard so that we do not become too one-sided and confuse the relationship to our saint with a society’s conventionalism and attitude to what the individual should accept in himself and not. If this becomes too restrictive and strained, the rascal appears who then draws attention to it for us. This pair of opposites was especially evident when I was young and their influence over me was instinctive. The power of their presence overwhelmed me and I could not yet resist them and develop my own relationship with them. Often it meant that I did something stupid which then, to avoid the shame and lack of responsibility that was required, identified myself with the saint to escape into a naive and holy innocence. The same thing happened if I encountered it in someone else. I just identified with them instinctively. Which may have hurt them or made them feel bad about themselves. Now I can clearly see them not only within me, but also as objective psychic figures operating within us all. Together they act as gatekeepers for me and lead me to those within me who collectively act as my inner cohesive psychic whole. Without them and my knowledge of their influence on me in our relationship to them I would just be a fool in any psychosocial context. A child who lives on pure instinct without any contact to my inner person and what it is in this place that acts on me, both in relation to myself and to others. This scallywag may even turn us into cattle, and make us completely enraptured. Because if we cannot be vessels for ourselves, we take from others what we need to fill ourselves up with theirs. My experience tells me that they are most often constellated in an environment where people have become too conventional in how they relate to our inner person. A too one-sided saintly identification with the superego and the universally recognized and accepted in the collective consciousness, provokes the rascal in us in its absence of genuine human relationships. Their constellation is always present when we blame others or underestimate ourselves, which violates both our own and other peoples self-esteem. But I also perceive it as if my interaction with them is what awakens the deeper and older animistic approaches to life that are latent within us. Which shows that the two have become detached from the whole of the original inner person, conceptualized as Raediengiedte in sami, and function as paradoxical sub-functions of it. That they are the ones that matures in us and become combined in a figure of what is referred to as noaidi’s, tietäjä’s or just schamans. Those slightly crazy, introverted wise old men and women within us who served as links to our inner selves, outside the conventional framework of our societies and its relationship to the people in them.

When will we stop electing people to public positions who portray themselves or those they serve under as martyrs. Which in a infantile way obviously inflates themselves, their own position, which aims to benefit themselves, their contributors or benefactors instead of those they are set to act for in their place. And who do not constantly compensate for their shortcomings against people’s real need for care and public service with messiah-like grandeur or personal shortcomings with martyrdom. Instead of just doing the right thing in the way that follows from their position. How far must we push this before it goes too far. When will people grow up and realize that it is like this because of each and every one of us. It is our martyr and messiah swings we see in others. Cheered as they are by us. Which makes them what they are. It is not the fault of either the state, the ”public” or the ”private sector”. They are what we make them. Between these violent emotional swings, we are human beings of flesh and blood. With everyday needs and human relationships that correspond to our lives. Martyrs or saviors is just an outward face. A mask we use to portrait ourselves and hide what our true personal characteristics are that is hidden behind it. Something we do to avoid our own responsibility to our inner person.

We have been repeating this for over two thousand years now. When have we had enough?
What I say in no way means that I am exempt from their influence on me. They affect me like everyone else as one of many pairs of opposites to the objective psychic properties we all have in common. But the ability to observe them comes from the awareness that we see them within us at the same time as they arise outside us, and that they act in the same way within us as they do in other people, but without us either praising them or condemning their objective existence. It is about the relationship between us and ourselves. About us being able to trust that we can safely relate to it in others too.

A similar comparison can be made with the money supply. It is also based on the reality of an opposite pair. For someone to have a shortage of money, someone else must have a surplus. Which simply means that we can have whatever opinions we want about it, but not realizing that the dark side of an excess is always someone else’s deficit, is to expose others to the suffering that it entails when people suffer from it. This is more about the money supply and its psychology than anything else. About how objective psychic properties interact with our thinking, our imaginings and our psychic reflection. And how they make us shape our relationship with it through our emotional life. While this strives for a paradisiacal sense of a freedom from psychological opposites and physical suffering, it also what prevents us from interacting with the world from within. Here, too, we constantly find ourselves oscillating between both messianic greatness and martyrdom in the moral conflict we face within ourselves when we encounter it.

One thing that happens when we begin to discover our own psychological boundaries is how frustrating it becomes for our surroundings that we both begin to trust, and at the same time translates our own psychological reflection as if it were somehow independent of the collective’s way of conceptualizing the psychological turbulence which are now interpreted directly by us in relation to the personal undercurrents that lie behind their formulation. This is something that affects us from all levels in all societies, and even between them, when individuals instead are absorbed by a majority that begin to act as one, based on our superego in its identification with a collective’s consciousness. Often supported by people who at the same time also lacks personal boundaries, but who benefit from supporting it in their own lack of psychological self-observation. This superego can then be made to act both terribly evil and devastatingly mad to those people or societies who have different kinds of active conscious behavior that differs from a certain collectives level of agreed upon behavior. Above all, this happens to those of us who grant ourselves access to others via our own personal experiences and thereby exceed both our own and others’ personal boundaries. Regardless of whether they are personal or societal. Most of us tend to do this, and favor the abuses that go on at the personal level where the individual is equated with the superego’s indulgence of individual differences, and the objective psychological actors that shape our individual characteristics, in favor of the ideals it imposes not only on the individual, but on everything and everyone in their environment. What this fail to realize is that in this way we are not only responsible for our own suffering and that of others within the boundaries of our own society, but also for the suffering our society creates through our superego for other people and societies by our failure to be present in our own personal conversation between us and ourselves. Nor can such a mind go along with a reasoning of this kind without falling into various kinds of defenses. Because they are perceived as a threat to the identification we have with the collective superego, and its fragile relationship to the surface of a moral well-being that it has patched together from loosely assembled ideas, opinions, and ideals that serve as a substitute for a more cohesive personality. Who lack the deeper human considerations that life itself confronts us with. Many young people of today have seen through this deceptive impersonal surface and are demanding a change from those we have appointed to serve all in our place, and the backlash its defense has sparked has also begun to have dire consequences for everyone. Both on a personal, societal and supranational level. Perhaps this is also a consequence of the fact that we have transferred the relation to our inner cultural parent pair, like the sami Máderáhttje and Máttaráhkkáh, to a collective consciousness and its preferred standards which has then split the ego into the opposite pairs which correspond to the personal and suprapersonal ego.

The psychological representative of the father in a cultural sense, like the Sami Máderáhttje, is our relation to the stream of consciousness. The mother in this sense, Máttaráhkkáh, is our biological relation to its non-material psychic undercurrents. When we have worked our way through the relationships we have with them, we will realize that they only functioned as intermediaries for our inner person and the place from where we interact with the stream of the collectives consciousness, the superego, and with some of the upper layers of its psychic undercurrents. But we must always count on the power of what works in the deeper layers as they are inaccessible to us, but affects us most profoundly. The patterns they create when they interact with us appear in our mind and guide our imagination, our perceptions, our thinking and feeling. By imagination I refer to how they independently of us make make us interpret, illustrate and translate pure experience into language and form, into something tangible for our physical person. Something they do of themselves as well. Making consciousness and its undercurrents an interconnectedness of all things and beings and a connection of our minds. The Sami expression meacci refers to the practical experiences of this kind. When we perceive the ego as something other than just being absorbed and polluted by a multitude of itself.

The first experience I had of the underlying psychic realm of potentials in my adolescence, and the constant repetition of its contents that our superego makes of it, was a psychic shock. I was absorbed by it and realized that I was in that place where everything in it is shaped by the time that will embody its manifestation. Call it Sáivu, the collective unconscious, the dreaming, whatever translates our primal interpersonal qualities in a coherent way. We enter it without anyone giving us any instructions as to our connections to its origin, and the immaterial relations belonging to it will then be shaped solely by our superego. Our inner person is then disconnected from the original ties it has there, to the source that forms the inner connection it has to the self-organizing totality of intermediaries of which it is a part. The feeling of slowly losing the ability to be able to translate it into a given context is a kind of psychological devastation. It’s like stepping into a mental deforestation where life has gone silent. We also do not get access to what we need to be able to translate it so that we can resume the connection that our inner person has lost and must have between us and ourselves. In many ways, my life since then has constantly oscillated between reclaiming what was once lost when it appeared within me and in relation to others, and finding different ways to deal with the pressure of a superego that was never receptive to this psychic origin of an interpersonal space.

Everything has its double in the traditional dimension of the inner world. A psychic source that acts as a kind of template that is embodied by its physical presence. In traditionally living aboriginal people in Australia, it occurs everywhere in all physical objects. In plants, trees, its leaves, in animals, insects and people as the dreaming. Everything is part of it. It is with our inner person that we interact with the world around us. It also strikes me that it is in this context that we talk about soul migration, and the role our inner person has as something that returns again and again in the stream of consciousness regardless of the time it appears in. I think this is why Buddhists have taken this very seriously, and with great care for how that person should train itself to encounter this content when we are confronted with our consciousness, and to be able to return and contribute with the psychic undercurrent that provides us with substance. In the old Sami inner world, conceptualized as Sáivu. People interacted with everything as part of the physical world, with both the living, with the return of our ancestors, and the dead. With nature and the underlying psychic presences that person encounters in it. We still do it without knowing it because we want genuine relationships that do not always refer to the superego. We want our relationships to be a person to person relationship with our inner doubles in our physical reality. Without it, we lack personal depth and become shallow, relying solely on the superego and its preferred reference to the world. In addition to this line of experiences, and considering the works of quantum chemist, professor Lothar Schäfer. Quote, the empirical world is an emanation out of a cosmic realm of potentiality, a non-empirical realm of the universe that doesn’t consist of material things but of forms. These forms are real, even though they are invisible, because they have the potential to appear in the empirical world and act in it. My point is that neither our stream of consciousness nor the source of its substream is ours. They don’t belong to anyone. We have a relationship with them through our ego, and under certain circumstances of our interaction with them we are provided with a kind of union of their content.

Fatherhood is the psychological quality that transcends the human context, something we turn into patterns of behavior when we transfer it to its tribal or cultural meaning as an all-embracing fabric of our societies. Here it will transcend our individual ego and often replace it entirely. Motherhood in that sense is our embodiment of the psychological qualities underlying our physical nature as an abstraction of our personal relationship to its content, and to our relationship between us and ourselves. It is the way we physically and emotionally connect to all life from within. They are our teachers. How we then come to relate to them depends a lot on how they were first transmitted to us. It can make a big difference for us if we have intermediaries like the Sami Sáivu and its inhabitants, and with parental relationships where Máderáhttje and Máttaráhkkáh are present as mediators and representatives of its psychic content. No human can carry this content for anyone else beyond adolescence without damaging consequences. What this means to our psychic reflection is that we are relieved in a way that allows us to interact with our surroundings from within and with our own unique conditions and with the orientation to the stream of consciousness with which we were created to do so, and not always with the superego of our surroundings. But in doing this we also expose ourselves to the psychic qualities that do not belong to other people from what we have otherwise endowed them. We undress the psychic superstructure of fatherhood from the man in the father and the motherhood from the woman in the mother. This is how they, and Sáivu, and our personal relation to the objektive psychic properties will come to reveal itself to us.

When I think of the persona, the mash-up or attitude and character we put together for ourselves to personify our relationship to the emergence of, and to the existing collective content of our consciousness, I rarely see a difference between that and a narcissistically relationship to it. As when our ego identifies with it and takes over its independency in relation to us, and we begin to imagine that this content is somehow our own. Something we have come up with ourselves. Not that it comes about independently of our ego and from the psychic patterns that our interaction with objective psychic properties creates, and that it is something that crop up from our inner self-organizing center that is also the union between all the opposites we confront it with. Or as a content that transforms our experiences into a physical sense of a relationship with a collective’s common psychological properties. Behind it we sense this notion of a cultural or tribal father acting on us. With whom we interact with apart from our physical reality and try to live up to behind our mask. Conceptualized as Máderáhttje in Sami he also has his counterpart as an embodied experience of nature’s own self-organizing whole, with rebirth, transformation and soul migration, which is referenced to our inner person by our cultural, or tribal mother, Máttaráhkkáh. The experience of her in that sense is the physical experience of a whole that both surrounds us and interacts with us from within everything that exists. But through a mask they are both perceived as actions performed by the ego instead of in a relation to it, as the objective psychic content we visualize in our self-observation and psychological reflection that handle us a perspective that allows us to partake in it while we are sharing it at the same time. Together with our personal translations of its influence on us. What we are conveyed is not ours, or something belonging to the ego, but something we relate to which is our common objective psychic content. Over time we lose our connection to our physical parents and the character we have created for ourselves in our relationship with them, and the objective psychic properties we have attributed them become visible to us in a social and cultural sense. We may then begin to interact with them for what they are. The intermediants behind our mash-up, mask or attitude, and what we have always had in common with everyone else, all the time. Isn’t the content of our collective consciousness in that sense something of a belonging that everyone has a relationship with at the same time as we experience it, and articulate what it is to us, so that we can meet its content in our own personal way. But without the concepts of the influence our cultural parents have on us, we lose our interaction between us and ourselves. We become what our masks are, unaware of the patterns of influence that our psychic intermediaries have on our actions. We do not even perceive them in our naive relationship to the empty characters we have created for ourselves to escape their presence in the objective psychic stream of consciousness which we are constantly part of. I imagine that when they end up in a contemporary context, they have been transformed into our superego or collective ego, and its relationship to the notion of an ecological system that we, through its idea, are aloofly part of, and that we have thereby lost our personal relationship to the direct experience they are to us. This is probably by far the single biggest reason for the way things are in the world today. It is not a given that our individual egos orient themselves in the same way as the collective superego does it when we translate our own personal experiences in their relation to our objective psychic properties, and the psychic stream of consciousness, as has been the case in our social constructions thus far. The fear of this realization and the fragmentation it entails for the collective personality is discernible everywhere and at all levels in our societies. Not to mention what it implies for the individual in the first place. To be engulft by the superego when we are not yet attuned to our own is a terrible experience. Which must have consequences for the relationship between us and ourselves, and for the relationship with that which transcends reason in the center within us that is everywhere, referred to as Rádienáhttje in a traditional Sami context, and it is transformed and given form by Rádienáhkká.

Everywhere in life I have found myself in situations, and in environments, that are both smaller and larger than the scope of my personality. I think it is an experience that starts from birth and then being part of us as a timeless practise of a constant inner development to which we are invited. It is also something that makes us feel guilty for being forced to transgress its limitations or made us feel inferior for not fitting in. We can similarly end up in many different relationships that affect us in the same way. Which will lead us to seek our expression for that which does not fit in to them somewhere else. Or lead us to those who cause us to cultivate what is already within us of our objective psychic properties, and support a context of that for it to begin to grow and become a reality to us. This creates a constant conflict between opposites within us as we mix them up. We often blame one of our relationships for not being large enough to accommodate us too, or that they reduce us too much so that we or someone else cannot also fit their person in it, which will exclude us from ourselves. But there is no moral guilt in either giving vent to our psychic development or to our reluctance to allow ourselves to be diminished. Both we and others change all the time. If we don’t allow ourselves to grow, our relationships won’t grow with us either. Here life have its own moral within itself, and I think this is what the traditional teachings of Sáivu was all about in Sami, and the concept of what individuation is today. Something that forces all parties in any relationship to grow in step with the larger scale that each individual change creates within them together. Guilt arises naturally if one party in any relationship diminishes the other’s growing or greater psychological scope. There is no guilt in giving our inner person the genuine psychic nourishment it needs to be able to move us closer to what nature wants us to be. Sometimes it has to happen outside the frameworks others set up for us and the ones we set up for ourselves. That’s how we extend the scope of our reality.

Maybe our attention to the relation between us and our self, and its integrity, informs our inner koncentrical center of the value its direction have to us, in that the objective psyche as a whole relates to what it is that is constituted by it within us in a way that we as individuals cannot, thus saving us from endless cycles of repetitive repercussions and pain for ourselves and others.
We observe ourselves and others simultaneously from a different perspective that simultaneously formulates everything in it as if we were participants in the same objective psychic background at the same time, and with the same intensity in the interactive patterns they create. It becomes a kind of constant communication with the underlying psychic current and the social influence it has on our personal and cultural life. But related to and formulated in every person as our own connection to how our experiences are constellated when it interacts with us. It’s not about whether we prefer one over the other, as it’s more about our ego and its place between our conscious attention and our psychic reflection when it acts as an intermediary to them, perpetually oscillating back and forth between them through many different layers of our objective psyche. Which we have to formulate for ourselves, and on our own. Because no one else can come between us and ourselves and the objective patterns we formulate through our personal experiences of them in our lives. Doing the right thing in our lives is not the same as forcing myself between someone else and their psychic reflection with my own communication between you and how you have formulated your relationship to our objective psyche. It’s about doing the right thing regardless of how my version of our inner source formulates my union of our psychic opposites to me personally. Having this perspective is very confusing and when I was growing up it was not openly expressed as something that connects us to our inner reality. And the feeling of emptiness it required of me in my relationships with my surroundings almost drove me crazy at times. To almost never have a feeling of a direct connection to this with others but only to nature. The general approach to our experiences and our objective psychic background, to how this connects us to what is happening around us would simply not be put together with our inner context. Out of pure self-preservation, I did manage to find different ways of my own where this could still somehow be a hidden connection to this within me, and do as others did, but not in the order they did it. It would have put me under far too much strain.

When we have for a long time been exposed to various objective psychic properties and endured what they conveyed of their meaning to us, we become so used to have them close to us that we seem almost unaffected by them. We may even seem callous to the suffering others have from their interaction with us. Although in reality it means that we have a renewed insight and a different kind of involvement in our relationships that is more intimate, albeit on several internal layers at the same time. We’ve seen through the physical person’s impulse-driven way of interacting with them, and the attitude we’ve used in their place to instead allow us to face them directly, head on. We no longer depend on others’ approval or disapproval for how we relate to our person within. Something that those around us will always blame us for as long as they haven’t gone through the same personal trials. Since we do it more directly, with a different kind of connection to the present’s own terms. We observe ourselves and others simultaneously from a different perspective that simultaneously formulates everything in it as if we were participants in the same objective psychic background at the same time, and with the same intensity in the interactive patterns they create. It becomes a kind of daily communication with the underlying psychic current and the influence it has on our personal and cultural life. One general term used for referencing the content of these experiences that we interact with here is the Sáivu in Sami.

We all follow the hearts and beats of our own inner drum. And walks in the paths and patterns that the drum’s figures and different levels illustrates. Below our invulnerable surface and its attitude we accompany our inner person on that journey, and as we follow along, our physical person change because he discovers that the psychic properties the ego encounter in his world does not originally emerge from it. It becomes slowly and increasingly obvious to us that the content it interacts with do not originate from our consciousness alone. Although our physical person experience them as if they do, and are present to him in that sense. They function as proxies for the psychic activity he embodies as an intermediary to our interpersonal reality. We use many words that express something we cannot tolerate of the tension within us that does not really exist outside of our minds. Often in a condescending way. Words that only exist as opinions and judgments that belong to our way of preventing certain content from being recognized by our ego in its relation to our consciousness. Only to make our self-defense impregnable. There it stands as an antithesis to our inner persons approach to us, distancing us from that in our personal world that is opposed to what we can allow ourselves in our participation with it. And we will constantly defend the kind of psychic exile this creates by supporting it as an external enemy, because that is what we have made of everything that is not acceptable to our physical personality. And our inner person is then forced to encounter not only this but in addition he also interacts with other objective psychic properties as their intermediate. So to reduce the pressure of this tension within us, we simply turn this conflict with ourselves into a conflict with others to free ourselves from the psychological discomfort this creates. We turn our life within inside out.

Just because we see our world from many different perspectives colored by our biographical material does not mean that we are not also shaped by multiple levels of independent objective properties in our psyche. We formulate some of these properties in many different ways, but we also observe them as an expression of the same primordial psychic experience. Our cultures are littered with this, no matter how our biographical background prefers to deal with these experiences when they enter our consciousness and our egos make their own sense of them. They still relate us to something beyond our ego that transcends the reality it has created out of it in our contemporary consciousness. In that way, are they both its origin and direction. Who also give us both meaning and advice in our encounters with them. This is why sometimes in meeting with others when we refer to the same experience, we can be completely incomprehensible to others’ way of experiencing the same thing. Although their objective origin is the same, we describe them depending on our personal makeup and the way we relate to their influence on us. This is also why we find it so difficult to correlate the content of consciousness to the materialized equivalent of the objective psyche in our science and culture.

The impulse or psychic disposition in our Western mind to separate, examine and reassemble, is closely associated with our inner psychic family. To the Sami Sáivu, and especially with our cultural father. Conceptualized in traditional Sami and referred to as Máderáhttje. As such, he still exists within us as part of our inner parent couple, but in a distorted way that has very little to do with his function in relation to the content that comes from the opposite of our consciousness. From where it constantly provides our consciousness with new material. His mate Máttaráhkkáh here, in her sense of psychic embodiment cannot be overstated enough. Máderáhttje’s relationship to our inner source, and the guidance that this, our objective center mediates as a union between all our opposites is lost without him as an intermediary. We turn him into an unquestionable authorarian oppressor. It is as if we cannot accept his form of influence on us, and that he is functioning independently of us and in his own relation to our ego. We imagine in our psychic naivety that he and the ego are one and the same. But such a relationship between us and ourselves, to our opposites, is what makes it difficult to distinguish between our own consciousness and the original source of its content, and the personal relationship that others also have to it without our involvement. By implication, how their own life experiences have been organized in their personal encounter with them. Our entire world of consciousness becomes one-sided and will only be about how we can allow or discern what we accept in it from others. Or turn people into us. Accepting only the content that our own ego has allowed to enter into its relation to our consciousness. Not that we are talking about the same thing from different points of view. Or that we respect the source that, regardless of the ego’s biographical attitude, brings about a reconciliation between our consciousness and its opposite within all of us. Two things come to my mind in relation to Máderáhttje, the superego and the collective conscious. And both of them act like a big stupid and sluggish giant in iron clothes. A dangerous and impregnable man-eater. Which I also like to refer to as the Sami giant stallo.

Something I don’t often encounter, and many don’t care about, or suppress because of the view of ourselves we inherit from our cultural environment, but which is there within us all the time, is that we were all once children and gender neutral, and as in a traditional sense of the Sami, we were also considered girls in relation to this until this original psychic androgyny was revealed and made conscious within us. Something we are all aware happens to us at some point during the transition from our childhood to our youth. It is then that we discover that our interior is divided, and that in our opposite there is a part that functions as a psychic container for what is constantly going on within us, and which also finds its outlet with the psychic energy that through it discharges its content. But for this to become apparent to us, we need to be able to observe how in a practical sense we interact with this content as it is expressed. Something we do through people and places in our immediate vicinity. Not only on a personal and cultural level. But also on an abstract interpersonal psychic level close to the unimaginable in a conceptual sense. It is especially charged with energy in the transitions that occur between them within us as we simultaneously perceive the tension independently of ourselves in their transferred form. But its origin is still from the other, opposite side of us. From our counterpart to a consciousness that emerges from our inner center, which through the inner person conveys its content as a union of all opposites to our consciousness, and to our ego as its center.

Many years after I went through the initial ordeals of not allowing the opposite of my consciousness, my interpersonal life and that which transcends reason to be confused with someone else, it is still something that happens to me when it wants to. It’s as if this opposite side of me, and the other person within me needs to remind me that they are always there, that they are the one’s that transfers new content to me, and that they are responsible for creating new psychological conditions for me to deal with even if I can’t interact with what it means to me on a conscious level. That there is a constant psychic reciprocity between all life which we have met and spent time with and which were already there even before we ever got there, and it is my ego’s relation to that content that my inner person and his surroundings transfer to my consciousness, even though I may not be consciously present there. I usually notice it in the form of someone or something that suddenly start acting as an intermediate authority, with qualities that does not belong to them. Sometimes when it happens it may struck me that people identify themselves with it and think they can become an inner psychic substitute for this relationship. To me, or to others as a conditioned relation without them even knowing that they are doing it. Anyway, it is the way we use to be able to check that no one else formulates or adds new psychic content to the relationship we have between us and the opposite to our consciousness independently of the personal experience we have of interacting with what it wants from us. It’s about finding our personal boundaries and paying attention to both our own and others’ psychological integrity.
When there is an association between our psychic reflection, this other view of the world, and our everyday reality, it may well happen that it first chooses to appear to us in a traditional context, as well as in a real woman whom we confuse with the qualities that belongs to that reality which transcends pure reason, as in the Sami notion of Uksáhkká and in the sense of a threshold to another view of the world. Founded on the inner sense of personal experience. Which is something other than what we are used to and know as our consciousness. Like a first time visible psychic atmosphere that surrounds us which we can touch with our senses by her presence. We may also meet Sáráhkká in the same way. Who conveys our inner division and make us consciously experience our inner person through a woman, and face her with the true person we have within us. She brings together this psychic content inherent in all there is to be embodied by our cultural woman mother, Máttaráhkkáh. Since all people traditionally were considered to be girls until Juoksáhkká took upon her to discern the psychic quality that was the separating force in us, Juoksáhkká was then responsible for separating Máttaráhkká, the cultural expression of psychic life from physical life, and make it comprehensible to us. In this sense, it is she who makes Máderáhttje, our cultural father, visible to us, and relates him to our inner person. Along with our counter-sexual qualities that her power violently forces us to face and develop. A more contemporary view might be that every encounter with a woman by a man that we identify with her will make the psychological demands that turn boys into men, and for women, her absolute presence, sincerity and directness becomes the force that turns girls into women. In other words, she will challenge us, and force us to create the courage we all need to be able to separate our conscious life from its psychic opposite, and accept our role in both worlds.

From the standpoint of psychological reflection, this interpersonal center of reference within us, from which we learn the right way, about sincerity, and existence itself. Is both the past, present and the future all in one. It is also the explanation of existence and that which governs our behaviour. Consciousness in this sense becomes materialized psychic reflection. Which refers us to the place of that within which is not conscious, but its opposite and the continous unfolding of psychic events that is everywhere around us. Also, from the standpoint of consciousness, it is the other, the underworld, a place of transformation and rebirth. Of soul migration and the experience of psychological exaltation that trancends the limits of pure reason. Which is the realm of Sáivu in sami. It is a multileveled experience of the world and we move between these psychic levels as we interact with the content we simultaneously transform to something we can understand in the encounter our consciousness have with it. It is not about what my ego believe in, but how I am able to convert and transfer this content to consciousness as a personal reference to my life as a whole. How it is related to other people and to life itself. Too much of the other when we are not prepared for what it means for us, when we cannot address it. Hurts us as it overpowers us and causes us to hurt others. We cannot distinguish what is our part of it, and what is somethings or someone else’s. We have no way of being part of its constant act of creation. To turn its content into a way for us to interact with it in a coherent way.

Being related only to the content of consciousness and not also to it as a relation to what is added to it by the opposition that arise between our consciousness and the psychic reflection that also forms its background, and only allow us a connection to what is already in our consciousness, leaves out what our inner source or interpersonal transcendent center of being brings into it. In that way, we will constantly just oscillate between the opposites that this renders between the ego and the content of our consciousness, and we will be trapped in an eternal conflict between those two, constantly arguing, and having opinions about that content within us without ever having a genuine conciliation between them. We need look no further than ourselves to discover it. But we also see it in others, and in the leadership that exerts its influence on us. Without their interaction with each other, we find ourselves in ever-recurring and idealistic narratives with the arguments we create out of them in our attempts to control and prevent any new psychic elements from entering our consciousness that might challenge our current narrative. We will never allow ourselves the experience of the union between them that our objective transpersonal source conveys to us through our inner person which transcends the one-sided relationship our ego has with our consciousness alone. We will not only lose the independence of our psychic reflections in relation to us as an internal opposition to our consciousness, but also as its very origin and fatal companion. By being fateful, I mean how our relationship with our psychic reflection is, where it leads us. In Sami, this encounter was traditionally referred to as between Rádienáhttje and Rádienáhkká, whose embodiment and nature we where personally connected to by Rádien Niejta. And in this intermediate sense, also as Saivo Niejta. That is, as in a greater sense of being involved in everything around us, which is also referred to with the concept of meahcci.

Missing out on any expression of a cultural female parent like the psychic concept of Máttaráhkká in Sami makes us insensitive and impenetrable, and impervious to sincere human emotions. She may no longer become observable to us through our personal mothers, our grandmothers, or through one of our distant great grandmothers. But she usually acts in the hiddenness of a woman with whom we have a relationship anyway. If she are not allowed to interact with us directly and separate from an existing woman, we may lose her as the greater reference she is to the psyche as a living reflection of that which transcends reason. In that sense, as a cultural entity like the mother figure Máttaráhkká she is experienced as a kind of relief from the confusing psychic entanglements we experience with her when we lack a separation between her, the world of consciousness and our interpersonal psyche. When she is present she is part of the discrimination between them, and can act as a communion with Rádienáhkká, and also to places where transcendence is particularly auspicious. It is traditionally in accession with them that we find the Sieidi’s that reveals to us where this connection is particularly obliging. When Rádienáhkká is present in the realm of that which is the within of the without, which gives us a deep connection of recognition to a place, she gives warmth, gentleness and care to those who recognize her and to those who are in her vicinity. Embodied in all living things, she is felt in the earth, in the forests, in the stillness of a mountain lake. She surrounds us at all time. People in a society acting as one, or a culture without a relationship to her, has no genuine human concern for those who live in it or for those who will be affected by its actions. Our consciousness does not allow it as pure reason will distance us from our human relationships.

Almost everywhere in the West, when we attend to the experience of the essence of our individuality and its center as the sense we have of a greater whole, to the source of which the inner personality is related, its energy, and the origin of that who acts as a counselor between all opposites. The cultural aspect of our inner parents are always ignored, which confuses the original experience of them with the unification of opposites and with other kindred personal psychic experiences. But above all, with the cultural aspect of the interpersonal father. Or the concept of Máderáhttje in sami. His role and function as the one who distinguishes between all opposites, who discerns that which arises when it is embodied nature by his counterpart, who refers to the wisdom and that exaltation that transcends pure reason, our psychic reflection and transformation when its contents is brought to consciousness and then related to our ego by him there. That dynamic always ceases when they are blended together as a single inner figure of some universally overarching all-inclusive kind. We are never able to interact with them. With their involvement. We act on their behalf and don’t know why. Which distances us from other people and even make them hostile to us because we interfere with their own unique and personal relation to its influence, and what they try to convey to them. As our cultural inner parents they are there to help and guide us, to stand our ground, but under these circumstances, this does not make any sense to us because we think that we are what they are. We experience what they are trying to show us as if it were something we invented ourselves, as a product of our own ego, and not something that is coming from them. From the dynamics of our psychological parents and what they try to refer us to. This is, and has always been confusing to me.

Unlike a natural or more intuitive approach to our psyche, it seems to me that today academic psychology in a cultural sense is about control, not about allowing new psychic factors to enter our lives. Something whose needs may instead be expressed in compulsive love, drugs, sex and alcohol. In various types of work-related or adventurous obsession. In our addictions and needs to control new psychic factors that try to enter our lives and expand it as we immerse ourselves in it beyond that which goes on above the ego. Beyond our biographical level of life. Often also in outbursts of violence and anger where we force others to mold themselves to us and our needs to prevent them from questioning our undeveloped and naïve notions of ourselves and the personalistic products of the mind. Such an approach to the psyche as a whole is only destructive and forces us to find other outlets for what interacts with us in our interpersonal world. On a more adult level than the purely biographical psychic material in which the ego will otherwise constantly repeat itself, which adapts us to our biological parents and the environment they relate to, as when we separate our consciousness from its paternal aspect of constant opposites and relate it anew to our inner psychic reflection, we can relativize the ego from its habitual ways and it will instead relate to the content of consciousness as it arises when we attend and observe the activity that our psychic reflection then creates in the tension to consciousness as its inner or psychically based counterpart. A union of them then occurs between them. Something we cannot prevent from happening because they always interact with each other whether we observe it or not. It will participate with us by itself, from its own source and in its own form and energy. Then what emerges transforms embodied matter from within, thought and feeling is turned into psychic abstractions and representations that allow us to interact with them. They often become cultural aspects and inner experiences of our psyche that we then convey between us in an inner new and more personal sense of meaning. If we think of the world and what happens in it as a result of what also happens within us, and which we share with everyone else, we come very close to understanding what we are exposed to in it. Both through various psychic groups and by individual people around us. The lack of a cultural expression for our inner parent couple, like Máderáhttje and Máttaráhkká in Sami is quite obvious. And their relationship to our inner guide and unconscious prefiguration in Rádienáhttje as a supraordinate psychic concept out of which everything evolves, and our relationship to nature, to the unknown, the source of all embodied life in Rádienáhkká cannot be overestimated enough.

It is always first a profoundly fundamental personal psychic experience that we then together give a cultural expression that makes it common in relation to the interpersonal experience we have of its origin.
And this is exactly where our cultural parents come in, like Máderáhttje and Máttaráhkká in Sami, and their reference to the supreme psychic conceptualization of our interaction with the energy and experience of disembodiment in Rádienáhttje and Rádienáhkká. As a connection to the primal experience of our psychic dualism, to consciousness, its source and union of opposites, its directions, and its embodied relation to nature as a whole, and as a counterpart in itself to a within in the without. Without them, we will lack an interactive relationship with life as nature and to other living beings. We become a jumble of conflicting opinions and arguments that do not relate to our own inner person and those he interacts with there along with other people. There is no connection, no interpersonal psychic experiences that we interact with on a personal level with them, where we consciously and considerately transform our psychic activity into a living reality as adult human beings.

In Sami, there is the psychic concept of albma-olmmos, or the real person, who in that sense throughout my upbringing was more or less consciously present in all contexts. Most often as the one who decided a kind of community between people who were otherwise strangers to each other. He was either there or he wasn’t. If not, there was no real interrelation and you were still strangers. I perceive it as nowadays the real person has almost completely disappeared, which means that everyone then continues to be just strangers to each other. The real person is also described in other ways. Like the greater man within man, purusha in India or anthropos in Gnosticism. In its broader sense, that person within us is also deeply connected to nature as something alive, and there is an interpersonal psychic space where this inner person relates us both to people, places and other things around us that are not human, which are also part of the social dialogue we have with them and each other all the time in the environment we share with all that which we encounter there. They therefore interact with us in everything we do, and to exclude them as part of our inner context with the person we have there, makes us sick and depressed and stuck in a kind of logic of material loneliness. I think this is because we must participate through him with everything in our environment, and with those in the relationship that arises in the mutual context that constantly arises between us and everything in it, on which we also depend for our psychic balance and health. Otherwise we isolate the inner person and exclude him from the participation of this greater human interaction to which he relates us, and we do not participate in the psychic environment in which he and his inner, or our saivo family involve us. I also think that’s why we talk about personal time. Getting to spend time alone, with ourselves. Why relationships sometimes fall apart. We all need time to evolve, and release the directions involved that unite opposites and learn to associate them more closely with our relationship with this inner person, who then shows us the relationships it has with the source and energy of the greater psychically experienced whole. Something that can’t be done without also sharing his cultural aspect. Nowadays, we have other names for them, as they are somewhat acknowledged as part of our psyche, if we even notice them and recognise how much they interfere in our relationships. But as psyche or saivo, or whatever name that we are accustomed to use culturally to give expression to our interpersonal psychic life, our need to interact with them are never the less the same.

If we completely ignore, withdraw or omit our interaction with our external world and imagine it as non-existent, as not part of our life, there would be no difference between us and anyone else in that original psychic world from which everything evolves, and which we will still embody. We may temporarily cease all opposites that we encounter in that conflict between the world and its within, and we may come to some sort of settlement with it because we do not find that we are related to what it want from us. What their original intentions are. But then we become too narrowed down to our ego, to our impulses, instincts, stream of thoughts and whatever ideals we make of them as they act on us and we are imagined by them, and we become nothing else. There is no world. Or real person yet that articulates the confrontation it has with what it encounters there. Only this original psychic content that is also the coherent whole that unites everything that arises from it, and then becomes the world we create from our relationship to how it is put in context. But it is never in itself the dualistic approach we have to it. It is what we make of it. That is our world.

Spaciousness, non-duality, or nowness is something that is separate from tomorrow as a mere consequence of yesterday, from its constant division between opposing opinions within its own opposites of ever new opinions. The self-regulating balance that arises there, in the psychic dimension that meets us on our own terms as the place of that which is the within in without. Or the world as reflection, its psychic dimension embodied as an introspective principle in the encounter with our inner objective other. Its source and preconfigured reference to life as its inherent potential. It is like the spatial experience of psychic life in itself from which all that is evolves. It is from here all forms and concepts has its own beginnings. Where our tumultuous stream of thoughts, impulses and instincts get separated from our ego to once again become their own primordial origins in their own right, disconnected from what we want them to be as we ourselves try to balance all the inner contradictions this creates that constantly arise in what is, between what has passed and that which has passed may lead us to. Where we discover that life has built a kind of track-record of personal directions of this nowness which has educated us up to a certain moment of realisation as this eternal psychic dimension of the present in an absolute sense, but sprinkled throughout our life. However, most of us do not connect these experiences with the others in a relational way, or share its origins with people around us, since very little in our world promotes living and acting from such an accumulation of them in this place. Unless it is about its absence in the form of the psychic confusion, inhuman behavior or the atrocities they create, and in whose place they are constantly divided again and again into ever more opinions of yesterday, our past, and our tomorrows as its consequence. But neither our past nor our tomorrow is changed by a dualistic consciousness of time. Because our tomorrow consists of these scattered bursts of an introspective dimension of non-dualistic psychic events outside of it. Without a relationship to this psychic undercurrent, we identify with its content and become whatever appears within us. We do not even perceive that we must allow others to develop their own relationship to it as something separate from themselves and yet what they have in common with everyone else as life itself, as nature and soul. Or Meahcci in Sami.

We can have any opinions about others and what others do as one without it ever changing anything. No opinions we have about the past will change anyone or anything here and now. Likewise, we also do not change anything with our opinions about anything in the future with them. No opinion ever changes anything in the present, in what is happening here and now. The only thing they do is that they constantly create more and more opinions that constantly divide the present anew into what was and what may be conceivable as its future, but nothing ever changes here and now because we do not change. Having opinions do not change us or what was or what will be. Which should have been obvious to us a long long time ago. Our individual part in suffering this seem to be about learning to see the difference within us. And understand that there is a place within us that our opinions do not reach, and that we are governed by a different kind of reflective principle where we are judged and suffer for the opinions we hold in its stead there.

We cannot allow ourselves to be included in other people’s biographical material, to become their counterpart in the ongoing conflict that it is between them and this content. Just as I cannot concern myself in that way with the psychic background beyond that which causes both them and me to act upon events that originate in relation to it. The person we create for ourselves for this, the nauseating compromise that has become the one who sees himself there and exists in this way is not who I am. The limitlessness it creates in that space instead functions as my relationship to both what that is, and as a balance to the opposites it creates there. But that limitlessness is not who I am either. I am not its transgressive power. It is independent of me and of others. If I surrender to its impulses and its instinctive nature and identify myself with it, I start to believe that I can be someone else from within this place in some other person. I also begin to allow others to imagine that they have that ability when it comes to me too. The inner psychic place where I meet and react to the instincts and impulses that have this influence on me turn it into something that I then personify there. This is the place where we confront each other, me and this personification, and where I see it in others as well as I see it in myself. Where we get absorbed by it and and lose our human qualities. In this place interpersonal psychic events always have a relation to us. It is also where the here and now gets lost. Where it turns into a jumble of personal biographical material, our shortcomings and excesses gets mixed up with others. But we also discover that we think that we are all that emerges in this place, even though it is not of our own making, and we have to face it by ourselves and confront the challenges we meet with here, and not let what is happening to us move it somewhere else, and allow ourselves a total loss of who we are. The integrity that we have painstakingly tried to create in our relationships with that other, which affects us and exerts its pressure on us, can easily slip away into someone else’s collective oblivion. But it is still in this, in this interpersonal space that we can see past our own perceptions and into the content that reflect what it want us to recognize. Here, Nature always gives this place the sanctuary it needs when it risks being overpopulated by the conflicts that arise between others and their biographical content, when we risk being dissolved by their encroaching limitlessness with which this interpersonal impulsive force tries to affect us, so that we abandon the reconciliation we may have achieved in our own relation to it.

Being impulsive is not having a kind of individuality. Nor to take up a position in an ideal way against others being so. Or to believe that others are the reason for our own lack of self-control in the sense that we do not have a relationship with our impulses and in how we reflect their influence and independence on us. Or acknowledge how they articulate our psychic content. Our inner person in relation to our psychic influences is in a more fragile state to us than we dare admit to ourselves. Where we mostly blame others for what we are exposed to within ourselves. We are really in an undeveloped relationship with our inner person in its relationship with this content. And it doesn’t look like it’s getting any better.

It is a place where I find myself without identifying with it or what happens there. Nor do I identify with what happens to others on it. I am one with it without being it because it is there whether I or anyone else is in it or not. Nor does my ego have any significance for it or it for my ego. They are separate yet one and always independent of each other.

For some reason unknown to me and in a state of psychological exhaustion, a nothingness of mental fatigue, my mind wandered to an old story with Einstein. On a walk with a colleague, Einstein asks him if he really believes that the moon only exists if he looks at it. The answer from the colleague was implied and that it is a guess. It can neither be proven or not. My thought here was, aren’t there two alternating states? When we see it, it is a physical object mediated by our senses. But when we don’t, it is a psychic object, consisting of psychic energy. It has passed from being a material celestial body to becoming a wavelength consisting of its psychic attributes. It is still the moon, but now it have taken on its wave energy attributes. It has only psychic properties. Likewise, people are objects for our exterior senses. But just as often they will take on these wave energy attributes and become psychic qualities. I think that this is also where our ancestral influences come in along with our present biographical and cultural material. As part of all the psychic influences whose energy waves shapes the experience directly as we make it. For some reason it is there for us when we need it, and turns into what we need to formulate when it appears to us out of this transformation. To assume that we experience a place only objectively, apart from its wave energy attributes, from its presence when we experience it, or trying to be another human being from within, an animal, or just look at trees as objects without considering the interaction they have with the environment they are integrating with, is to reduce the significance of this ever-ongoing transformation to something only happening within ourselves. Regardless of the fact that it appears in itself without us being present everywhere around us. Another way to put it, where there is no time there is only energy. It is the timelessness of the psyche. We just discover that it happens to us as time. This transformation in itself has always been highly valued in human culture, and the energy content of its psychic waves has been regarded as sacred since the dawn of man. And for a good reason, because it’s something that all of our senses are involved in. Independent of whatever opinion we might have of the wavelengths or its physical attributes. And now that I think about it, that’s probably the most painful and terrifying thing about it, there is no formulated way for us to discern psychic phenomena in our lives. Experiencing the difference between us and others in a shareable embodied daily psychic life. They are mostly mixed up with each other. Which make most of us act physically on inner psychic motifs, when they instead should be met psychically through reflection, with the participation of our inner person, because they are dependent on our presence in the events of our inner world.

It is a feeling of the relationship with nature turned inside out, as when I am embraced by it and discover that I am the one being witnessed. By places, trees, the wind, fallow deer’s and birds, everything around me that I am exposed to. And on top of that, the faces that I am expected to reflect outwardly in the roles that our social convention follows, and whose clichéd and perfunctory formality that has been introjected by force and which has instead turned into a limiting body of control to our inner beingness, and a gatekeeper with perfectionist ideals that do not accept our within for what it is, but instead constantly judge it based on how it should be, and what we can allow ourself to express of our psychic life behind its cultivated ideals. But behind it is our personal experiences of different psychic energies that powerfully interact through us and with people around us, they show us who it is that works us from within, together with nature itself which in all its parts seeks and witnesses us. These different faces function as a balance, a shifting traditional conduct turned inside out, which our unspoken social rules constantly try to regulate and decide which of them that can be used, and which of them are forbidden and we are not allowed to express. They act as custodians to our instincts and express the psychic reality that otherwise independently of us exerts its influence on us apart from who we think we are. As when we try to live up to what others’ relationship is to them.

We do not get what we call personality, our character from our worldly name, the name we associate with our ego. Alongside that, there is a constant exchange and transformation of energy between us and others and the nature we interact with. One aspect of it teaches us things all the time while we alternately teach it as well. We most easily describe it as a form of an ancient elder, a primordial ancestor who was there before we got there, and from which we are instructed and educated. No one can decide for anyone else how it will present itself to us from within our interpersonal space. It’s impossible and concerns each persons integrity. All we can do is to share how we have allowed ourselves to be integrated in relation to the meaning it has for us, and how we allow it to transform what we need to know as we formulate ourselves in our inner dialogue with it. It is just a different kind of participation in what we call reflection.

It is almost a given when we meet him, that also historically, in an inner underlying sense, it becomes evident that Máderáhttje, the earth father in an external cultural sense has become the one who synthesizes all the fragmented and individual parts of him in the form of male figures who are connected to different parts of nature. When he is absent, his qualities instead appear in the forest, in the mountains, in streams, in the fields, in wet misty marshes, and in the landscape around us. When we don’t have nature around us, he almost becomes human. A psychic form of fatherhood that connects us to an environment in its cultural sense. But as soon as we are back in nature, his qualities take on other forms, that individually act on us independently of him. However, he is always there. Because he has an important function as the one who mediates this connection to us in a cultural sense. And the one that gives us access to different parts of the interpersonal nature we are a part of and its own living forms, regardless of how we then try to control them when they appear to us.

What we usually do not want to observe of the whole we have transferred to an external context as part of its influence on us, which our real person behind it may not be able to discover as the private underlying and undeveloped part of the external public version it is, which we have created for ourselves as a compromise that most people see as what we are, and that we use as a dummy for the personality that we use for all that within us we do not want to admit to it. It is what the underlying inner person is burdened with that we do not allow ourselves to openly learn from and communicate with others. Instead, we naively allow others to exploit us for their inner unresolved psychological needs, where we neglect to have an open dialogue between us and ourselves, between who we are within and how it expresses itself in the interpersonal other as the conversation it has with us in what lies behind all our relationships. It is absolutely impossible to try to live up to the personal dialogue that we have to the constant processes that take place between our inner person and the influence our psychological background has on us in someone else. Most of the time though, this only just happens to us without us knowing about its effect on us. We may call it destiny. Or bad karma. But it is a psychological torment that not only afflicts us but also others, and we constantly transmit it because it is almost unbearable for us. This is psychologically conceptualized in old Sami life as Ruohtta. The dark transferred side of our need to have a connection to Rádienáhttje, to our inner source, and to feel whole. If we transfer it onto someone or something else, an idea or group affiliation, we lose our psychic boundaries, our luonto and henki, the integrity of our soul. We lose our relationship to ourselves and the whole of which we are a part.

Group consciousness as I understand it is a kind of undeveloped relationship to the individual content of the interpersonal within, conceptualized in Sami as Saivu. Whose individual structure can be seen on the old Sami drums, the Goavddis, as they reflect each drummer’s individual relationship to Saivu in the differences between them. Most often today this is disconnected from us in various kinds of contemporary substitutes for its scope, and the experience we make of its intense influence on us so that our personal boundaries are not completely blurred. The group consciousness we confine ourselves to, can still keep it intact in parts so that we can maintain a kind of sense of psychic integrity there, and still maintain a connection to our sense of wholeness. Which makes it extremely important as we grow up, but increasingly less significant as adults in relation to the individual, and its relationship to our interior person, the human being from within in its greater whole. Group consciousness itself in its non-transferred form is what connects us to a process of psychological maturation and to our individual development of the content of the primordial whole of which we are a part, and from which psychic essence our inner person originates. In the most extreme end of our lost boundaries, we assume that we can be another person from within that other person himself. Or in relation to a group, from within all the individuals in them, in every single member of it at the same time. The integrity of that person is of course completely lost as long as it is maintained and supported by those who form part of the group consciousness as it becomes separated from the individual’s unique relationship to the original whole, and the content with which each one of us interacts with there. But most of the time, without us noticing it, we are constantly and alternately transforming it into an external context so that we can interact with it, albeit in a distorted way. And as long as we do not pay attention to what we transmit to others of this interpersonal space, this will not be subject to the ancient knowledge and psychic maturity it contains. It is truly confusing just trying to keep up with the constant transformations that occur in the relationships we encounter in the biographical baggage of others and the relationship we have with the reality that integrates us into our interpersonal background, or saivo. Because it is so displaced from who we want to be in relation to the original whole we have transferred in distorted form to our group affiliation. It really is a painful thing to grow up with. Having a direct relationship with the primordial whole with few noticing its influence on us, who instead use a group consciousness to disown parts of it as opposed to others, and in that frame of mind oppose the use of other words for the same experiences, regardless of how we as individuals like to use them to reference our interpersonal life.

In a comparative sense, Máderáhttje is also the one we relate to as earth father. With the cultural aspect of him also expressed from within as an embodiment of henki, a person’s life force as it was experienced and conceptualized by people in pre-Christian northern Finland and Sweden. Something that we feel in our chest that connects us to mother earth, with Máttaráhkká as a sense of an absolute physical belonging. We experience ourselves as an embodiment of it that makes us part of the earth. As if we descends into our bodies in a kind of unification, a pre-marriage, or an engagement. An experience that we are entirely made up of all that is, and that we share it with all that exists. Without them we belong to nothing and feel lost. We have not yet passed through our second birth and are in a secluded psychic state outside of our bodies that have not yet become receptive to the within of the world as vessels for how it presents itself to us, and from its own self-organizing whole as it exists both within us and everywhere around us. Or how this makes itself known and speak to us.

For a long time we oscillate between the person within us, its relationship to the older original person who nurtures it from an unknown other beyond it, and the one whose learned martyrdom and its co-dependency makes us bear the needs of others, to meet what in them is experienced emotionally as a psychic weight no one wants to see which is imposed on us in extreme tension as a kind of natural bipolarity that emerges as its path to well-being. Where we alternately identify with one or the other, as we try to come to terms with the interdependency that constantly hijacks us and repeats us under the intense pressure we suffer there. We can no longer just be one of them. We just know that we have to be genuine and true to ourselves. That we can no longer allow ourselves to be drawn into and be consumed by our emotional and psychological martyrdom. Whoever it is that is trying to drag us into it. In Sami it is conceptualized as the experience we make of the ovdasas. The one we travel with in life whose presence follows us, and the the one who goes before, who appears as the other part of a kind of spiritual double, who is the one we are about to become. Together they look after a persons well being. They are the visual or auditory apparition of a wide range of this kind of experiences. A strange thing is that it feels good to allow oneself to be kind of crazy because it feels like we are real, and relate to what is genuine and true. We just have to figure out how everything within us that does not fit into a standardized way of life should be allowed to speak for us in relation to it.

Through our intermediate dependence on our fathers and their inner confusion where they lack support in the person within us who mediates the connection to our inner source, we end up becoming where they are. In an inner disjointed state of opposites that we learn to identify with as if we have created this condition by ourselves, and which somehow has become our personal task to constantly subordinate ourselves to, and explain its meaning to to everyone around us. We learn to identify with some of all the opposites as they occur to us in relation to the lives of our fathers and by their conflicting explanations of them. We believe that we can have a relationship with them even though they lack support of the person within them and the psychic source he mediates a relationship with to us. Our confusion becomes even greater when we discover that we cannot use perpetual explanations as a means of relating to our surroundings. And that our ability to navigate our inner person between all opposites is dependent on his intangible counterpart. Not on us. But on the one who in itself is both an opposite and a counterpart and who has always existed within us in our inner conversation with ourselves. Who is also the one who listens to our inner person and translates the insights he receives into personal experiences. Thats how our relation to our intermediate or primordial fathers often look like before we come to understand its cultural and psychic significance to us. And to our fathers who have lost their relation to the psychic self-regulating whole that the relationship to it constitutes, the reflection for what it is in itself and its inherent counterpart which then in its natural spontaneity creates a constant fear of the disorder this creates within them. So through our fathers interior condition we then learn to relate one-sidedly to what they convey of a common approach to our surroundings in their far too inflated and impersonal explanations. Whom we make our own in order to feel involved and absorbed in our interdependence with them. If we fail to come to terms with this, we end up out in the cold. Our fathers becomes perceived as absent and distancing themselves from us. They don’t know how to relate to us. Our codependency thinks it’s because of something in us. That we are not like them. Which it is because we cannot bear their burden of not feeling close to anyone in another way than how they do it. We become forced to inflate ourselves out of our psychic boundaries and into an interdependence that blows us apart and destroy our inner sense of a wholeness. We become blown ups, and behave like sluggish giants. Stalo’s in Sami. Which is what happens to us if we end up too far from our nature and the overall sense of the relationship it conveys to us. This is what some of us have to face as we become forced to grow up outside our own being. We have to trick them by being quick-witted to survive.

Neither of my parents had an open relationship with our inner cultural parent couple. To its personal form of expression that they should have had with them there. Or to the inner person who, in relation to his sibling, directs us between all opposites and to the self-organizing underlying spontaneous source that gives us psychic substance, and a value in relation to our life in an external sense. Interaction with them was not a given source of inspiration in their relationships with others. It was mostly surpressed. Because of that it was undeveloped and immature in its interdependence to their surroundings. From time to time they appeared when we were fishing, picking berries, working in the forest or just hanging out together on or around the rivers nearby the surroundings of my grandparents’ or my great-grandmother’s home village. But it was associated with a certain shame and culture of silence. These were things that no one talked about openly. But it usually escaped them spontaneously. Sometimes through reprimands. As I heard it, I absorbed it surreptitiously, and felt closer to them when it happened. It would be until I was 28 before it violently turned my life upside down and reminded me in full force of its influence again. Nature has that effect on us. It nurtures, heals and embraces us in a way that calms our senses when set on fire, and then puts us in a receptive state for our inner person. Which heals him and allows him to grieve the distance his codependency has created. A father who does not have a relationship with the old voice within us which is the self-organizing principle that mediates the insights he is given between all the contradictions we endure within us, is constantly entangled and preoccupied with either one or the other opposite of them without its relation to our individual personal interior context. This makes us imitate our confused fathers because we believe that by doing so, engaging our mind into a thousand different things, we have a relation to each other. Instead we make us codependent in the sense that we become their sounding board. Which is something far from a genuine relation since we have no personal intrinsic value there. We only become an echo in their narcissistic world of contradictions that constantly appear between them and themselves, which they then resolve in a way that excludes the relation they have to what emerges within them and in others independently of them, with all sorts of incoherent thoughts and windy opinions. Without our cultural psychic parents we lack a way of working through them and translate the insight negotiated to us and to our inner person by means of its counterpart there, so that it reflects its psychic reality to us. Which we then together with others interact with. But by our interdependency we try to control our confusion by turning it into a compulsive relationship with only one end of the opposites we get exposed to. Which in itself creates the fear that makes us reluctant to the change it entails. We just abdicate the true responsibility we have to our person within, our psychic life and how it is mirrored between us and our fathers. Not only that, this also exposes us to our transferred interdependence to our mothers, and to women in general by its one-sidedness. To what they must deny in relation to our, and our fathers’ immature and undeveloped relation to our inner life. Our mothers’ burdens and lamentations become ours in our interdependence with them. We feel sorry for them as much as we try to repair the absence we experience in our own and our mothers’ relationship with our fathers. Without nature’s embracing and healing influence on us, we do not discover the sadness that we have defended ourselves against, and the way in which we have defended ourselves against our inner person’s constant attempts to make everything right. And to help him by asking them to start carrying their own wight, and taking care of this in themselves, without us and to relate to us as who we are independent of their interdependencies to us. In this way our nature frees our inner person from the invasive codependency we have learned through the imbalance of our environment in relation to our inner person and the relationships he had there. Nature as this embodied relation to our psyche is also the one who, with the help of her daughter, shows us the ancient voice that arises behind her by itself as the source between all opposites, that guides us with the task that it conveys to us in our lives in its own unique way and independently of others. What I am trying to describe is that we have a relationship with whole families in what is called Saivu in sami. They in turn create a relationship between us and nature, and to the influence that the psychological background forces of life have on us. It is the relationship we have to this that has become distorted. Because it is not about worship but about reverence in how we will interact with what they are. And that’s how we get in touch with them.

The psychic structure of the mind is not a group or a kind of community. It is an individual relationship to the interpersonal influence we frame our experiences with as we interact with them throughout our lives. In Sami, this relationship is conceptualized as sáivu, where the various counterparts we alternately meet and interact with are found. There is a difference between this and a religion because this is a personal relationship to a living context of a psyche that is as much in nature as it is nature within us, and what we meet there is not about worship but about reverence. It is not conditioned by a group mind or determined by the social relations it creates within a society. But is something that just arises out of itself for us as the background to our experiences when we make them and they interact with our lives. It was already there before we got there. In addition, we often have to use imagery that has historical roots to describe our experiences as these better refer to what is happening within us. One reason why we do this may be that it was the last time in a historical sense that we had an agreed upon pictorial language that created an opportunity to engage in the relationship to the content of our psychic experiences, in which we as a group with a collective mind were included in its influence on us, and how our ego preferred to relate to it in order to be accepted. Obviously, we cannot get any closer to it on its own psychic terms without a pictorial language, historical or not before we leave the vicious cycle that a codependent religion, ideology or conception of life implicates to an individual in contradiction to his own mind. We can observe this in ourselves during election years. Just look at how interdependent political opponents become and how voters often perceive among themselves that our public representatives may not be doing what is right, which is what they should be doing after an election is over. The same co-dependency will still characterize the relations between political opponents afterwards, and voters will still constantly take the role of one or the other, as victims or intimidators/asperser in their place without any resolution being achieved within the individual voters’ own co-dependency. Or in the contexts between our public representatives. There is no end in sight in this and media of all kinds are fueling it with their own narcissistic dependencies to entertain it. It is a huge psychic effort and not an easy thing to dare to break the unwritten patterns of interdependence that inhibit the individual relationship between us and ourselves in relation to others, to our family and friends, to an entire society, or its world, and to change the behavioral contexts to which we have submitted ourselves with our convictions. Even though we know that it is what creates the change that must happen both in ourselves and to others, if they are ever to be able to do so for themselves.

I have never felt comfortable with the concepts of spirit and soul. They have been too limiting and vague for me. My relationship with myself is something much more tangible than that. But if I see them as terms that embody something instead, it becomes easier. All that is spirit in this sense to me becomes the raw psychic experience of something. Soul then becomes the psychic materialization of it. That which gives it form and substance. Something that I, in relation to my inner person, can interact with. Not only as something in myself, but also something that I also encounter in others, as something between us. This in-between then takes on its own meaning as the influence it exerts on everything from there. On the whole nature of which I am a part. From there, it is something we encounter and interact with that is between us, and it in our own way. With our own background and the conditions that our psychological whole conveys to each of us. It interacts with us on its own terms but its influence on us is always personal. Although it is sometimes conveyed as instructions in relation to its own source which is the one we share between us. Most often it is something that only becomes obvious to us in political contexts, and when we are caught by its currents of thought, where our self-regulating and ordering inner totality in its distorted and transferred form of the ego forces its dark influence on others. We forget to relate to and show consideration for others, to do the right thing with individual people in mind, instead of being belligerent and argumentative and blaming others. We are so used to this being the way it should be that we don’t understand our own behavior, or how our relationships could look, feel and develop through our influence on each other. What makes it even more terrifying with each passing day is that even though we are called and challenged to face this within ourselves, individually, we constantly follow people who pushes the ego forward to its outwardly devastating conclusion.

When we identify with, and become our inner person, the one within us that mediates the relationship to us that we have to our other inner forms of energy from which their power exerts its influence on us, we transform them into what we want them to be, and what we want them to do for us through others. Instead of them being a relationship to us, who inspire us with information and guidance, we turn them into our ego. Literally to the one fact to which we relate our entire existence. We embark on a journey of madness where we constantly oscillate between all conceivable opposites. We constantly relate to one and then to the other in our ceaseless attempts to transfer the control of our inner contradictions to our ego. But that is not the role of the ego. It is something that belongs to our inner person, and to those with whom he interacts. And they, in turn, are not bound only to us, but can also be experienced through how they also affect others. Although our pictorial language as opposed to our actual language differs between us. The source of their influence is still the same between us. As long as we do not realize this, our ego will constantly be blind to the order of our inner structure and self-regulating greater whole and relate to one end after another in the pairs of opposites to which it relates in order to be accepted. And we will constantly hide the relationship we have between us and ourselves in our relationships with others. Not acting with an authenticity in something that we have in common, but with demands, wishes, compulsions, reprimands, conflicts and everything else we want our environment to provide us with that already exists within ourselves and in our relationship to the influence it has as something both within us and within others.