Border-crossing – the mental divide of real space and illusion

Ancient Map of Telnor

Whenever we travel outside of our habitual or cultural environment, we cross borders – mostly in the confines of an airport. In spite of our ability to instantly travel between countries and continents on the internet, where we call this digital ‘nearness’ the global village,  the physical reality reflects the reverse situation.  The core of physical border crossing is identity control.  The individual crossing the border must obtain permission to do so. Since the beginning of recorded history, the acquiring of territory and maintaining of borders has been the primary source of war, conflict and abuse, and this situation has not changed up until today.  Yet, there is no reality to the idea of borders and border-crossing because it is a conceptualisation of the mind that is imposed in a top-down manner onto physical space. Borders are an accepted illusion, there is no tangible equivalent from which borders spring forth and manifest in the world.  In other words, borders are not real, they shift and change depending on who is in charge and has the power to rule over others in form of states, nations, and countries.

When travelling between claimed territory by plane, airport border controls are laced with a thick procedure of security checks that encompass the inspection of luggage and physical bodies with the aim to minimise potential security risks for the country that is opening its gates for us. In my experience, all border crossing check points look the same with only one changing variable, which is the language spoken because it changes from border to border.  The agents in charge of checking travellers wear uniforms, they sit behind computers, scanning devices, and other machines which process information about each person who crosses the border.  Fascinatingly enough, the border-crossing personnel assesses each person not as the physical person that stands right in front of them. No, the assessment is done based on a proxy, the conceptualised idea about a person which is displayed in form of an image on a computer screen. We, the travellers, are not privy to this information, we can assume that a part of it contains our personal details such as name and address, yet the remainder, of what lurks on these screens and refers to us, is shrouded in mystery.

There is a sense of togetherness when going through the long haul of border-crossing and security check points.  Frequently a conversation pops up between fellow passengers. At the end of the conversation everyone participating is reassured that we are united in this ‘humiliating situation’, when we are stripped of shoes, belts, jackets and hats because our potential is perceived as threat to the world. Even when queuing with a more reserved crowd that not easily engages conversationally, the sight of a little child or an elderly person having to submit to the procedures will prompt us to verbally point out the ridiculousness of these controls. But how ridiculous are they really when we bring the point home to self and see what it is that we don’t want to see about who we are? We unite in complaining about check-point procedures because we don’t want to see beyond, what underlies this situation and how it unanimously implicates each one of us.

 When we realise that what is happening in real-time is equal to the inner reality that we carry around in our minds, we can start to investigate and step beyond the accepted self-victimisation.  We stop to believe that submitting to a ‘humiliating situation’ is engineered by an evil government that blindly enforces its laws and we realise that the powerlessness we experience is the perception of the mind as we allow and accept it.  We are the borders, the territory, the security checks, and we victimise ourselves daily.  Our own borders are just as imaginary as the borders we create in physical space to divide the world into countries and nations.  Our claim to territory is to prevent us from self-change.  What we defend are our limitations and how we have programmed ourselves in separation and division from others at every opportunity where our self-interest is threatened.  We use self-talk to validate the behaviors we enact to keep our borders intact. But here it is not about others being admitted inside, it is about us preventing ourselves from stepping outside our habitual territory so that we move ourselves into a new space where we can decide freely who we want to be in this moment, in this context, with these people.

This self-talk is our security check point, it is powerful beyond recognition. It contains every justification we launch in our minds to remain where we are – trapped and limited.  On an individual level, we deploy a personal arsenal of justifications that we can tailor to each situation. These mental security measures are extremely well-placed and they make so much sense that when we are in a given situation, where we have the opportunity to trespass our limitations, we are unable to recognise what we are doing to ourselves. We may have a glimpse in hindsight of what could have been, who we could have been, but the situation is gone and we will have to wait until next time…

In the meantime, there are reassuring conversation with fellow minds to be had – somewhere – on the internet, in the streets, at the airport,  where we reassure ourselves that change seems so impossible with the ultimate justification: because we are a victim of human nature.

Don’t wait till next time, dismantle your mental security check-point and walk out of your justifications.

Join us, and set yourself free

2 Comments

Filed under All

The truth about predictive programming

Let’s end the misconceptions about predictive programming and realise what it is in truth. For most people predictive programming has been associated with conspiracy theorists, and the events that have taken place in the public arena that are exemplified in atrocities such as the attack and destruction of the World Trade Center and the recent Sandy Hook shooting. Even the “labelling” of these events as predictive programming IS predictive programming in and of itself.

If we look at the situation from the perspective of those who are advocating the existence of predictive programming then there are two fronts, the “executioner” and the “receivers”. The “executioners” are those people who are extremely influential by the virtue of their large amounts of money and the power that comes with it. The “receivers” are the public, the victims, and the ones at which these atrocities are directed to.

Recall that all of these events do not just magically fall from the sky but where orchestrated by a number of individuals that help with the logistics. Even those who are individually blamed for instrumenting the massacres such as Sandy Hook or the Batman shooting are considered part of the public before the event happens. Therefore, is everyone a potential pawn in the predictive programming scheme of the high-ups?

Let’s look at our individuals lives for a moment. How many things would you change in your life? Are there any behaviours that you would change if you could?  How does your behaviours shape your life in predictable ways – in the decisions you make? In the way you react to others? In what you like and dislike. Why is that so, if you are a free and self-determining entity in this world?

There can only be one answer to all of these questions: all your behaviour is predictable because you have programmed yourself in this manner and you use your belief system to keep yourself from seeing it.

Belief No.1. I am an individual, I am free, and I can determine my life.

If this belief were a reality and not a belief, why is that we are not creating our lives in such a way that we don’t harm others? Typically, a person’s answer to this statement is that they are not the ones that are harming others, it’s the others that are doing it. Consequentially, is all starvation and poverty in this world done by others? Of course not. Each one participates in this world every day, goes to the voting polls, sends their kids to school, goes to work and goes shopping. Each one of us is an abuser of life in the same vain as anyone who participated in the events mentioned above. Because the slow accumulation of abuse (for example in the deaths of starved people and the extinction and abuse of animals) cannot be quantified in the same way as the “big bang” events, such as the September 11 attack or the Sandy Hook shooting, does not make it any less abusive. We are abusers on equal footing through our blindness in the belief that we are free and that all that is unacceptable and bad in this world is always someone else.

Belief No.2. The world can’t be changed, it’s human nature.

Obviously this statement is a belief that is in total opposition to belief no.1. We cannot be free and not free at the same time. These two beliefs demonstrate how we are unable to see our own situation. “Human nature” is the excuse to not take responsibility, to not digg out what happened in our childhood what has been passed down over generations, behaviours we have accepted and used to program ourselves. It’s the refusal to look at who we have become, release it and create ourselves as directed human being that stops acting from automated patterns of behaviour. There is plenty of evidence that humans a) are totally malleable, example: feral children and b) and accept their limitations through their emotional states, example: the Stockholm syndrome.

Belief No.3. I have intelligence, feelings and emotions – this makes me human.

Is it therefore that as an intelligence species we create millions of consumer products that we believe we need while systematically destroying our habitat without which we are unable to survive? Is it because we have feelings and emotions we are afraid of each other and create wars, slavery and destruction, and form relationships that are dysfunctional because we don’t want to be alone – and furthermore disguise all this by calling ourselves loving beings? Is it because we have feelings that we let our own species starve to death, while standing by doing nothing about it, and believe that when we say: that’s terrible – that things will magically change as we go about our day? Or, is it that we pray for the hungry and the poor, which we know does not change THEIR conditions, but at least we have calmed down our own conscience of being terrible abusers? The answer to all of these questions is that because of feelings and emotions that we seek out at any price,  we become abusers and enslave ourselves and others.  We have programmed ourselves in self-interest to always seek out the positive emotional state, in however we define “positive” regardless of the reality we live in and is affected by these choices.  We have come to identify ourselves with emotional states and we refuse to see what human life would be if we were acting form the principle of LIFE, and not from a changeable, fluctuating, oscillating emotional states. We are so blinded by our self-definitions of needing feelings and emotions to exist that the idea of letting go of feelings and emotions is seen as a death threat.

Surely, it’s easy to see that predictive programming concerns us all, we are all living programmed lives, hence our actions, decisions, words, likes and dislikes are predictable. Therefore to look at a group of “others” as “executioners” and as ourselves as the “receivers” or victims is part of the predictive programming we have accepted as who we are. A new definition for predictive programming is: the path of a human life without self-honesty.

2 Comments

Filed under All

Market forces, the never-ending problem of complexity

The Problem:

In our current financial system, we are faced with an ever-growing complexity. It is a complexity that is mirrored in all facets of societal life whether that is administrative or enterprising. Many of us are constantly trying to simplify our lives, yet it seems to be a perpetual problem where the sheer complexity of living does not decrease but steadily increases. Those who experienced the transition to the digital age might remember, digital technology was hailed as giving us the global village, everything was supposed to be easier and much more simplified – after all we had the technology to create many more automated systems.

However, these predictions did not fulfill themselves because this complexity is intrinsically set up in our financial and administrative system. Capitalism thrives on rules and regulations that need to be constantly implemented to delineate the rights of corporations, governments, nations, countries vs the individual citizen, the consumer.

We operate from the premise of the free market that gives opportunities to all who are able to engage with it and set up business. Business owners are entrepreneurial and in that they are opportunistic, searching for the missing link between two regulations that will propagate consumer interest.

Two examples from online movies and shopping will illustrate this situation:

You, the consumer has searched online for a particular movie. You have found your movie via Netflix or Hulu. The moment after you have hit the start button a message appears to let you know that you are not able to watch this movie because Netflix is not available in your country. Primarily for money making purposes we are separated into countries even when we are online. You happen to be physically located in Belgium.

If you are willing to spend some money on this problem, then you can be helped. You can get a service, such as Foxy Proxy, that will fictitiously relocate you on the Internet so that you appear to be pressing the button from the US instead of continental Europe.

Next, we go shopping online. Let’s say you want to get something from a store in the States and would like to have it shipped to your country. You can do that but you might be surprised when you get the bill because there will be an extra amount tagged onto it, which could easily be higher than what you paid for the product. This is because the import tax-free amount is quite low, for Belgium it’s about 22 Euro. Everything above that amount you will have to pay import tax on.

Ideally you don’t want to pay any import tax on your purchase and you can do so by spending some money on a service that will give you a US street address which you can use as intermediate address. The service will  then collect all your purchases and send them to you, import tax-free, because it will no longer be coming from a US business address which is tracked for import tax payments.

These are but two examples that illustrate how complexity evolves in our system, and that with every business regulation comes a way to work around it. As we can see the lines are blurred in estimating what is legal and what not. In our examples it seems quite arbitrary. It is difficult to approach the topic with common sense why either of these services is allowed as they cancel out the rules and regulations that have been put in place.  Here it seems that rules and regulations are nothing more than money-making opportunities – in a world where all work from self-interest and are driven by greed, and more over, are self-limited by the belief that human nature cannot be changed.  Simplicity will never exist on this trajectory but an exponential growing complexity is what awaits us.

The solution:

The solution is not far and we can prove to ourselves that we can create a world from a different starting point than the one described above. The Equal Money Capitalism is Capitalism in its purest where the majority rules by the principle “Equality through what is best for all”

In Equal Money Capitalism competition to find a lucrative business loophole that will make big money and feed consumerism will cease to exist. Unemployment will cease to exist and the need to make profit will cease to exist – as profit will be a shared activity to which all have equal rights and responsibilities. Capital will no longer be the resource-to-be-sold, capital will be life itself, and since there is only one life that we all share in our various life forms, it is equal and is treated equally in every way.

This will decrease the levels of complexity of the system to keep everyone fed, sheltered and healthy. Each citizen will be able to have all information pertaining to how the system works and this flat structure will enable all to participate and improve structural underpinnings of the system.

The reward:

Each citizen will have more free time.
No more guessing what is allowed to do and what not
Each citizen has a voice that counts equally regardless of professional background
Each citizen has the opportunity to enhance their life style and that of others through self-organized participation.

2 Comments

Filed under Equal Money

Educating the human – but where is reality?

Figure 1. Graphical depiction of the dynamics involved in the production of human progress.
I recently found myself queuing at a counter of a business where in the background directly behind and above the counter a TV lurked from the ceiling, facing the customers as they entred through the front door. The TV set was muted and unrelated music was playing.I was standing there watching the screen, and immediately absorbed into the imagery, which was composed from typical “modern” editing techniques. You know, the ones that originated with the MTV culture, where the editing is mimicking the way we see. Brief snippets of the scene from a number of perspectives are broadcasted, simulating our eyes jumping around the scene. The image is never fixed, always in motion just like in reality where we are barely aware of our eye movement, or the manner in which we direct our “lenses”. In the present situation I was being fed images from a live show, as I choose to look there instead of elsewhere. I saw a transmitted reality, where a few man were standing around on a stage, sleeves rolled up, awkwardly milking a goat. The goat was feeding itself and seemingly unaffected by all the hustle and bustle she was causing with her appearance on a TV set. The audience, mostly middle-aged middle-class women were clapping in delight to see such a ‘natural act’ being televised. On the other hand, these men’s reality had been injected with this goat, they were away from their desks, their fast cars, their ‘online’ lifestyle and so forth. The women were clapping because a bit of nature was put back into our lives.Meanwhile back in my scene, in my reality, another techno-reality where I was surrounded by tough surfaces, steel frames, and hard-hitting house music, my first glance after moving my eyes away from the TV screen fell onto the clerk. He was nodding his head to the music – to the rhythm of his reality. Behind me other customers were lining up. I was asking myself how can it be that each one of us was experiencing a different reality on the same planet? How is it that we see reality? How are we are taught to create our reality?

In the reality described in the scene above, we notice that each person brings their singular viewpoint to the scene. I am there because I need something that is very specific, that something stems from my desires and interests, and is unrelated to those of the clerk, let alone to the man in the TV show. Already, it is clear that I am only considering a limited number of aspects of the reality that I am surrounded by – the ones that support the fulfillment of what I want. Therefore, I make decisions about reality on the basis of my viewpoint which is underpinned by my desires and interests – these are my personal economics. The way ‘personal’ economics work if a 1:1 reflection of our global capitalism. On a global scale, we are in a similar position we don’t really engage with the direction that things take in the world, we are focussed on working in the service of free enterprise, even if this means working a menial job in a corporation. The rest of the world we leave up to our elected ‘body’, the government of the people. The common thread between our personal lives and the global population is that in either case, only aspects that promote our interests, or the interests of a group, are addressed. We institutionalise “proxies”, such as elected politicians. It is their task to stand in for us so that we don’t have to concern ourselves with the world-at-large. Yet, we create this world together through our participation in decisions that form and shape policies, laws, as well as the financial backbone of our system.

From this standpoint, we can define personal desires and interest as “personal gain”. Thus, in its basic structure personal economics are equivalent to the profits that drive the world’s financial system. Through this selection of focus that everyone pursues we inadvertently must break down what is whole, we must zoom in to create order. This allows us to select whatever it is that we need, want or desire. We create order in the sense of creating categories of objects and services by separating the whole into neat little divisions. What I mean by the ‘whole’ is our environment, other beings – all that surrounds and sustains us. A Chinese proverb states: The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. Even if this proverb lends itself to multiple interpretations, we can easily see how we put forth the naming of these neat little divisions, the concepts we devise to describe our world, as a worthwhile human achievement.

We believe that by creating categories and divisions we are able to specify communication. We even state that through this order, which we make by and through the use of language we can rise above all other creatures, we become rational thinkers. Yet, when we look closely we see that this specification of objects and services does not sharpen our communication, rather, it is used to create an alternative reality – one we call by the name of progress, our modern world. A world, that is created by our minds on the premise of abstract thinking – we abstract, mine, and extract from the whole that which we have categorised and labelled for our purposes. We strip it from and off the physical world by the use of language. From language we create beliefs, ideas, concepts and rituals – we conceive of mental states. Through mental processes we form new relationships that no longer reference the physical world but favour our conclusions of what we understand progress to be.

We can easily see this on a basic example. In Western cultures we eat pigs. When we slaughter a pig and process the meat, we call it pork. When we process the meat so that we can eat it in a sandwich we call it ham. Neither pork nor ham refer to the animal itself. The relationship to the animal, as a being in the physical world we live in, is severed and reconnected to our ritual or cultural pattern that is composed from our mental states. The pig is now disembodied. We want to indicate that the pig is dead and edible and this is how we rationalise these naming conventions. Our purpose, to be able to eat the pig, is fulfilled and within this process the pig itself as living being has no role, no meaning, no relevance. We have used language to abstract reality, namely ‘the pig is dead’ and we can now talk about the pig-meat in two ways, as ham or pork. This procedure of abstract thinking in relation to our surroundings is culture-specific in that it depends on the patterns a culture has created for itself. Other cultures have constructed other patterns that are used in the ‘eating’ rituals. In Guangzhou, China where dog meat is sold at the market the linguistic break-down, or mental abstraction of “the dog is dead, it is an edible item” will have similar descriptors that in their essence reflect those of the Western pig.

“Abstracting” from the physical as we do, with the use of our minds, is however a multidimensional approach. Another dimension is to take the know-how of the physical world and selectively apply it to the things we make. I can’t really say we create because at the most we reconfigure the existing relationships through a mental filter. For this example, all we have to do is look to the sky were we see birds and airplanes flying around. Airplanes are modelled after birds. The study of bird-flight led to the design of aircrafts that we use to travel around the world. In other words, those who have studied bird-flight have selectively ‘abstracted’ that which could be useful for humans to build mechanical birds that fly and carry cargo. Birds are only one example in this, most of our tools are created by imitating the physical world around us. We even have a word for selectively-putting-the-physical-world-back-into-our-thinking in the drive for human progress. We call it biomimicry.

Our highly-praised act of creativity, considered a human capital, is nothing more but our ability to apply our mind to devise proxies to the physical reality we live in. We do this actively by classifying and ordering what we perceive with our senses. We then reconfigure the identified relationships to always and forever do one thing: to suit our purpose. What we call progress is the sum of our efforts to create this alternate, or in essence virtual reality. The process of virtualisation is not a new one and certainly not limited to the digital realm. The binary code we generate is yet another manifestation in support of virtualisation. Virtualisation may even be called the spearhead of how we apply mental processes to divide and conquer the physical world, and how we exist in our relationships to each other.

How do we relate to each other? Here we follow the same pattern, we ‘select’ those who we believe are worthwhile of our attention. Generally, relationships are categorised and described as: family members, friends, colleagues and acquaintances. The rest of the world – again, the whole – is therefore of no or marginal interest to us. Let’s face it, if it were any other way, there would be no starving person in this world. It is therefore no coincidence that we are now living in an age where virtualisation, the alternate reality we call into being, has solidified through the use of digital machines. We now operate in and from the shared virtual space we have called into being. We have created the internet so that we can connect with anyone who is willing and able to make it their focus to ‘connect’. We may have hundreds of so-called friends on Facebook, representing the various human-relation categories I have mentioned above. More than ever, virtualisation is blatantly staring us in the face when we compare the spatial reality we live in with the reality of our shared virtual space. The majority of us will have trouble naming a decent number of people who we know and communicate with intimately in a spatial radius of 50 square miles. It may be that you come from a small village where relationships are more local and intimate, this  however will only proof that those types of environments function within the classification of human-relations, and that they can hardly be called progressive – these are places we leave behind in the pursuit of progress. We do not consider indigenous cultures, such as the Amondawa tribe in Brazil, who live in close-knit communities, as the cutting edge of our progress.

As creatures of pure self-interest, we loose the reference of the dimensionality of our actions that are guided by our way of thinking. In the process of breaking down the physical world into mental categories and devising order so that we can be selective, we keep no link to the whole. The whole, the physical world as a whole, has become obsolete in this process. We easily discard it, as we discard rubbish in a bin. The result is that we are fragmenting and dividing the physical reality to a point where we are unable to sustain ourselves because, as you might have guessed, division as the starting point is inherently destructive. We destruct to abstract, you might say.

Before I move on to give you some examples in how we teach children to be ‘abstractors’ via the use of their mind, I will briefly explain Figure1 you can see above. In an attempt to visualise this two-fold dynamic that I described above, Figure 1 is meant to illustrate the looming and inevitable consequence, if we were to continue along this path. Here, the human is at the centre because the human is the initiator as well as the receiver of this process of progress. The dollar sign in the centre symbolises all currencies because all money or currencies are used to promote selection, abstraction, production and consumption. The brown-coloured field represents the physical reality we live in, or the planet we call earth. We use our mind to endorse abstract thinking. We ‘virtualise’ our reality and in this process we use up the ingredients, as we exploit the physical world because no matter how virtual we become the building blocks of human life are located in the physical world. This is to the detriment of all beings that do not change, modify, and ultimately destroy the habitat of all other beings on the planet – the human is the sole perpetrator in this endeavour. Mankind fails to preserve the world for those who do not operate from mental states, such as animals, and therefore causes extinction of living beings. The graphic indicates this selection process, the steady reduction of supplies in the production of materialised mental states: this is where we perpetuate virtualisation by constructing tools and environments in support of what we think. The graphic further notes that we identify and fetishise the specialness of nature, it becomes food for thought, we study the hell out of it to see what’s in it for us. I previously illustrated this point with the mechanism of biomimicry. We then feed the ‘fruits’ of our studies back into the process of progress – we close the loop.

Children come into this world and are systematically taught to adhere to a process of becoming abstract thinkers. Virtualisation is introduced by creating an alternate world where humans and other creatures battle good and evil. The Harry Potters of this world have been around as long as there have been stories. We teach our new generations to be of the magical mind instead of the earth. We teach them by providing an alternative to life by proposing stories and fairytales on all kinds of virtual media, such as an ipod, TV, and laptop. Neatly encoded they make for perfect carriers of our beliefs, ideas and concepts in how we see this world. We groom our youngest to use their imagination and dream up virtual relationships that can be expressed through language and representation. Instead of bringing the world to our children, we insert a bunch proxies. What else are stuffed animals and franchised toys? We teach children to stay away from the biological substances we are also made of. We call it dangerous and dirty and we don’t even stop with our own body. Or are we past the stage where we are ashamed of our physical bodies for producing shit?

Consider the option. Join the forum and ask questions: www.desteni.org

1 Comment

Filed under All

Educating the human – but where is the sex?

Desteni Artist Garbrielle Goodrow

Why would any society, or the world for that matter, who is obsessed with knowledge and information, omit sex from education? The undeniable reality is that sex, one of the fundamental aspects of human life, coequal to the biological requirement of food and elimination of every human, would have second to none appearance in the curriculum of any educational body? Why is it that we believe that calculus or the periodic table is more important than to understand how to approach your sex partner or what it means to have sexual urges? Isn’t it interesting that most of us accept the fact that sex is used to inundate the world with imagery to make us shop till we drop, yet we create so much stigma around the simple sexual act that we do not even want to talk about it to our children. We prefer to conjure up all kinds of emotions, be it fear, anger, shame and guilt regarding our own personal sexual activities. There can be only one answer: money.

Money is the motivator of our current existence in this world and it includes the motivation to institutionalise the physical act of intercourse between two humans. It may not be so apparent at first but when we round up the current literature and documentaries that look at the topic critically, we can see that the gap of sexual non-education has been filled by the porn industry. The porn industry, a billion-dollar industry, is one of the most powerful drivers of the development of internet technologies while its involvement reaches far and deep. Many of the rather unsuspecting tech companies have benefitted from secret earnings through the porn industry. To name a few: Yahoo, Foxnews, and Comcast. That the porn industry is at the forefront of making money with emerging technologies is evident by looking at the porn revenues on handheld devices that are estimated to increase by 75% in 2013, with a closing figure on the $5 billion dollar mark.

The convenience of technology brings porn ever closer to the growing youth. What used to require of a man to seek out bookstores with “under” the counter dealings of porn magazines can now be had at any location with a button click on your latest mobile device. Nowadays, one often has to go out of one’s virtual way not to land accidentally on a porn website. Though porn is not made in China, it has reached levels of consumption that rival any other product staged on the global market of consumer saturation.

The point is that sex education has never been taking seriously in academia because with the money-making potential it puts forth, it has provided a huge turnover in a widely-faceted industry. From websites to franchises, to all kinds of accessories, to sex tourism – the porn industry has thoroughly penetrated society. Let’s not forget that by addressing questions of sex know-how inquired by young men, who are tech-savvy and full of pulsating sex urges, a life-long customer can be had. The effort to get a young boy hooked on the images of copulating men and women is effortless when considering that “ 9 out of 10 children aged between 8 and 16 have viewed pornography on the Internet. In most cases, the sex sites were accessed unintentionally when a child, often in the process of doing homework, used a seemingly innocent sounding word to search for information or pictures.”

What is even more interesting in this educational dilemma illustrated in the above-mentioned quote, which stems from the prestigious London School of Economics, is that academia has no problem looking at porn from a number of objections: Statistical usage through quantitative analysis is one of them; the study of sexual behaviour in society and media; as well as the question of gender equality are among the hot topics in the humanities. It is pathetic that all of academia will exploit the criticism that can be focussed upon the porn industry, as a field of study, but will do nothing in bringing sex closer to the curriculum of an average school day.

So if men get their sex education from the porn industry, how are women-at-large affected by the porn industry through their relationships with men? In other words, what is it that porn teaches women? Here again the answer is straight forward: to sell themselves. Each women on the planet knows that sex appeal will get her what she wants. The better she can sell her appeal to sex when interacting with men, the more likely she will have a good job and make sufficient money. The reason for that is that the world is male-dominated and men not only learn how to “deal” with a women intimately from pornography but they also learn to value a woman on the basis of her sexual attributes. Surely the relationship of a man’s parents will have been eroded and undermined as dominant influence in referencing the social value of women. The power of daily repetition of pornographic imagery is exceptionally well illustrated by those who admit to being porn addicted and those who admit to rape based on their porn addiction.

Although a prostitute or porn star will have to literally sell her body, the average women does it in a more abstract or remote manner through intermediate artefacts that objectify. May that be a nice pair of high heels, or a flattering haircut, maybe it’s that short dress or that breast enlargement surgery. ISAPS Global Survey, apparently the first reliable source for plastic surgery statistics, states that in the last 10 years breast augmentation has been the most popular procedure in the global trend of body modifications. Though the price that women pay for having learned to sell themselves does not end with shaping one’s body to have more sex appeal, it ends in bed. Women’s intimate interactions with men are modelled on what men know from pornography, where communication is typically reduced to assumptions, and aggressive starting points are accepted as valid because that is how the porn industry sells what women like.

If we were to take responsibility for our educational system and decide to take on sex education as one of the main subjects in school, thus debunking pornography in all its manifestations, we could provide the maturing youth with input that places sex into the equality of life. The prerequisite for this is a new economic system where money has lost all its value and operates in servitude of life. Then, all issues of inequality between men and women would fall away and we could restart our existence from a virtually unknown place of physical interactions…
– and this is what will happen when we switch to an Equal Money System.

Investigate!

4 Comments

Filed under Equal Money

Educating the human – but where is the human?

Artwork Marlen Vargas Del Razo

By now surely most people are aware of the educational system not being up to scratch to guide young humans to become responsible and aware adults who will use their skills to create a world where our collective existence actually and in fact improves. I am not talking about some statistical analysis that wants to prove to us in numbers that the world is improving, because any statistical analysis is skewed by those who are conducting the analysis and will only determine a fraction of the circumstances that exist in the world. We have no tools that can give us a bigger picture except for our neglected common sense. A better world would clearly indicate visible changes in poverty, abuse and crime reduction on the collective scale. We could look at the news and read about how atrocities of the world cease to exist.

As we all know, this is definitely not the case, and although there are initiatives, such as one laptop per child, or other superficial, well-meaning ways to create a better world, they do not parallel other developments, such as increased rampant shootings, or forms of cannibalism – and these seemingly benevolent acts to support children are upon closer inspection nothing but a corporate scam.

So, we can of course continue to look at changing and improving education to where we think it should shift, throwing all kinds of technology at it, incorporating it better into today’s social media craze, and forming evermore and broader collaborations between educational institutions and other corporate endeavours.

Here I want to stop and look at what we are actually learning about life and how we each conduct our life in this world. As far as my own education goes, I can see that I learned very little, if anything, in how I can approach my Self in getting to know myself let alone another human, or even plants, animals, the weather – all that exists around me in my daily world, including my Self. The starting point of my education did not include me as the human. Yes of course I had biology and studied anatomy and learned to name the parts of the brain and so forth, but this was knowledge that was brought to me by the teaching entities from another place: a text book, or some drawing – but I, the human that I am was never referenced in this, not in real terms. I, as the human was too personal, too subjective, too different, too specific, so that all I learned was at all times outside of me.

This is the general starting point of educational material and as we know this approach is exalted when we look at the sciences. The idea being that unless one is objective one cannot conduct good scientific research. ‘Objective’ though really means, unless one is separated from all that is here as Self one will never know who Self really is – and the proof of this is our world today.

There are 7 billion misconceptions about life and living, and there are 7 billion guesses about who one is as Self. Mostly we have created little crutches, which we attribute to the rational mind, to help us disguise these handicaps about our own Selves. With the rational mind we drive the situation to the extreme in that we classify and label obsessively all that is around us, and the more we categorise in this manner, the more we distance ourselves from who we really are.

Why else would we allow to exist in a world where people are starving, where governments are corrupt, where we build structures that threaten our survival, where we poison our foods – where nothing counts more than money.

The rational mind, or putting labels to a class, a category, gives us the illusion to have done something about the situation. We can be scholarly about it and have names to refer to what we mean, and most of all we can be complacent. This is evident through scholarly work not having any impact on how we live our lives, in that we create less fear, more security, and more equality for everyone.

We have in fact mistaken complacency as comfort. We believe if we can afford nice couches, a cosy bed, a washing machine – we have created a better life. What we don’t see is what we accept in exchange. Most of us however are so numb or ‘dumbed down’ that a bit of entertainment will drown the last inkling of us having a critical look at ourselves and the world.

Back to education. First of all, there is an interesting omission in education, which is that those who recreate the human race by procreating are never involved in becoming educated to be a parent. I do recall many women who had kids telling me that it is “nothing what you think it is” – thereby stating that they had to jump into the ‘cold water’ of suddenly parenting others with little to no know-how. Purely from the educational stance, how can the educational system assume that the education a child gets prior to going to school is not relevant to the educational process, and thus conveniently leaves out the education of adults as parents, and in doing so the early stages of a human’s life. How can anyone deny the cyclic dependency between all the components: adults-parents-babies-adults-parents and so forth.

The removal of the human from the educational process and substituting the human for money is quite evident. Just to pick one example to demonstrate this:  if I were go out into the street and ask people what and how they know their human body I could ask: What, for example, do you know happens to your human body when you are sick and what are the symptoms related to? Here I am referring to very basic stuff, for example someone having a latent stomach ache for a number of days perhaps weeks. What can this person tell me about their condition? We can safely assume: not much. There will be a bunch of guesses but that is as far as it goes. The human body is of no concern. What is of concern is whether it is ‘good to go’ – to go out into the world and make money to survive. Similarly, how many people can walk through the streets and see the little weeds that grow out of the sidewalk and even realise that – let alone what – such a weed contributes to the eco system, and here we are talking about details. But how can we understand the larger eco system, the impacts of pollution and electronic networks for example that we shamelessly place into the world, when we are clueless to what happens right at our feet. We leave the ‘knowing’ to the experts – yet another categorisation and classification – and as a result we do not have a world that is best for all.

That is why, to know what is in our world locally has relevance because when each one of us knows how things work on the local level then there is no guessing, no surprises and no hand waving in how it works on the larger scale. It will give everyone the ability to take responsibility because they have a real-world context to go by: their own personal local world of which they are as Self part of.  So why do we not learn this in school? Why is it more important to create computational business models that tell us how we can better exploit business practices so that levels of consumption rise to create more obesity, more extinction of species, more geographic catastrophes, higher pollution levels and so forth?

What we fail to understand in education is that we are creating relationships with everything that is in our world. Even no relationship is a relationship just because we don’t see the weed in the street, to go back to the former example, does not mean it does not exist. Relationships are, as this example shows, dependent on our perceptions. We don’t perceive the weed in the street. A child walking the sidewalk for a first time will notice it, until it is told too many times to stay away from it and gradually learn to no longer perceive life but to perceive what it has to do to survive. In very basic terms the educational system introduces the alienation of the human through the formula of rationalisation. It does so through a basic mechanism upon which everything builds in education and later in life. It is the “first come first serve” idea – beating all other humans to a place in the front of the line through grades, through talent, and through specialness – by any means necessary is the foundation of our educational system. The more you have of that the more likely you breeze through your education and subsequently through your money-making life. In other words, with the systematic skewing of our perceptional abilities, to reduce them to take in only that which is necessary for our survival in a system of our own creation, we have become living zombies that walk down the street and only perceive a fraction of what is in the world – and we can study it and call it ‘change blindness’. Here the question is why does educational research never question why we perceive the way we do, why is cognition ‘doomed’ as ‘human nature’ when we know that it is a learned ability? ( An example for this would be the cognition of a taxi driver around town, there are measurable differences in the grasping of complex spatiality, where the driver ‘has the map of the town in his head’ and can navigate it).

Again, this is because we have chosen to take the human out of the loop when failing to educate the human from the starting point of Self. Instead we have brought about complex fragmentation, where we mirror ourselves to ourselves, but are unaware of the underlying common denominator – the common sense behind it all. This is evident in what we know already through our own research but we remain paralysed in making the required changes, to make sense of what we know by transforming our reality to a world that ‘just’ works for all.

With the starting point of discounting the personal self in education we are also indoctrinating young adults to form beliefs that they do not count in the bigger picture, that they can never change things because things are just the way they are. To impersonalise education, to take out the individual human from the equation as the starting point of ‘learning’ is to breed adults that abdicate any sort of responsibility for the whole of humanity, or for the fact that we can only exist as a group. We have created a world that is full of fragmented mental Selfs because in physical reality, from the perspective of substance i.e. the biological substance we are made of together we all that we reference as nature, there cannot be a fragmentation because the interconnectedness of substance is undeniable as the living tissue of earth. Again, this is right here in front of us, we exist in groups – physically, all over the planet –  in villages, in cities, in nations – yet in our fragmented perception this is unrecognised because we lack total awareness of the principle that each member of a group is responsible for the whole to function. We create a dichotomy where we ‘get by’ chaotically, never living as true personalised Selves in a world because to deny a personal Self through failed education creates a Self that must draw on everything else around itself to compensate for that which it perceives as missing (read this blog for context). So the impersonal Self operates through self-interest to survive, steeped in fear and anxiety of not surviving.

Bernard Poolman once said that we live in a limited reality, and what he meant, among other things, is that the substance of life that holds us together, because we are unable to do it ourselves, will come to an end through the impact of induced, endless fragmentation – and unless we stop in our tracks and teach a new personal beginning of understanding who we are as whole Selves, we have no chance of survival as a planet, as a group called humanity.

Investigate the only personal solution there is and join in with our vote and common sense!

1 Comment

Filed under Equal Money

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!

2 Comments

Filed under Equal Money