Sex in death and the Equal Money System

In April 2012 Egyptian Islamists have caused a stir in the world by proposing several new laws that focus on a man’s ‘live’ property – the woman. From the Western perspective most proposals concentrate on what might be considered conventional or habitual aspects of a typical extremist religious orientation towards husband and wife, such as the bride’s age, the right to seek divorce, and the female’s circumcision. These proposals went rather unnoticed in the Western Press except the one that would grant husbands permission to have sex with their wives within 6 hours of death. It’s the ‘farewell fuck’, so to speak. Other sources, for example Isalmists in London, deny that such a ‘farewell fuck’ law could come into being in Egypt. They argue that it may be a proposal but that it would never make it into parliament.

Whether we look at ‘farewell-fucking’, Clitoridectomy or foot-binding as examples for practices that are formed from religious beliefs,  and when we look beyond the male-female dynamic, what comes to the forefront it the notion of self-interest. This self-interest is not only that of men as it would initially seem to be, because many of these practices are directed towards women, who are compliant for their own reasons within the trap of self-interest. (to be cared for, to be protected, for example). Obviously in most cases it is the mothers who are implicated because they are the ones who are allowing the mutilations on their children.

These types of practices demonstrate our ways of existing in self-interest:  as long as we can find others who share the subject of our self-interest the more likely we can find ways to pursue it through public institution e.g. law, customs. The ‘carrier’ of self-interest in these cases is religious belief, and holds more true for countries who have rather homogenous religious teachings established over centuries. Other countries, mostly Western-oriented countries, utilise cultural focusses such as beauty & fashion. Prominent examples here are anorexia, or the wearing of very high heels which represents in its effects a milder version of foot-binding, otherwise we see liposuction, breast implants, and so forth.

What all of these abusive practices have in common is that they disable the physical body in some way, or on the minimal scale, shape it through abuse. But then how does farewell fucking differ when it’s no longer about the living body and the dead body has only x amount of hours before it definitely becomes unusable because it decomposes?

The first point is that the woman’s role is that of property and not of an equal being, or the recognition of beingness, of aliveness. Therefore if a man can have sex with a dead women it is not because both are sharing their beingness or aliveness with each other, but that this is a matter of him enacting a picture he prefers, his memories, and his sexual urges – and so in that moment he represents all that we have done in the name of sex collectively: pornography, masturbation, sex slaves, sex trade, pedophilia and so forth.  The man might be the catalyst of the situation but there is a fundamental factor here which implicates men and women alike:  the sexual engagement is a solo mental pursuit, it is the mental pursuit in search of self-gratification, and the physical body of another is the object by which this pursuit is achieved – thus other bodies functions as a vehicle which can be discarded after use.  Now that we have established it as a mental pursuit there is more to say about the mind.

Another view of the dead body’s farewell fuck is that it is a really a ‘fearwell’ fuck. It is the desperateness of the mind that fears of having no more access to the physical body ( the one the man is married to, the one he considers his property). It is thus the same fear we have losing objects, or a house, a car – the fear is about losing access to the living flesh as provider for the mind – in the mental pursuit of self-gratification.  Thus it is not difficult to see that the living flesh is a resource, like the earth, we try to hold on to as long as we can, entirely oblivious of the effects. This is also evident in other ways when we look at how we handle the resources that come from the living earth, the pattern of behaviour is identical. We act in self-interest and are oblivious to the effects e.g. Fukushima.

Yet, at the same time, the mind realises that it cannot exist without the physical body, and because there is no control over the physical body (i.e. the dying body) the aliveness of the body slips away without the mind having any way of stopping it e.g. medical research. Therefore the control that the mind wants to experience is of course imaginary, but is through social and cultural mechanisms of domination that it believes it can do so. We have thus arrived in this beginning of the article.

However,  obvious cultural mechanisms such as collective religious beliefs can be matched by more subtle versions – from which no nation or country is exempt. An example is our pursuit for education because we value intellectual thought over physical labor. That is why jobs with more education are paid more, or why we look down on people with less education. Those with the better paid jobs are in the position to campaign for their self-interest, for example in form of laws as the death-fuck case illustrates. Yet, the death fuck is actually revealing to us that the mind fears losing the body because it cannot survive without physicality. The mind is the ultimate ‘co-dependent’ aspect of us, in all its one dimensionality, as it exists in separation from the body which is the one component that guarantees its survival.

Lastly, why many seem outraged about the death-fuck is because on some level everyone knows that it reveals the true nature of the mind. The death-fuck, may or may not become law in Egypt. However, it vividly demonstrates our disposition is self-interest and from here all else unfolds, all the way to death. The implementation of the change we want is thus simple

1) stop all self-interest > start interest in all equally

2) apply this to all that we consider resources, e.g. raw materials,
food, people, etc – in short, money as a proxy to resources

3) Implement the solution: the Equal Money System

Some of us have made a head start in stating what they see to be best for all, check out the topics for an equal money system!

Participate, join, change, and share your beingness with all equally!

Gregg Braden has it backwards – is this a case of the blind leading the blind?

Gregg Braden advocates self-change. He gives advice to others in how to go about changing oneself. Though, is he really qualified to do so? Here I will debunk one of his phrases that are meant as support but are in reality quite misleading.

“Don’t look back, you are not going that way” by Gregg Braden

Let’s look at it. There are two parts to this phrase. The first part is about looking back into one’s past. What must be considered here:

You are creating your future from the past – there is no other way because the accumulation of all your thoughts and “imprints” of behaviours from reactions and ego mechanisms will be there with you – no matter where you go. Actually it isn’t a matter of where you go because you can only go to where your past is leading you unless you stop and become self-directive. Unless you look at the ingredients of your behaviour, thoughts and memories -  whereby the “looking at” is not so much a “looking back”, this is in fact implied by the time line that you have walked thus far – a “looking back” denotes a looking inside of who you are, the acceptances and allowances, through self-honesty.

So then the question arises: if you are conglomeration of all that you have lived thus far, how can you magically not be going the way you came from?
The answer to that is: you can’t. What the author is saying with “you are not going this way” is the ignore the past and stay in denial of what you have created over time through participation in thoughts, and output as memories and manifested experiences. In actuality the opposite is the case, as long as you are not looking into by looking back you are exactly going the way you came because you have suppressed your Self so much that you are unaware of the future that you are creating within every breath and in every step.

As we have seen, taking these types of phrases lightly without investigating what they really mean can be misleading and cause stagnation.
If you are truly interested in change, then the first point of change to consider is oneself. There is a thoroughly investigated and solid approach to self-change which is the DesteniIProcess.

If you have questions there is a forum which will answer any and all your questions – http://forum.desteni.org/

What’s your “I give up” personality?

I thought of myself as someone who does not give up – ever. I mean I have proven it to myself in many instances, in either hardship situations or educational challenges. I prevailed and I said I would – come hell or high water. Recently Anu’s interview took me into the dark corners of my mind and ego, and I paid a visit to parts of who I am which I try to hide behind by saying, “I will never give up” - once I have started something, that is. So the full belief goes like this: I might be slow to get going or to get started because I need to be sure that what I am endeavouring is really what I want, what makes sense to me as me in my world. However, once I get started I don’t give up. There has to be a very good reason why I should give up on the thing that I have decided to pursue. Interestingly enough this sense of commitment has not applied to lover relationships – but that’s another story.

Through this interview I realised two things 1) I do give up, by hiding behind self-defeating talk. Yet this is not a giving up in the ‘traditional’ sense it is a “I am not even going to get started with this because ( fill in the blank here)” that’s the giving up personality that I have subscribed to. Or at least that is the part I am currently aware of. 2) I realised that perseverance is not just a commitment point but can easily be fear of change. Thus, when fear of change exists it’s better to persevere the situation, the ordeal or whatever have you.  So, when looking at this I realise that investigating the starting point in self-honesty is the only way to get to the bottom of what is what.

Starting point investigations are a really useful method to find out if one is using one’s mind to feed resistances or if there is truly common sense in doing or not doing an activity, or some other involvement were fluctuating thoughts exist. In fact any thought is a worthwhile starting point, but when meandering between yes/no exists, as a form of backchat – than that‘s generally an indicator that a close look and a hard dose of self-honesty is needed.

Furthermore, giving up and ‘having resistances’ goes hand in hand. In other words, resistances are the executive arm of a giving up personality.  Resistances are mainly the reasons why something should or should not be done, and the lines of code are the excuses we give to ourselves. The rule of thumb for me now is that whenever I have thoughts of negation, it is an indicator for a potential resistance, belonging to a greater part of a ‘giving up’ personality with which I have encoded my Self to be, and thus it’s an opportunity to investigate and release the behaviour.

One of the things that Anu said that I have noticed prior to listening this particular interview is that curiosity supports self-direction – in the sense that I am curious of who I really am when I have released every damn resistance that I have accepted to be me, as Self in this life!

Resistance? Bring it on!

For more information check out the links in the side bar. If you are curious of who you really are without the limitations of the mind – self-imposed, mind you, then check out Desteni.

This was written in context of my participation with www.desteni.org and www.desteniiprocess.com

For free/without pay/gratis self-perfection education go to the eqafe.com.

2012 The not so hidden pattern of great qualities

I have just listened to Kim’s vlog on the desire for self-confidence where she relates to a pattern I am seeing within myself.

The system we have accepted as our economic basis for interaction and for survival is a system that commodifies absolutely everything. The past eras have shown this clearly as we have sped up our cycles of production and consumption through applied technological tools that have facilitated ever faster and global production methods. In conjunction with this, we have been propelled to find ever new venues to sell and consume.  From the perspective of the system this is not difficult to do. The mind provides a fertile ground to dream up needs and desires, and the marketing of these, so that those with money will respond.

There is no limitation from the mind’s end, the limitation is within the resources that are needed in bridging the mind and in the corresponding material implementation which is dependent on physical resources. This is where the limitation lies because the available resources cannot be controlled by the mind (such as peak oil) and thus, eventually, the system will consume itself.

We must realise that this pattern is applied to absolutely anything we, as the mind, can conjure up. Therefore, this cycle of production and consumption is applied to conceptual items as a gateway to the material consumption. It is through ideas and concepts where we reinvent ourselves continuously that we keep this cyclic mechanism alive.

The conceptual aspect of consumption is, for example, the selling of ‘great qualities’. “Being self-confident” is such a quality for sale, it can be had through the reading of self-help books, or by taking courses, or by going to therapy. It may take many years and much consumption of ‘support’ material – and by the end of this process one has become a walking financial investment, like having stock on the stock market which now fetches a high share price, or also known as personality pattern – namely to be self-confident.

However as Kim says, what happens then is that we reach a plateau, the end of the line, when we have gotten to be that ‘great quality’, it is like sitting in front of an empty plate of chocolate mousse. This then signals to us that we can begin the cycle anew of wanting to consume the next best thing that we happen to see as desirable, because the world tells us so, and because neither the world nor ourselves have ever existent in self-trust.

But how can we trust ourselves when we do not understand the precise mechanism why we get angry or feel happy, when all of this has been left up to human nature which we so conveniently accept as the all-around answer to our questions about who we are. It is interesting to see that we will want to acquire ‘great qualities’ without knowing what actually makes us operate and function in the way we are doing in this moment.

To illustrate this in physical terms, I will draw on archeology, because here in the physical world we have an example where we make the attempt to walk backwards. Unfortunately, we are doing this effort with artefacts which is not useful because we are missing the core elements, the understanding of our mental dispositions that have led to the production of artefacts. The source has always been our mind, and by transposing it to the material world, this investigation becomes futile – at best it is the mind confirming itself through what it finds in the ground.

Yet with this example, it becomes clear that in order to understand what we have created as ourselves – as we have just seen with the example of wanting to become self-confident – we must stop the consumption of cycles and start moving backwards, unraveling step by step what these desires are and why each and everyone of us works towards piling on as much stuff as possible, whether that is conceptually speaking or materialistically speaking.

To stop this cycle, we have only got to do one thing that is to stop the mind – though before we can do that we have to stop believing our mind, that we are the mind.

Reference: http://practical-desteni.blogspot.com/2011/12/why-do-we-take-things-personally.html

For more information check out the links in the side bar.

This was written in context of my participation with www.desteni.org and www.desteniiprocess.com

2012 Self-programming evidence when learning a new language

In this blog I will briefly describe my recent observations of learning a third language. It has been an interesting experience so far, not because I have a rather easy and fun time learning it, which is yet another point, but rather because for the first time I am aware of how personality construction is tied to language. I can see how I would have done this as a small child when I learned my mother tongue and did not realise what self-programming meant at that time. I have a different perspective now. One, where I understand that my personality behaviour is driven by my ego which takes every single situation of interaction with others as grounds for distortion through means of manipulation, deception and sabotage – all in accordance with my personality. I say ‘my’ ego, and that is already the indication for me to stop right here: my ego and I are one as I am the one who accepts this behaviour. After all, this is the reason why I am taking part in the DesteniIProcess because I want to step out of the mental existence driven by ego, and and be here as the living word- as Self.

What I have realised is the following. I learn words and grammar of the language that I am learning through interactions with my teacher in class, other students, and through doing my homework.  In my daily life, I apply what I have learned in the context of speaking with others who are native speakers. There is usually a discrepancy between what I want to say and what I can say at my current level of learning. What I mean is that I do not have all the grammar and words to express what I would like to say to others. This is already quite curious because that which I want to say exists somewhere, as part of me, but not in already formed words.  It is the stage before I form a phrase, before I speak from mind – but I cannot say where that place is, per say. I realise that our habitual procedure of speaking, when speaking in one’s mother tongue, speeds up the process that I am experiencing in slowness, and that once one speaks fluently, when one has mastered the language, one cannot even recall these ‘in-between’ places where only self-expression exists without words.

Here is another observation: at this time I can only speak in the present tense. Therefore I can only reference or communicate to someone else what is happening with me or the world around me right now, in this moment. It is seemingly a limitation but when looking at it more closely I have noticed that speaking about the past becomes less relevant. When one cannot describe one’s life experience in the past tense and only in the present tense, the familiar petty aspects of story telling, the character definition of others, the energetic undertone that can come with past tense telling is absent. What stays when communicating the past in the present tense is the pattern that is emergent from our past, and that can be communicated in the present tense. I find this quite supportive because it highlights my behavioural patterns more clearly. I see more clearly what I have accepted and allowed to be me.

All these observations are facilitated by being slowed down through the nature of learning to speak in another language. Also, there is no possibility for me to momentarily go into mind-time and speed up my speaking participation. By having slowed down to the degree that I have as I am becoming the embodied manifestation of the words, which is different from speaking slowly, because even then one is only slowing down on the surface but the underlying process is still proceeding at the same speed I can see how I, within myself, react to situations. Here I have noticed that it is within the interaction itself, rather than what I want to express (and may not be able to), manipulation and deception is accepted by me and the other party. It is this process that eventually, through repetition, charges each word I say.

From the perspective of my process I find this an amazing discovery because this makes a few points clear to me:

1) During the word formation, for example when I have used the words of my new language for a few times, an emotional/feeling charge can build up (if I don’t stop it) from the situations in which I have spoken these words. The emotional/feeling charge seems to easily take on a prominent position, overriding the essence of what it is that I want to express – that which is still here without the words.  Hence, I can see that all the words I so easily spew out in my other languages are full of emotional/feeling charges that leave no room for self-expression.

The solution: Redefinition of  words to eliminate the emotional/feeling charges.

2) Finally I have seen that I am self-expression somewhere buried inside. I only have a glimpse but I see that I do not need the mind to be here.

The solution: Equalise the mind so that self-expression can flow freely, and language is the living word. The living word is self-expression.

3) We are defining ourselves through the interaction with others, through the energetic charge words span the relations of our ships. Relationships are primarily charged through what seems to be an ‘exchange’ with others. Although this exchange is not really exchanging anything, it is a ‘charging station’ where each for themselves charges in the face of the other.

The solution: Taking self-responsibility – to step out of the trap of self-interest and learn to stand equal to each word that I utter – and thus have the prerequisites to get to know another.

Recommended reading:

www.destonians.com

www.equalmoney.org

www.wiki.destonians.com

2012 Anusian musings: Change of the unchangeable

In a recent interview by Anu I gained clarity on a particular topic. A topic that has been hovering in the background, waiting – I was waiting for myself to step out, to end the uncertainties about it, not to shy away from it and to get clarity once and for all. Here it goes:

Within numerous contexts, the world around me has reiterated that humans’ life on earth is getting better. Generally speaking, people have longer life expectancies; more people than ever before have access to medical support; more people than ever are literate; more babies than ever survive; more people than ever have clean water – and lastly, I have heard that we all live like kings compared to just a couple of 100 years ago.  Some people have made entire career out of providing the necessary statistical proof that we are in fact evolving and that life on earth, in general, is much better than it used to be (see Hans Rosling’s video for a review). Sure, there are problems but we seem to tackle these sooner or later because we have technologies and knowledge to do so.

On the contrary,  Desteni research has shown that the same basic components of war, abuse, terror, greed, self-interest are operating, like the stagnate components of a machine, keeping us in place although the wheels are spinning. When looking at the opposing pole of our wealth and well-being, we can equally recognise an augmentation of our abusive dimension as well: the hunting of animals till extinction, human trafficking and sex slave trade, the Gaza strip occupation, serial killings disguised as humanitarian wars, the sell out of education, the vaccination of babies and the distribution of psychopharmaca as candy, and so forth. How do these facts tally up when the world wants to make us believe that we are so much better of?

When I listened to Anu’s interview it dawned on me:

“…through my investigations in the very beingness of beings found that within our very presence, essence, substance, manifestation… there is constant change…. and …change meaning there is movement, there is evolution, there is development, there is growth, we are always constantly and continuously in constant change….ehm.. just by our very existence and interactions with existence, there is constant motion of alteration and change….. and if something is too perfect for an extended amount of time, that is questioned because it is not equal to and one with the constant change that is existent as our very selves, our beingness, that would want to come through that perfection and break through it …and… show that it is not real, where our very beingness will supersede the fake reality..”

What Anu is stating is that beyond the mind, beyond the programming we have accepted as us, we are always in change, that change is a constant of our beingness which penetrates the mental entrapment in which we exist.  If we were to discover that there is no change – what Anu called “too perfect” – or what can also be seen as ‘stagnation’, we would become suspicious of our enslaved existence, and may figure out that things are not what they seem. Thus, Anu had to create the illusion of change, which we would then accept as actual change so that our beingness was satisfied. We are therefore less inclined to investigate the reality we are living and creating, because we are living the change of the unchangeable.

The change of the unchangeable permeates all cultural pursuits, all technology, all literature, all music, all communication – all life styles. We experience a change of form, a change of parameters that determine the form, but the essence never changes. From magic circle story telling to social networking – the dimensionality of the form has changed because we have gone from analogue sound waves as spoken words that bounce back and forth between those who sit in the circle, around the fire, listening, waiting, until it’s their turn to tell…  to the story bits and pieces that are thrown up on a website as digitized visual display of binary code and shared with hundreds of virtual friends. Yet, the involved personality constructs, the manipulation through phrasing of word or story fragments, the packaged moralistic condemnations  -  all that which leads and constitutes ‘communication’ of the story  as well as the story content itself, remains stagnant and unchangeable.

I invite you to look at other topics and apply the formula of change of the unchangeable ( for example to movies) and see that Anu has given us another brick in our self-endorsed wall we now take apart and return to source. Interesting times are ahead where we will be living as actual change of the changeable – and that begins with establishing total equality between all that is here.

To de-brick start here: www.desteniiprocess.com

For literature and sounds that uncover the changeable read here: www.eqafe.com

Realisations on ‘Trust’

The word “trust” was introduced to me in phrases like “trust your gut feeling” ; “trust in god”; “trust yourself!” – I remember pondering what that actually meant because my parents could equally say to me “trust that it will turn out alright in the end”.  Where was trust?  What was behind this elusive term?

Trust was never taught to me as being part of me but rather as something outside of me. Something precious that I had to work for, to prove myself just like others had to, in demonstrating their trustworthy behaviour to me. Trust works like money in the bank that when you give it away, when you ‘deposit’ your trust in others than you have invested into this person, and you expect a return from your investment. From this position I trusted others not to betray my trust, and thus held them prisoner the same way I held myself prisoner not to do something that would be in some way counter productive to the trust they had given me. I realise that I had no understanding of trust, and most of the time did not want to look at this word more closely. It scared me, it was a big word, there was something final about it – like a final frontier – to have trust meant something so absolute.

Over the years, when I studied spirituality, the word trust would reappear in my life. When reading scriptures or listening to “mind appeasers” – slogans, I heard spoken by gurus – that I used to attach myself to, hoping that if I honour the content my life would turn out alright. I trusted their words. Then, it did not dawn on me to investigate these words to see what they really stood for, and why I so easily sought to make them my own. It was difficult to gain clarity through the hazy mist of emotions and feelings that engulfed me.

The issue of self-trust has surfaced when I had to make important decisions where I get stuck weighing the pro’s and con’s surrounding the elements of the decision, neither wanting to commit to a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ – because: what if I could not trust my decision, what if I could not trust myself. I realise that self-trust means I make the decision from the starting point of what is best for everyone who is affected by the decision. In self-trust I take a stance to face the ensuing consequences of my choices which means I take responsibility for what I create.

Distrust was part of my education. In science education we equate being distrustful to a good starting point for scientific inquiry because we can never be 100% sure that our results are accurate in reflecting an objective reality. Distrusting a scientific outcome is the basis for doubt as catalyst for reasoning. The whole scientific process is disguised as identifying pieces of knowledge that can be convincingly communicated to others, convincing others that they can trust the information to be free from personal history, perspective, or assumptions – that the information is objective.

I realise that without self-trust there is no self-value as life. Consequently, the lack of self-trust is compensated for by looking for validation in others or in some ‘thing’ that is outside of myself and will function as a fake foundation in which I can place a safety anchor, and call it trust. This is what I have allowed to exist within as myself “to trust that things will turn out” – as I mentioned in the beginning. Placing trust “somewhere” is to have an idea of trust where trust remains a separate entity – this separation is there even when I say I place trust inside of my Self. It creates a space, a room for the “lazy” way out, not to take responsibility, not to equate for oneself in self-honesty what is best for all.

If I see my Self as this separate entity from trust then there is also room to be either “less then” (<) or “more than” (>) depending on the situation and on the pre-programmed elements that I have accepted to be me. Just like a mathematical equation. Then, in this gap between Self and trust the variable “doubt” can enter, and in all instances the outcome is a self-defeating cycle where the noise of my mind can have a foothold and I become reactionary to outside influences, to feelings and emotions – in brief: I compromise my Self. When trust equals (=) Self, I stop all possibilities and uncertainties. I remain here.

The road to self-trust is pathless but not “peopleless”  www.desteniiprocess.com