A “crazy” person turns everything into opposites. Both on a personal and collective level when he, or she act this out on other people. Anyone may be turned into an opponent which has to be confronted as part of an opposite. In politics, it is believed that this is for the good of all. But it only serves its own self-interest, or the preferred “good” side of an opposite to which we want to identify ourselves with. This is repeated almost everywhere in today’s society. People become addicted to self-interest. But our personal qualities, both what we like about ourselves that we relate to in others, and our own unavowed mistakes that we reject in them, are not to be found there. This is us embodied in them. They are our makeup mirror. And if we really look into it, we can see ourselves, how this works, and what excess of ourselves we transfer to others to carry around for us. Whether we like it or not, it’s really there. That’s the nature of the evil we let go of in the world. It is what we are.
Damn you all for what this uniformity in our collective consciousness’s way of looking at existence downgrades my personal interaction with myself. This is what makes me feel cramped, forced and unpleasant. It is what creates a high tension and an forced temperament in me. But really, you have to forgive me for that, I’m just doing everything i can, trying to defend my inner voice from being completely deprived of its own living reality inside of me. I am just not you, and I never will be.
Wthin our mind this child form is with us all the time. It is part of what we are. And he or she, is the one to bring us to the source of our being. To handle its messages. This is its true function after adolescence.
In this place we can also sense its absence in all directions, everywhere and in everywhen. We cannot disregard its mental form when we sense it without severe punishment from its objection to our ways, and a constant feeling of it being a disturbance to our normal patterns of behavior when we are not paying attention to its activity.
In its externalised form our senses constantly bring repulsive evidence of how the relation to it works in the world. Don´t take my word for it, words are always insufficient to experience. They can never describe the absolute immediacy of this relationship.
But true to this pre-formed beingness, I am deeply convinced that it is by a loss of this relationship we have come to shape the present day world around us.
Isolation is the feeling I have when I am held captive by my own imagination, like something I have memorized, or theorized about. An idea or inspiration. Or when my imagination has taken others as hostage.
It is the literalization of the interior source of my being. Because there is no other. Only how I clothe them so that i can safely control my impulses through them. Or reject them for what i don’t like about the spontaneus acts of my own imagination.
It seems to me that this is how our rational denial of the relationship to our imagination transform others into depersonalized carriers of our own personal psychic environment. And I think this accounts to much of the bad things that we do to each other, and observe in the world surrounding us. We do this to legitimize that meeting we must have with our imagination so we can participate in its experience directly.
In this sense, this reality we live in, is really a world of collective imagination.
When one realises that our parents actually where the extensions of a certain kind of timeless ancestors appearing from a latent world of immaterial experiences, and that mother earth really was the true carrier of the greater maternal principle of life. What follows with that imaginative realization is the physical experience of just how vulnerable the act of her creation are. Suddenly there is this wonderful feminine impulse in which we come into sympathy and communion with earth and its ancient appeal to support everything that we attribute to her, to innocence, and to life in its infancy. Especially that which is not yet conscious of itself. Everything is now an embodied part of her creation. And of the cycles of life. Men, plants, animals and the hidden embryos of all organic life. We are also able to see childishness as an attribute of being unaware of what we are, of the nature of our inner being and of psychic life.
By mother earth we have suddenly obtained a first hand experience of what this mysterious wisdom is that is given to us by impulse, and in the shape of an immediate and compelling experience of what the maternal principle in all men are.
She is even giving birth to our own inner child and setting us up to care for it in everything we observe that is undifferentiated.
The whole talk here: Humanity and the Deep Ocean
If our banks create access to money in a way that drives investors and entrepreneurs, and if this money is simultaneously invested outside the real demand in a market economy, then an economy has been created which is due to an artificial demand and to artificial price increases as a result of where this money is first put into the economy.
We thus get economic cycles that do not always depend on, or reflect, where the market economy pricing and demand are of their own power.
Instead, it will reflect where the banks think they can best serve their interests.
When reality then catches up with these bloated economic conditions, we get a recession with less money in circulation, but with the debt remaining that is the cost of the money that was created and driven the artificial economic upturn in the economy.
In this way, companies and individuals pay jointly for the banks’ speculation.
Banks should work with asset management and lend money. But why do they get to create money in that process?
I like to clarify what I meant previously by the creation of a materialistic, or intellectually fixed reality? Or the concept of reality as an object. A thing.
Take totemism. The kin relationship between people, plants and animals.
The concept of totemism does not explain anything. It just makes human experience an object. And as an object it does not connect to anything. Thats materialistic. There is no living connection to experience.
But if you say that certain plants and people have a kinship because they will heal you, and others are antagonistic and will kill you. You have a kinship with the spirit of that plant that is good for you. The same goes with animals. Certain animals go well together, some with people and others don’t. People have a close relation to some animals and not with others. Thats a kinship. What follows is that with kinship there is a responsibility. You have a relationship of respect to fulfill. And this relation calls for it. If you violate this relationship, it will be the destruction of the life of that experience, and ultimately it will also become the destruction to all kinship relations on which we are dependent.
This is not about ideologies or certain beliefs systems. Its about human experience and a moral obligation to our environment.
There is always going to be an opposition in us between our ”civilized”, rationalized academic way of life, and our ”indigenous” or uncivilized anti-intellectual way, where our nature, when not given proper attention, will turn us into dumb compulsive and irrational beings. Not really relating our psychic experiences to life and to other people. Because when we surpress that life, as we have done for such a long time by desecrating it in our collective life, and in favour of civilization. We have created a completely conceptual religious and materialistic reality which have not only distanced us from our selves, from our nature and moral responsibility, but it has also distanced us from our experience of immediate knowing and the validity of paradoxical thinking. Booth of which are just opposite parts of any personal make up.
From our ”indigenous” side we can experience the immediate knowing of the oracular, revelatory and ancestral resources of the mind that are shut off from us by conditioning and upbringing.
But we defend against it with our conventionality.
When what we commonly call personality, or how we want to appear to other ends, it is replaced by idealism and imagination.
Outside of time we just are. We are subjectively motivated, and we follow an internal logic with its own reference to norms and value systems.
We alone are the sole witnesses to our impressions. To our experiences. Our being here precedes time and also coexists as a source outside of it. We exist in that as that exist in us. It is my original beingness. And that is something that is more valuable to me than any of the collective ideals we prefer to babysit with our ego.
Right here we are also provided with the means to participate in something that is bigger than ourselves.
It is where we reconnect to nature. To the directness of our oldest eternal settings of the psyche.
It has always been there, and we often unknowingly choose to acknowledge it by assigning transcendental values to the generalisations of someone or something at the expense of its, or his or hers individuality.
And to our horror, looking at the world, the ones least respectful of being is also the ones we seem to choose as our leaders since the shape of this world is determined by who we follow and what their relationship to being is.
Every major city with its population is in itself a contradiction to life in balance with its immediate surroundings. No city can ever be made self-sustanable, and it can never provide for the needs of its population unless it is provided for by using up the existing resources obtained from somewhere else.
They are completely dependent on the subordinate behavior of other regions to provide them with what they need. This is also the dominating mindset that characterizes our decision makers.
The burden of urban survival is to be carried out by regions further and further away from the cities themselves to cope with the necessities of its ever growing populations.
Our cities have not only become a threat to their surrounding nature, and to the regions that provide them with existing resources. They have become a threat to Earth itself, and it is now our Earth who will suffer the consequenses.
The destruction and exploitation of our rural areas is the forgotten other end of every major city’s carrying capacity.
We all belong to a place. We can feel it in our bones, when on vacation. Or watching a sunset. When we are ovewhelmed by a landscape. My sense of identity is related to such a place as a lineage to its metaphysical origin. As being part of that which has existed before me, I am this place of origins unique entry in time and space.
I am also this origins particular set of qualities and characteristics.
A collective source, like a pattern of coded forms organized in a specific expression of life.
That is the essence of my personality.
And if something in that place somehow get transferred, exploited or in any way treated in a destructive way.
It is done to me too.
Every one of us are both descendants to our ancestors as we are ancestors to our descendants. What we do here and now will have an affect on them both, because we are them. We embody them.
If we don’t take care of the effects our collective life has on them now, this is what it’s going to be.
It does not go anywhere.
It is us. Our life.
We all have a unique and individual expression of our being embedded in our dna. And some part of it is also inherited from a cultural conditioning behaving as a connection to a cultural past. When it unfolds in our spontaneous expression of being it will have its own pre-established way of presenting itself as imagination.
Its in our blood. And it is really not in the physical world. The struggle we have with this are within ourselves.
It also constitutes an individual form of danger when we by a collective, by corporations or governments, without a connection to our being allow ourselves to live out all kinds of interior worlds of imaginative self interest onto other people. We will then become a danger both to people, and to the world.
What we are doing to each other then, to this otherness, is trying to mirror and replace the within in other people, with that of our own, and then try to morally justify our actions by the submission of other people. As if a loud voice or forcefulness was an argument in itself.
And if they do not agree to this. We bring our war to them.
This will now become our world.
She is the growth and eternal renewal of all life. She carries and nurture the source and generative power of life. She embeds it and cares for its forms coming to life. It is the very spirit of life which is brought to her for her to carry. And she is what makes it all possible, because she brings whatever shape given to her, its physical body. When they are given to her she will nourish them. She will provide for them, and she will care for their wellbeing. Without her there would be nothing, our physical life will not exist at all. Life will no longer have its beingness. It will disappear from the source of individual life.
Life will be deprived of its purpose, it will have no meaning.
Globalisation is the word we use with corporations and banks to get to exploit every local resource available at no cost, to maximise the profit where it is not responsible to no one, anywhere.
It is the ultimate disconnection from earth.
If we are lucky with our parents we get to grow up in the garden of eden. We will get close to earth.
But at some point we have to leave it. And we have to bring some of it with us because it is us.
Again, if we are lucky, we get initiated by our parents or some other elder when its time.
To be initiated will make us bring eden with us, that which have been given to us before we got dressed up in the generalisations of a collective personality and become that narrowness of a cultivated ideal.
Even without luck we have to find eden anew. It is not a question of good and evil.
It is both. A condition of life.
Everyday we can watch what happens when some part is preferred for the other. Our ego loose sight of right and wrong, and starts looking after itself in a forced, one sided and opinionated way. What once was eden has now turned against us.
Our moral sense is lost and we become num to the views of others and to life. We will try to force our one sidedness onto others, and pride ourself of becoming insensitive, primitive and ugly.
Without this moral conditioning from life itself, we will become a danger to life.
And believe me,
by being that person, we will also make ourselves a bloody bore.
Maybe it is our parliament, and our gouvernment itself who need some adjustment.
What we see right now is that one part is missing in that equation. When considering the present situation, it is obvious something in our gouverning is not there, the parliament do not really answer to no one. The people they are responsible for is not really there, so they don’t have any real counterpart.
Just think about that for a moment.
Because right now they just answer to themselves. And this is not good democracy.
Who is taking care of our wealth. Were is our leadership of wealth. Who is taking care of our water. Our nature. Who is looking after our common good. Obviously, wealth is very much dependent on how new money first should be spent into the economy. But there is no true counterpart in parliament for that.
Our leaders badly need this. They should have to answer before the leader of wealth to be able to make good decisions for the people.
Right now, our parliament here in Sweden, as in many other countries, are divided among themselves, and arguing full time about who should be its leader. How parliament should be led, and in what direction. And with our media fully occupied by reporting on this disagreement, good decisions going out the window.
And this is currently built into the system by the absence of a real working counterpart.
For that to change, we need them to answer to someone on the basis of a working democracy, and that should be accomplished through a leadership of wealth.
With such a counterpart, our parliament then have to change its priorities to be only of concern to the wealth and wellbeing of its people.
We should even consider having a pre election on candidates where only women can vote. And after that we can all vote on the outcome of their election.
Our ambassador on Island suffered heavy criticism for it, but he is not too far from the truth, intuitively thinking democracy is being “dismantled” by its current constitution in Sweden.
By thinking about it anew, we may actually adjust our parliament closer to its original vision, and maybe, we can then make our parlament the true working heart of democracy we want it to be.
When i put the west i see in my mirror, i sense the image after which we have made ourselves.
This sadistic, melancholy one sided anxiety ridden paranoia of an omniscient rationality and omnipotent ruler through abstract principle of justice, morality and order. Enraged when not followed or his will is crossed. Our consciousnes is reflecting this image. Most often as cold, distant and ruthless, but as an ideal he is old, bearded and distant. A god of manhood. Even women identify with this image. This is how we all think we should appear if we want to rule, or show decisiveness. We think conquering is relating. Not surprisingly, this image we have of ourselves then, is also a wifeless one. It´s an ideal of manhood, and it has no woman beside it. There are no traits of compassion. Or true generosity. It suffers a complete lack of the feminine.
No wonder there is a problem with the nature of earth and personal feelings. And in our views on women.
This is what we force upon the world. This is our image. The very image we present ourself with to the world.
Being directed by, and unaware of the patterns of behaviour that flow from the organizing structure of a certain collective itself, rather than the individuality of its members,
is getting us very close to how people have come to appreciate the political, financial and corporate leadership of today.
Strange things happens to people when they are trying to relieve themselves from their rational bind to connect to the present, or trying to be in the moment because their rationality confuse experience with the numinous. Todays organised religion, ideology or -isms doesn’t have anything to do with our present inherent sense of being in the moment or to the connection it makes to the numinous impressions we have of earth or of place. Earth no longer have any part in that. We have become so rationalised that we can no longer share the numinous in the present with each other without resorting to one form or the other of rational collective identities. Religious or otherwise. Our impressions of inner meaning and information are not transported across distances and time; they are an integral part of the numinous in consciousness expressing itself here and now. And our beliefs in the sense of an inner relation to that is not anything rational, it is something that cannot be taught. It has to be re-lived anew by each individual. It is a unique relation between ourselves and our life. And it contains both physical and metaphysical connotations. It is an earthly experience going on both inside us, and all around us. And it is all to obvious that if we live in bondage to rationality, our reason suffers.
The effect of an earthly place on my senses is wedded to the memory of its origin.
Mother trees colonize their kin with bigger mycorrhizal networks. They send them more carbon below ground. They even reduce their own root competition to make elbow room for their kids. When mother trees are injured or dying, they also send messages of wisdom on to the next generation of seedlings.
A balanced budget means no new injection of money into the economy.
The financial year looks the same at the end as it looked at the beginning.
No change has occurred.
There is only one reason to have such a limitation of wealth, that is if inflation threatens the economy as our gouvernment has charged too little tax out of it.
A budget surplus means that the government has managed to spend less money in to the private sector than they have taken out in tax.
This means that the private sector now has a deficit of money in it.
The financial year ends with the fact that there is less money in the private sector than there was in the start of the year.
This means that households and firms has to borrow or use their savings to maintain their consumption of goods and services in order to maintain the existing level of revenues and living standards.
This is also occurs when our banks are aloud to control the money supply.
If the surpluses are retained for a long time the whole of the private sector has to reduce their expectations and their economic activity, and we get a recession with unemployment as a consequence, or it has to try to compensate by putting itself into (more) debt. Which was the case leading up to the bank crisis in 2008.
A follow up to this happens when loans cannot be repaid, which later turned out to accelerate and spread the banking crisis.
With a budget deficit the state has charged less tax out of the economy than it has spent into what we use in the economy. There is a general financial prosperity and employment increase because the supply of money increases to come in line with the existing resources.
The macroeconomic terminology thus have an opposite impact on the real economy than household thinking because households and firms use the money. Gouvernments have the constitutional right to create and spend them for us to be able use them in the economy.
A budget then has nothing to do with ideology, an -ism or any doctrin. But it has all to do with who controls the money supply.
Tillväxt är ett substitut för jämlikare inkomstskillnader. ( Henry Wallich 1914-1988 )
Om detta skulle vara sant så skulle det omvända också vara sant. Att en ökad jämlikhet i inkomstskillnad ersätter tillväxt. Det omvända är nu inte bara önskvärt, det är också helt nödvändigt för vår fortsatta tillväxt.
Fler människor med bättre inkomst omsätter mer pengar i ekonomin.
Ökade inkomstskillnader motiveras bland annat med att en högre lön och bonusar skulle vara prestationshöjande och bidra till ett hårdare arbete och fler innovationer.
Men är detta verkligen sant? Om det var sant skulle ju fler patent utfärdas i samhällen med större inkomstskillnader. Det finns undersökningar som tyder på det motsatta.
Se t.ex. Daniel Pink och “The Surprising Truth about What Motivets Us”.
Till Boken på Amazon »
Det finns också en ekonomisk teori som hävdar att pengar skulle sippra ned i samhällsekonomin från inkomsttoppen och på så sätt bidra till den.
Det som tydligast talar emot detta är nog att skillnaderna ökar och omsättningen av pengar i den verkliga ekonomin minskar(Se t.ex. Nick Hanauer on job creation »).
Med ökade finansiella motiv framför dom jämlika fostrar man finansiella behov som ett självändamål oberoende av samhällsekonomin, vilket generellt sett leder till sämre prestationer och stagnation. Här finner man också svårigheter med invanda statusbeteenden och hierarkier.
Människor presterar bäst när dom har utrymme att styra sitt eget arbete och har möjlighet att utveckla och förändra med fokus på kvalitet. När deras arbete fyller ett syfte och känns meningsfullt.
(Många nya företag startar t.ex. i ett garage. Och drivs av andra parametrar än enbart pengar. Idéer utvecklas i vänskaper.)
Genom att fokusera på jämlikhet som ekonomisk tillväxt ökar man kvaliteten på samhällsekonomin när sociala hänsyn och relationer värderas högre än konsumtion och ökande inkomstskillnader.
Med ökad jämlikhet blir tävlan om status(mer pengar) mindre. Människor bryr sig mer om samhällsutveckling, sociala sammanhang och sin miljö.
Kort sagt, en ökad jämlikhet har en tendens att bidra med en ökad kreativitet, en bättre välfärd, ökad folkhälsa samtidigt som den skapar tillväxt och ett ökat intresse för miljön i vår omvärld.
Det är med jämlikhet Sverige och dom övriga nordiska länderna tidigare definierade sin välfärd. Och det var med den som man skapade en internationell identitet.
På 1950-talet genomgick jordbruket sin industriella revolution.
Nu står vi i början av jordbrukets ekologiska revolution. Nödvändigheten av detta klargörs bland annat av FN:s “Trade and Environment Report 2013”.
“Att ekologiskt jordbruk hotar livsmedelsförsörjningen och att det är vägen till världssvält är nonsens och bygger på vinklade beräkningar.”