The monster’s dream of a monster is the monster’s dream of its monstrosities

A monster dreams of its enemy monster.

Its enemy monster dreams of it.

So each dreams of the other.

Each knows the other is the greatest monster.

So neither can do anything to reduce their own monstrosity.

All their thoughts and all their actions feed their own thus the other’s monstrosity.

But why cannot the monsters see their own monstrosities?

For the greatest fear is to imagine oneself without any fear.

Rather than being without fear they remain without humanity – the monsters.

Advertisements

Politics and governments and the unchangeable system they maintain

POLITICS AND GOVERNMENTS AND THE UNCHANGEABLE SYSTEM THEY MAINTAIN

The answer to the question: Why haven’t politicians been able to eradicate injustice and inequality thus people’s suffering despite centuries of politics? cannot be understood until we ask the question: Why don’t politicians stay within their local institutions, local communities, local councils, local suburbs, local towns, or at least local cities, and perform the actions they talk about – the actions that can eradicate injustice and inequality thus people’s suffering?

The answer to the above questions is simple: politicians do not want to perform the actions that upset the power structure – the elite at the top and the unemployed and the working poor at the bottom. Why they don’t want to do it is the complicated part.

Politicians use the different elements and levels of government to create a public image that people can recognize. Once people can recognize the politician’s image – the image people have been convinced was one of them, even though it never was for the politician’s intention was not to stay within the local community but to leave it behind and rise to the top – they attach their own idea of the action that would reduce injustice and inequality to the image of the politician. In other words, people transfer their own desires and the ability to act – their power – to the image they trust. People’s support of the image that represents them destroys their desires and the ability to perform the actual actions that would remove injustice and inequality from their communities.

Therefore we can say: the political and government system – within any country – enables politicians to rise through the political and government levels from ‘local’ to ‘national’, however, as politicians rise to the top their purpose changes. Politicians’ purpose changes from performing the actions that reduce injustice and inequality within their local communities to becoming a political and government image that represents a set of ideas that talk about the actions needed to reduce injustice and inequality. So, as the image known as the politician rises to the top, its theoretical or perceived power increases (the image becomes more powerful) but its willingness to act reduces (the politician’s practical purpose disappears). Furthermore, the farther away politicians are from the people they represent the greater their promises to the people can be. Your local politician cannot promise extensive changes that will revolutionize the country when he or she is unable to feed the hungry and solve traffic problems in your street – you are there to witness his or her inability to do so. On the other hand, the president is so far away from you and all the other people in your country, thus not accountable to you or anyone in particular – except the elite that funds him or her. He or she can promise anything that people want to hear. It’s a matter of monitoring social media and determining people’s desires.

So, how and why do politicians change their purpose? THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT, KEEP THIS IN MIND: politicians never change their purpose. The individuals that want to rise to the top don’t care about the people around them, don’t care about their local communities, don’t care about injustice and inequality, and don’t care about corruption. The people who want to rise to the top of any institution – in any country – care only about money and power. They know that money and power are corruption, however, they also know that money and power can be used to create an image that masks corruption. Furthermore, the people who want to rise to the top know that the harder they work to create and maintain their public image the faster they rise to the top. And the faster they rise to the top the less time they have to spend worrying about performing the actions that reduce inequality and injustice thus people’s suffering. This is where the elite steps in. The elite searches for and supports the individuals – especially politicians – who have no desire to reduce injustice and inequality thus people’s suffering. This means that the people at the top do not get there because of their humanity, intelligence, and empathy. They get to the top because they are willing to say and do anything it takes to destroy others and preserve the status quo and so injustice and inequality continue and the corrupt wealthy elite stays at the top. Why do people at the top hate changes? Because changes endanger their long term investments thus their power.  

The above conclusion suggests that we need to ask: Why do politicians, and many other people in many other professions, care about money and power but not about their fellow human beings? The answer to the question is provided by many different individuals but Doctor Erich Fromm’s answer presented in his two books Fear of Freedom and The Art of Loving (they can be downloaded for free) is particularly simple. To summarize Doctor Fromm’s books we could say: any individuals that do not receive enough love of the right kind from their parents cannot learn how to love themselves (hence they use drugs and other items to destroy themselves, albeit unconsciously) and so cannot love others (hence they force others to use drugs and other items and if others refuse to participate bullying, abuse, violence or even murder are used, again unconsciously). More specifically: unloved individuals do not know how to love themselves or others and cannot feel loved by themselves or others. To them love has no value, or very little value. Consequently, they find their value not in love but in money and power. So destroying themselves and others in order to create money and power and then using money and power to hide their own minds and intentions thus corruption and destruction – from themselves and others – behind false images seems like a normal thing to do.

If the individuals that occupy senior political positions or any other senior positons in any other institutions were honest with themselves and others and if they had any humanity and integrity they would stay within their local communities and perform the actions that reduce injustice and inequality thus people’s suffering.  Or we could say: if their desires were healthy their ambitions would be healthy. Their ambitions would be to reduce and ultimately remove the suffering experienced by their fellow human beings. Unfortunately their desires are not healthy and the result is the self-destructive political system that has remained unchanged for centuries.

It is time for us, all the people of the world, to abandon politics and politicians, states and nations, and any and all concepts that divide us. While important, the realization that we don’t need governments is not the most important message of this essay. The most important message is that we need our own humanity and one another. So let us be guided not by our own ambitions – because they cannot bring us peace for they need to destroy others – but let us be guided by the desire to teach ourselves how to love ourselves so that we can love one another. Nothing you can buy can teach you how to love yourself and others.

What can you do?

  • Look within you! Are you abusing yourself? Learn how to disabuse yourself! Are you in a full time job? Why? Why? Why? Do you have any time to love yourself? Nothing you can buy can teach you how to love yourself or others. Buy the basics and then explore your mind.
  • Look around you . Who is abusing you? Let them know that you don’t care about their career, promotion or the fact that they think that their management position entitles them to abuse you!
  • Join independent networks. Trade food, clothes, hardware, software. Learn how to make and grow your own food, clothes, hardware, software. The more you can manufacture, grow, trade, repair, invent, combine, improvise the less time you have to spend working and the more time you can spend with your family and friends, doing what you want to do!
  • DO NOT WATCH TELEVISION, DO NOT LISTEN TO RADIO, DO NOT READ NEWSPAPERS, DO NOT READ MAGAZINES. They skew data and manufacture reports. Look for the ORIGINAL or RAW information without any comments. Draw your own conclusions. Do not listen to others’ conclusions.
  • Use the Internet to: A) spread the information about injustice and inequality and B) connect with other like-minded people.
  • Once you perform all of the above you will realize that there are many, many, many other people who cannot wait to join you! Some will teach you others will learn from you.

Stop working for others and experience yourself. It costs nothing.

Mass whistleblowing as a tool for social changes: a brief introduction

Rare acts of whistleblowing are extremely useful, however, they cannot begin to create significant social changes – precisely because they are no more than ‘rare acts’. Whistleblowing will begin to make a greater impact only if more people understand its potential and begin to use it as a tool.

What is its potential and what kind of tool is it? I could summarize my answer to this question as nothing less than: raw data revealed through whistleblowing creates the foundation of a new reality.

It is important to realize and then accept that people alone – meaning the average citizen on its own – cannot begin to create physical changes to the system. Physical changes will begin to occur – or people will begin to act against the system – only when enough low and mid-level officials become inundated with the raw data that reveals to them that their very supervisors – the highest level officials – are the source of the data thus the cause of corruption. That is: changes will begin to occur when enough low and mid-level officials accept that whistleblowing is not a criminal act and when they begin to align their actions with the demands of the data revealed by the whistleblowers.

This is the case because the history lesson is: people – again, the average citizen – will not participate in any activity that might jeopardize their current social status – meaning job, savings, and property. So, low and mid-level officials’ role is significant. However, in order to overwhelm low and mid-level officials people will have to begin to expose corruption within their own workplaces and communities. It’s a catch twenty two.

If whistleblowing is to become a widespread act then it needs to become a carefully designed and coordinated process whose main objective is to expose SPECIFIC government and corporate departments and SPECIFIC individuals that run them to SPECIFIC low and mid-level officials. In other words, whistleblowers need to address SPECIFIC low and mid-level officials and hold them responsible.

More articles to come. Next: How to focus and organize independent efforts.

A new era of empathy: the end of ideologies

Changes in ideologies (psychology, philosophy, physics or any other area) are no longer relevant. They are no longer relevant because they are inadequate. They are inadequate because they are incapable of changing human motivation – the survival instinct. To put it simply: changes in ideologies are not capable of improving our condition precisely because they are incapable of changing our motivation.

Only changes that transform the shared human language are relevant. More specifically, only those changes that construct and demand empathy – within the language domain – are relevant. By the shared human language I mean any human language. I am not talking about any particular language. I am talking about the need to change the foundation of all human languages thus of how we imagine, construct, interpret, and express emotions .

Empathy needs to become the leading physiological and theoretical construct in all languages. Only once empathy is allowed to become the dominant feature of all human languages can we begin to transform the nature of our motivation. Again, to simplify even further: empathy needs to become a currency that would unite all human languages.

Ideology has failed to transform us because all human languages remain primitive. By primitive I mean incapable of understanding, deconstructing and changing the original survival instinct – as contained within different theories and in daily interactions. This means that all ideologies are destined to become the tools of the survival instinct. Or, the original survival instinct continues to use new ideologies and new technologies to manifest itself because our shared human language is too primitive to enable the survival instinct to evolve into a new instinct of empathy.

I propose that the task of psychology and philosophy is to transform the old survival instinct into a new empathy instinct by uniting and then transforming all human languages so that empathy is enabled to become the core motivation of human behavior. Thus part of their task is to recognize that it is not enough to change theories because theories cannot change minds.

 

 

My new directions: regarding enlightenment, meditation, awareness and practical solutions

Nobody hears about the truly enlightened people because they don’t need others to hear about their enlightenment because they are enlightened. They derive their purpose from loving others and helping them in any way they can without the need for rewards. Hence their ability to cooperate with everything around them. They simply exist. Like plants, like animals, like the universe itself. Without drawing any attention to itself yet containing everything thus being contained within everything. Anonymous and invisible yet always in plain sight.

Their relationship with the environment they inhabit is unbroken and total. They are committed, completely, to every moment. That is, they are committed to loving every moment and every person and every thing they encounter in it and do not need to explain their enlightened state and their need to love. Their enlightened state is all they are. Thus all their thoughts and actions are pure love and humanity and need no verbal explanation. Indeed, no verbal explanation could define their inner state of peace and love. It is a state so pure and so natural it cannot and does not need to be described. It reveals itself through their treatment of everything that surrounds them. Their purpose and their very essence is to love everything. Those who hate them, those who fear them, those who love them. There is no other effort. There is no effort to explain their knowledge, their love, or their perception. There is no desire to state that others are inadequate in any way whatsoever. There is no desire to state that others are enlightened but unaware of it. Stating that others are enlightened but are not aware of it is to demean others. All there is to do is to love all others as they are – because of the awareness that they are an extension of the self.

As described above ‘enlightenment’ cannot be separated from community, from technology, from society, from psychology. An enlightened person uses them (community, technology, society, psychology) to demonstrate LOVE and COMPASSION for all beings, things, and environments. They do not talk about enlightenment and they do not try to demonstrate it. They are it.

A person’s enlightenment is his or her way of being and living. It is not something the person does in addition to everything else in its life.

Why is it so crucial that the enlightened body is plugged into the environment? Within our current intellectual system the body is completely disconnected from its physical environments. There are hundreds of thousands of academics. They write many brilliant books but they live unhealthy, isolated, depressed, disconnected, and deluded lives. They call themselves theorists – because to do so is to abandon all responsibility – and believe that somebody else should turn their theories into actions.

I propose that meditation needs to become the foundation of a new system. The system I talk about is made up of three separate and very different but closely related subsystems: the ecosystem (permaculture systems and services), neighborhood systems and services (relationships and hardware and software creation and exchange), and community systems and services (psychology, social development, education, research, technology, etc.).

Enlightenment then is no more than the ultimate blueprint. As a concept or a story to be told or a theory or a book, etc. it is useless. It needs to become our shared way of living – without drawing any attention to itself.

I am not talking about communes. I am talking about a new approach to community building. Existing streets, suburbs, villages and cities can be transformed into connected, efficient, humane ecosystems.

 

 

Mistaken enlightenment

I think, I could be very wrong, however, I think that enlightenment is beyond language.

Because of this conclusion of mine, I think, and again, I could be very wrong, anyone attempting to describe enlightenment is facing one of the following problems: they had not experienced enlightenment but they have convinced themselves that they have, or, they had experienced it but the experience had not stayed with them thus they still think so highly of their abilities that they have convinced themselves that it is possible for them to explain or interpret, or worse, spread enlightenment.

So, and this will sound very selfish, if we accept my assumption that enlightenment is beyond language then the question is: how can enlightenment manifest itself through an individual? Or, perhaps more specifically: how is the ‘enlightened’ individual to live an ‘enlightened’ life in a way that does not trivialize ‘enlightenment’?

It seems to me that the most logical thing that one should expect from any enlightened individual is that she or he should strive to perform the simplest (least harmful, least ambition driven, least selfish, least complicated, etc.) act they can perform. Their acts would not manipulate reality in any way. They would not try to describe their enlightenment because they would understand that it is beyond language. They would understand that trying to explain enlightenment is as pointless as trying to explain poetry or multidimensional mathematics. However, they would live it. They would live their life in an enlightened way – without having to explain their enlightenment, and, without having to spread it.

So, what would it mean to live an enlightened life?

Yes, one’s relationship with the world changes. More specifically, one’s choices and decisions – what one does, why one does it, how one does it, etc. – change. However, I cannot see anything within ‘enlightenment’ that would prompt one to promote enlightenment as a linguistic construct. Yes, one can change one’s profession. Yes, one can and should perform more humane ‘tasks’ whenever possible, but how and why could one begin to talk about enlightenment if they understood or experienced its complexity and scope. No, there is no rule that prevents one from doing so. However, it seems to be a waste time and energy.

Why is it a waste of time and energy?

Again, I begin with a simple assumption: if one experiences enlightenment one learns that it is beyond one’s ability to communicate it. One understands that the only way to demonstrate enlightenment is by living it. It could take ‘forever’ to describe it. Perhaps that is why it appears to exist beyond our reach. Rather than explaining or describing or interpreting it we should live it.

In science this problem – acquiring new knowledge, recording new knowledge, transferring new knowledge and turning into an element that can be used or misused within this limited physical reality – is solved through engineering. Imagine if scientists who invent formulas and theories (in any area) tried to make every single person they come across understand how and why they create their formulas and theories. Imagine if instead of working with engineers and other scientists to create technologies that improve our lives (though many times new technologies don’t improve our lives but this problem would require a separate book or several books) scientists spent their lives explaining how and why they created their formulas. Furthermore, what if they really wanted other people to understand and experience their formulas and theories the way they do? Very little would be achieved. Think of all the scientists and their work. Had they waited for the entire planet to understand their work we would still live in the stone age (maybe that’s not a bad idea, I don’t know, time and place appear to be relative constructs). None of their discoveries, that started as personal insights, would have been translated into actions. Actions that manifest themselves as design and infrastructure and objects. Yes, we could ask: do we need so many objects? And the answer is: no, of course not. Are we creating objects and technologies we really need? And the answer is: no, of course not. But, again, it’s a different issue.

Individuals and communities that claim to be enlightened face a complex problem: rather than living enlightened lives by turning their awareness – especially their awareness of others’ needs – into enlightened actions (acts of kindness) they live their enlightened lives by talking about their enlightenment. That is all they do. They talk about it, ad infinitum. Language is the beginning and, more importantly, the end point of their enlightenment. And they wonder why the world is not being transformed by their enlightenment. They expect their speech to transform individuals thus the world. Unfortunately, what is missing is acts of compassion, creativity, unselfishness. They are ‘enlightenment’. Language limits enlightenment to language. Unfortunately, the problem cannot be solved through language.

Some say enlightenment does not need to or cannot exist as a physical construct. I disagree. Empathy, compassion and love will need to be practiced as physical acts of kindness (thus requiring physical objects that can be used to restore health, etc.) as long as there are those whose lives need to be saved or improved. Furthermore, only when ‘acts of kindness’ are performed without any reference to any religion or spirituality or enlightenment, can they be truly unmotivated and unselfish. Thus only then (without any definitions) is the person acting as the true being that they are (love and compassion). A self aware bundle of love does not need to be loved back or accepted. It knows it is being all it can be. It is being love. There is nothing more to it.

So, I think, that if ‘the enlightened’ are to change our physical reality then they need to learn how to give their enlightenment a physical dimension without drawing any attention to it. Their ‘acts of kindness’ will be the ultimate statement. No act of kindness needs to be explained or defined because it is very clear what it is. Yes, there will be those who doubt such acts, however when one knows that there are no ulterior motives one will not be bothered by others’ misinterpretations, and, more importantly, one will not feel compelled to defend its true state – for there is nothing to defend.

What I mean is: one does not need to say I am doing this because I am enlightened. Furthermore, one does not need to say: you can be enlightened. Any enlightened person should know that enlightenment is a state that all other fellow human beings could experience. All human beings are capable of it. However, the ‘need’ to ‘try’ to convince fellow human beings of their potential is not as is important -in fact it should be disregarded as it is immature – as the need to improve their environments so that their lives could be improved. It is our fellow human beings’ environment that will enable them to become enlightened – not our ability to talk them into it. As much as I would like to believe it, I have come to realize that words alone are not enough to create a stable environment required for personal growth. Far more important than our attempts to interpret, explain or promote enlightenment (mere linguistic constructs) is our attempt to create ‘the right physical environment’ within which it can arise.

Physical resources and physical actions required to create an environment that could produce anything approaching an enlightened mind is never discussed let alone constructed by those who define themselves as ‘enlightened’. (For example: physical resources and physical actions could be seen as: the satisfaction of the basic needs that MIGHT lead to happiness that MIGHT lead to self-acceptance that MIGHT lead to self-actualization that MIGHT lead to unselfishness and so and so forth, if we were to consider one of the paths created by the field of psychology, a possible path.) When seen within this ‘physical framework’ the path to ‘enlightenment’ seems much, much longer. It means it is up to us who are aware of certain things (perhaps of what it means to be enlightened thus THE ADVANTAGED) to create the environment that the less fortunate (thus THE DISADVANTAGED) can use to improve first their bodies then their minds. Otherwise, like stated before, it’s like walking around and trying to convince people that they are capable of creating new theories and formulas. Of course they are capable of doing it. But how many are provided with the right family, love, housing, nutrients, education, discipline, clothes, care, consideration? Not many. So, it is far more important to create ‘the environment’ that would enable individuals to realize their potential than it is to talk about their willingness to become ‘enlightened’.

To put it simply, their will is not enough. Physical resources are needed. To be born within an environment that enables one to learn at her or his own pace is a great privilege. To be able to acknowledge it and, more importantly, to realize that all people should exist within a similar environment for it is the only way to being to approach a new and greater ‘awareness’ (and maybe ‘enlightenment’), and then to begin to build it (yes, with our very own hands) for others, is to demonstrate ‘enlightenment’ without ever speaking about it.

Thus, if we live ‘enlightenment’ there is no need to talk about it. We know we are living it and doing it and that is enough. If all we do is talk about enlightenment then we are not enlightened and we are not creating – physically constructing – enlightenment, hence our present condition.

I think it is fair to say that a reasonably healthy and stable environment – again, let us not forget: a privilege – would enable most people to draw their own conclusions about themselves, the universe, life, reality, and so one and so forth. ‘Others’ (including the ‘enlightened ones) would not need to tell them about it (or worse: convince them about their own sets of values, which is what too many ‘enlightened’ individuals do).

So, the need to talk about ‘enlightenment’ – or more specifically: to talk about ourselves and our own superiority which indicates that we are not enlightened – would be reduced if we were to use our energy to create physical environments that make self improvement a possibility for all (or at least for many more). That way all of us, or many more of us, could be moving in the right direction.

Community workers, psychologists working with disadvantaged communities, doctors who travel to remote war affected regions to save lives, and many others who remain ANONYMOUS, who seek neither reward nor recognition, who do not do it for religious, business or any other reasons, they are transforming the world and preserving its HUMANITY. They are transforming and possibly helping enlighten thousands of lives every day. They have saved and transformed my life. It is why I am doing my bit. Quietly, anonymously, humanely, or so I hope.

I would like to approach the terrible linguistics area, for a very brief moment. Not to complicate but to point out some of its problems – most of them ignored by religious and spiritual leaders as well as scientists.

I think that enlightenment, religions, spirituality, politics, sciences and arts are linguistic concepts we use to entertain ourselves – to distract ourselves from the fabric of reality, language itself. Our shared human language (by language I mean all known languages as well as dance, music, math, all modes of communication, of data recording and data exchange, etc.) constructs all of the above – all physical environments that contain language itself. It seems to me that most of our negative practices or actions or cultural habits are caused by our failure to see the invisible link between language and physical reality. Language and stereotypes have been allowed to run free.

Enlightenment is another abstract pursuit. It will continue to exist as an abstract pursuit precisely because we are existing in order to pursue it rather than existing as a consequence of it. So even the fragments (individuals pursuing enlightenment, institutions pursuing enlightenment, etc.) of our reality that are trying to become enlightened or that have ‘become’ enlightened do not create enlightenment because they DO NOT ACT in an enlightened way. Their very actions – identifying those who are not enlightened and speaking to them – divide our reality and fill it with anxiety, fear and hate. Enlightenment is invisible. Nature does not declare its enlightened nature. It and its enlightened state remain anonymous and invisible.

Perhaps the question is not how to transcend the body but how to transcend language. Language describes the body as a physical construct thus as separate from itself. Perhaps the body is not physical (never was been, never will be?) but our failure to express and understand ourselves as anything other than a linguistic construct that manifests itself through its ability to separate the mind thus itself from the body/reality defines the limits of our experience (of ourselves and reality).

At any rate. I think it is necessary to understand how language shapes our ability (cognition and perception) to decide what is material and what is not material before attempting to understand and communicate enlightenment. I think that any attempts that imagine global ‘enlightenment’ as the first step toward a more humane or civilized reality demonstrate an immature mind. We need to imagine, design and create a practical environment within which a healthy mind can form. Doing so has nothing to do with religious, spiritual or any other leaders who wish to inform others about their enlightened state.

So, in short: ‘enlightenment’ is neither ‘the problem’ nor ‘the solution’. Currently, most are unable to understand it – as they are unable to act in enlightened ways (anonymity, etc.). Enlightenment seems to be a consequence of a healthy life. If all those who work many long hours to pay for their lessons (about enlightenment, about spirituality, about self-discovery, about mediation, and so on and so forth) worked fewer hours they would be that closer to enlightenment.

The idea that people will attend sessions, change themselves then get out there and change the system is very naïve because it demonstrates that those who believe in it are not aware of the system’s power. Needless to say, the system is stronger than the average individual. Furthermore, it no longer permits individuals to identify themselves as individuals (if it ever had). Even more important it is to note that the system is continuing to reduce the average individual’s ability to change the system. However, technologically speaking this is not the case because a single individual can reach more individuals or groups than ever before (plus it can organize its software and hardware better than ever before, there are many other benefits). Unfortunately, to make use of technology the individual needs awareness and creativity. The system does not encourage either of them. That’s why the average person feels powerless despite the fact that so much technology and information is available to it.

A small number of individuals that attain peace of mind are not powerful enough to change anything (let alone an element of reality, say a government). This should be very obvious to all. It is not my intention to devalue your work, or you. On the contrary, I wish I could help you out.

However, I think we need a new beginning – some kind of practical spirituality that is spiritual and transcendental precisely because it understands itself so well that it understand that teaching spirituality or enlightenment or transcendence or empathy, or whatever you want to call it, is a waste of time because they are beyond language. They are a way of living. Indeed, it (enlightenment) is the life force itself. Thus a pure act of love – toward oneself and all that exists. Not words. Not language. But an act of love.

To summarize:

The very existence of the term ‘enlightenment’ creates hate, jealousy, fear, insecurity and many other negative linguistic constructs because it polarizes our minds by forcing us to define ourselves as ‘enlightened’ or ‘unenlightened’. Thus the term ‘enlightenment’ divides us.

Enlightenment is an abstract pursuit precisely because we’re existing in order to pursue it rather than existing as a consequence of it.

True thus pure empathy that manifests itself as ‘acts of kindness’ is the answer because it transforms without making itself present. There is no need to make itself present. It is love, it is empathy. That is why it does not feel the need to make itself present. When nothing is present there is nothing to oppose.

The duty of Academia and Human Condition

The academic establishment had greatly misinterpreted and then later on misunderstood its own misinterpretation of the term humanity. Then, it had overcomplicated it, and finally ignored it and sided with ‘inhumanity’. The processes had been unconscious and unintentional.

The academic establishment has sided with ‘inhumanity’ by changing its own purpose from studying nature in order to create knowledge and tools that improve the human condition to studying nature in order to create knowledge and tools that enable it to collaborate with those who destroy nature.

It was not a purposeful decision. In its own eyes, and in eyes of many others, the academic establishment has done nothing wrong. Its decisions and actions appear to be in line with the requirements of its immediate economic environment. The academic establishment has had to act in a manner that would enable it to acquire funding. However, this very act is a failure of the system of logic the academic establishment had had to create to turn human beings into allegedly civilized entities. The system is failing to use its own operating principle. Specifically, if the academic establishment needs to ignore, suppress or sacrifice ‘humanity’ (thus human needs, whatever they may be) by placing anything else above it in order to acquire funding, then whatever research it performs it is less than ‘humane’ for the human condition had been sacrificed.

The very act of failing to prioritize human needs (yes, above everything else) means that its purpose has become destructive thus inhumane. This very, very simple logic should have kept the academic establishment in charge of our civilization’s understanding and treatment of the term ‘humanityThe academic establishment cannot stay away from military, private and banking institutions because they provide resources it needs to transform theoretical research into practical actions and systems that benefit all human beings. The question is why has the academic establishment failed to stay in charge of the term ‘humanity’. More importantly, why has the academic establishment failed to ‘humanize’ our civilization by first reducing the size of the military, private and banking sectors and then by removing the need for them altogether? How and why have the military, private and banking sectors been allowed to turn ‘humanity’ and the academic establishment into its own profit driven tool?

The academic establishment has abandoned ‘humanity’ as its guiding principle and sided with ‘inhumanity’ because the individuals in charge of its departments remain disconnected from what matters: nature. Their own inner nature and the natural world that surrounds them. Consequently, they had not been driven by the need to preserve and improve nature by creating technologies that use nature as their foundation so that when we improve and expand technologies we improve and expand nature and vice versa. On the contrary, academic leaders’ agendas are made up of private wars caused by the need to create and maintain reputations. Their own and their institutions’ reputations.

It is becoming increasingly difficult for academic leaders to compete with leaders from private sectors because the birth of the global market means that the private sector’s potential for growth is infinite. It will continue to increase as the birth rate increases. The academic leaders had failed to realize that the race is a mistake and should not have been allowed to occur. The very fact that it had occurred is a proof that they have neglected their duty to preserve humanity.

The end result means the academic establishment, like all other institutions, including our governments, has become an element of the economic system. Consequently, the academic system’s attempt to use logic to humanize our civilization (and remove the need for the self destructive economic system) has failed.

Why eastern theories and practices are failing to transform the western body and mind and how creativity could help

Most eastern and western teachers of eastern self-development theories and practices believe that westerners’ interest in self-development is their true intention. Consequently, they assume that whatever eastern theory or practice they offer the western mind will be able to use it to transform itself thus its selfish actions into actions that are in line with the fundamentals of the eastern philosophy: selflessness thus empathy and collaboration. Unfortunately, most western minds have not reached the level of maturity required to use eastern theories and practices or any other theories or practices to change themselves from selfish minds (or selves) to selfless minds (or selves). Therefore the selfish self remains selfish and uses selfless theories and practices to advance its own selfish agenda.

The problem continues to occur because our, westerners’, true intent is still ‘selfish’ thus ‘selfishness’ defines our actions. However, it is a new kind of ‘selfishness’. ‘Selfishness’ presented as ‘selflessness’. The selfish self has convinced itself that it can become selfless by pretending that it desires selflessness but its very desire to appear selfless is not a true and genuine attempt to exist as a selfless being, it’s just a new form of selfishness.

It is not that our western intention is not genuine, it is genuine, we do wish to improve ourselves. However, it is genuine only to the extent to which we are aware of our true unconscious intention thus to the extent to which we are aware of its ability to be genuine. Or, more specifically, our intent is genuine to the extent to which we are aware of elements (mental properties) that limit its genuineness. Unfortunately, most of us, are not aware of our true, unconscious intention, and of the elements (mental properties) that limit its genuineness. We refer to our rationalizations instead of our true unconscious intentions. Our rationalizations of our desires, for example: ‘we want to improve ourselves’, do not examine thus cannot explain our true, unconscious intentions, thus are not our true intentions. As a result, eastern theories and practices fail to create and individual and collective inner peace thus fail to unite us.

The problem becomes serious when one realizes that most eastern and western teachers think that our immature and unexamined western rationalizations are true, mature and examined intentions to change ourselves. The problem is serious because our western minds turn peaceful and compassionate theories and practices of the East (or any other region) into yet another selfish, self-serving western product. Hence quick fix yoga and meditation studios and associated merchandise.

The deep selfishness problem occurs because we, westerners, are not aware that we are not interested in letting go of ourselves in order to connect with other living beings (people, animals, and environments). We want to let go of ourselves only in order to feel better about ourselves, not because other living beings and the environment would benefit from our egolessness thus from our unity with them. Unity and peace we think we are seeking cannot occur because egolessness is not our true intention.

The western mind has completely misinterpreted the term enlightenment. Enlightenment is not an attempt to attain anything. It is not an attempt to become anything. It is not an attempt to experience anything. On the contrary, enlightenment means letting go of everything. It is not another award to be won. It is not something to acquire, it is not something to feel, it is not something to experience. It is not something to chat about after your yoga or mediation classes. When enlightenment does happen it is impossible to communicate it because the event itself is marked by the absence of everything so there is nothing to share. It is always there, it is always within us. It is us. It is not it, ‘enlightenment’, that we need to focus on, it is everything else. Only when we remove everything (or most things) from our lives does it become obvious to us that we are it. As long as there is something else to talk about we have not been able to let go of the things that we think we need to hold onto in order to ascertain our identity. Similarly, after it is over, there will be no need to talk about it. It will be clear how to lead one’s life, and, more importantly, one realizes that ‘enlightenment’ is not something that can be taught or forced upon a person.

True cooperation with nature does not require one to do anything to oneself, to others, or to nature. All that one needs to do is exist as one is, to be natural, not as nature, but to be nature. Letting go of everything means not trying to imagine any kind of attachment to anything. Even to say that we need to ‘become’ an element of nature is to imagine a level of complexity that does not need to exist for we are ‘nature’ precisely then when we are not trying to be nature, or anything else.

We are nature when we are not trying to be anything. We are being the most powerful form of love we can be when we are not trying to overcome anything in order to be become more loving. By trying to overcome anything, we become less than peace thus less than love.

So, how can one decrease one’s selfishness. The answer is in childhood. We need to change the foundation of human language in order to change the nature of the child’s relationship with itself and nature. We need to change the child’s cognitive and perceptive processes but that is a new article.

When it comes to adults, the best we can hope to do is to  teach an adult human being how to live in a moment without trying to control that moment thus without being attached to the moment in any way whatsoever.

The only tool I know of that can help us with this task is creativity. Being in the moment and creating without trying to control the moment or the self thus without being attached to the moment, to the self or to anything else, internal or external, just communicating the experience of the moment through art, seems to be the least selfish way to exist as a human being.

The non theory theory and the self as the source of change

It is impossible to introduce a new system or a new environment or a new idea without changing the psyche. This is the reason why we have been unable to end the original exchange of goods and services system and then the economic system. It is the reason why we continue to struggle with the same set of elements (violence caused by perceived and now actual scarcity of natural and artificial resources) that create and recreate the same set of ideas (wars, economy, competition).

We cannot introduce an idea that can change the world as long as we are introducing it in order to defeat an existing idea, group, environment or system. Only an idea that teaches an individual how to address its inability to keep its mind open to any new ideas without having to accept or endorse any particular idea can change the world. Learning, unlearning and relearning are the key to creating a compassionate thus unifying psyche.

Only an idea that does not criticize the individual, its operating ideas and the system to which it subscribes could begin to enable the individual to begin to observe, identify and change its destructive patterns of behaviour.

The key is to encourage the person to open its mind to new possibilities without addressing its current operating system or its environment. However, because we have been unable to realize this, let alone execute it, we have ended up in a position where in order to be heard we have to force our own alleged solutions on one another and the very process of doing so perpetuates fears, hate, mistrust and violence thus forever destroying logic and the space for self reflection.

If an idea is to become a universal construct that can change the world then it needs to be completely devoid of any personal ego plus ambition traits.

The only way to change the system is by introducing a silent idea that seeks no validation thus no confrontation thus creating no resistance. This is the case because only when denied the opportunity to continue to assert itself by confronting the opposing egos will the infant super ego begin to lose its power (the system is a collection of infant egos that have come together to form a single super arrogant super ego).

The non ego state letter to various independent leaders

This one is addressed to Mr Peter Jospeh.

Mr Joseph,

Thank you for your work. No words can convey how much I appreciate your work.

I see and feel your passion, it inspires, and, I think, I can see what you are trying to accomplish and I appreciate it, I really do.

So, please note, the following is not a critique of your work and most certainly not a critique of your character (I do not know you). It is an insight I wish to share.

I have been struggling with the following paradox: we cannot impose our views on others or reprogram others or teach them how to see the universe the way ‘we’ do (the way I do or the way you do) yet we need to share the universe and everything contained within it (resources, etc.) thus accept others’ views.

I have come to realize that we do not need to adjust to one another, we need to adjust to or get in touch with our shared reality. This realization has had an indescribable and immeasurable effect on my being. Allow me to elaborate.

I can see that you are trying to appeal to leaders’ logic. You use logic, you use data, you use science, etc., unfortunately, it is impossible for people to change because we ask them to change. It is a physical and psychological impossibility. It is a non event. It is no more than our unrealistic desire.

They have to change on their own terms. Any one individual is made up of so many different elements (physical and psychological) and every single element comes with its own sets of properties that it is not possible for any single external entity to transform the individual. All the elements and their properties (within the mind and the body) have to be transformed if the individual is to change its relationship with the universe. It is why only the individual is capable of transforming its entire being.

We cannot create a new civilization until all learn and accept that a civilization cannot function as a healthy entity if its purpose is to support a small number of egos.

The quality or the purpose or the nature of the ego is irrelevant. Good or bad. Positive or negative. Healthy or unhealthy. Pro this or pro that. They are relative thus useless terms. One person’s dictator is another person’s hero. It is impossible for us to reach an agreement about anything because the nature of our human language polarizes our minds and creates and perpetuates the ego construct.

We need to re imagine and re encode and re represent our existence. As long as the ego construct is present it remains the ultimate obstacle to compassion, empathy and humanity and the civilization will remain unjust and unequal.

I am convinced that the force that could begin to restructure and heal our shared reality cannot find its origins within an individual or a group of individuals. The force that could restructure and heal our reality might be described as a collective, intelligent, internal momentum of empathy and humanity. The force that could restructure our reality needs to be perceived by all individuals within their own natural and artificial environments (within artificial environments too because they represent or simulate natural environments).

By ‘the force’ I mean a profound collective understanding of our individual and collective actions and inactions. Or, even more specifically, our awareness of our connection with the consequences of our actions and inactions and their effects on other people and the environment.

There are no valid individual plans for an individual (leader, writer, thinker, celebrity, activist, photographer, journalist and so on and so forth, insert your own word if you wish) to promote. No ideas, no plans, no solutions. It is very hard to accept this. I know. I have been struggling with it for years.

You might ask: why not or what should we promote?

When we tell others what they need to do and how they need to do it in order to improve the environment we allow our ego to communicate our ambitions, which happen to be our conviction of our own intellectual, emotional or any other form of superiority. Unconsciously or consciously, internally or externally, sometimes publically, we celebrate our righteousness, our awareness, our empathy and our humanity and in that very moment we destroy them and all our efforts to improve the world. All that our suggestions, plans and solutions do is fuel the battle of the ape like creatures’ egos.

We, who want to change the world, if we really want to change it, must stop being and acting as our egos, or, we must try to get as close as we can to existing within some kind of non ego or ego less state.

We do not need to direct others toward our messages, ideas and plans or spread our messages, ideas and plans. All we need to do, and, more importantly, all we can do is make others aware of the sensations absorbed and created or not absorbed and not created by their senses and minds. I know, it sounds like it’s not enough.

However, there is enough evidence to convince even the most ignorant individual that its actions and inactions are destroying the world, if you can get it to use its senses and mind to examine the evidence and reflect on it. It is why psychology was created.

However, we cannot do it. Or, to be fair, in my own experience, my own ability to do so is very limited. I struggle with it. Could you do it? Have you been able to do it? I wish I could improve my effectiveness.

I do not think that we should be spending our time on creating new plans and more content. I think we need to find a way to connect the people who are living during this very moment with the consequences of their actions and inactions during this very moment.

We cannot make those who are not aware of their connection to nature see or feel their connection to nature and accept its importance, consequently, we are even less likely to succeed at convincing them to support our plans that involve nature.

The egos of the extremely wealthy individuals form the foundations of their empires. Their egos thus the foundations cannot be changed by us. Only they can do so.

Only they can do so because regardless of the quality of the evidence, regardless of how much evidence we present and regardless of how we present it we cannot convince them that our intentions for them are better than their own intentions for themselves. It is what makes us human. It is what makes us primitive. It is the survival instinct. It is not that ‘they’ don’t want to trust ‘us’. It is that we as human beings are incapable of trusting one another at that level. It is impossible for them to trust us at that level. We are not there, yet. It has taken me a long time to realize and accept this simple fact. It is a terrifying realization and it is a liberating realization.

I am trying to use it as the foundation of a new system of thinking, perceiving, constructing and communicating our representations of ourselves, one another and the universe.

As long as we, activists or humanists or call us or yourself whatever you want, continue to impose ‘our’ ideas we will continue to perpetuate the same system. It is precisely why our reality is in an ongoing state of conflict. We are all struggling to convince one another of our own value and importance but in the process all of us miss the big picture: nature and the universe itself and how we, all of us, are an element of them.

We, all of us, are nature, therefore we do not need to impose ‘our’ views. So, all we can do, all we need to do is help others listen to nature, NOT TO US, TO THEMSELVES. This process, I think, could mark the beginning of the end of the ego, and consequently, the foundation of a new, more humane psychology.

It has been so hard to accept all of the above because I am my ego. I want to help others and that is a good thing, as long as I am not doing it in order to promote my ‘evolved state’. It is an ongoing struggle.

Nature is the message and the messenger. Only when we create ‘a reality’ without egos will we be able to allow ourselves, and, more importantly, others to see and hear thus learn that all of us including nature are one, the message and the messenger. All other messages are destroying our connection to ourselves, to others, to nature, to reality.

I wish that you and I and many other people could come together to find a better way to exercise the above mentioned non ego transformation of reality. A way that does not involve ‘our’ ideas and ‘our’ plans and ‘our’ designs thus ‘our egos’.

I wish we could come together to promote all ideas, all hopes, as they are one for they are contained within our own individual being. Within our own humanity.

I wish we could come together to promote humanity for we ARE it.

Peace and love, take care of yourself and stay strong.