Tag Archives: Equality

“The Decision” – Bernard, I got it

In my effort to move on and face the world that was left behind with Bernard’s passing, I continue to write on the topic, on that which I learned from the man who embodied the sum of all relationships that I could ever have with any human. (I referred to him elsewhere as self-complete).

In the beginning of this year, Bernard asked if me if I had made my decision, the decision of who I am. At the time, I found this question difficult to understand. I wrote several blogs on how I no longer wanted to cater to the picture, the idea, that I had of myself. The secret wishes that motivated me to pursue certain activities, and that shaped my interests and preferences in the world and patterned my relationship with others. Wishes that are build on lies, grandeur, arrogance and manipulation. Through the process of self-forgiveness, I shed the outer layer of these secrets yet I see that I am not free of self-judgements. Secretly wishing to be this or that is directly born from the inner mental eye that we cast upon ourselves not realising that this eye cannot see in physical reality and yet, it determines what we place into Pandora’s box, where we hide ourselves away.

A few pages of self-forgiveness later, I realised that all I wrote out was that which I no longer want to be and by doing so I worked on a process of elimination, which I grasped in hindsight has nothing to do with making a decision about who I am. Though, it was a necessary step because it created a clearance within me, and although I am still working on picture ‘elements’, they are no longer the fuzzy bunch but a few fist-size rocks that clearly shimmer through the water, as I chisel away at them.

With the accumulation of the insights that I had during my farm visit, I realised that to make a decision about who I am is the substrate of stopping my reactions. Especially fear and anxiety are at the root of a meandering, wavering Self that bends over backwards at each crossroad because it is spineless and brings no firmness to any situation. And this much was true, making decisions was one of my greatest “weaknesses” thus far. That’s not to say that I faltered at every step of the way, in some areas I have been more decisive than others but as a general approach to choice, I have developed a canon of tactics to deal with decision-making times. One of the ways I disguised indecisiveness for myself was to believe that I am a patient person – “I can wait, really” – until my environment makes a decision for me. This is what happened just recently when Bernard died. The decision to walk my process for real emerged from Bernard’s passing. I could no longer postpone the reality that I am walking this process for myself, that I must rely on my Self and not on Bernard. I must lead myself and probe, investigate and conduct this self-study, because now the decision has been made for me – Bernard is dead.

Making the decision – of who I am – is much simpler than I ever expected it to be but of course much harder to implement. The decision lies within that which I bring to each situation – the Self-relationship I bring to the world. A situation is a collection of moments with a distinct set of encircling stances – circumstances – that are formed through all entities that participate in a particular situation. The decision that answers the question “who am I”, is my position within those encircling stances. Position is an interesting word in this context, because it denotes primarily a location in space based on coordinates that are physically measurable. Strictly physically speaking, no body is ever without location in space.

The decision about who I am is therefore whether I chose to have a relationship with myself or not. This Self-relationship is actually a place within my being where I am whole and inseparable from myself, no matter what happens in my environment. When I chose to have no relationship with myself, in which case I am not the one directing my position, I will be directed by my memory in form of reactions such as fear, anxiety but also happiness and sentiment, which “move” me in every way, in the words I speak, in my gestures, in how I approach tasks, what I do and what I don’t, and how other’s manipulative faculties influence the way I live my life. By contrast when I am in a relationship with myself what moves me is the central point within me, it’s my internal pivot point of equality and oneness with myself. So, in essence the difference lies in whether I bring myself to the situation holistically, or whether the situation is ‘brought’ to me, where I receive the situation based on my database of memories and other people’s opinions and beliefs. These memories, beliefs and opinions act like wedges which I allow to exist between myself and the world, and as a consequence, I experience myself in separation.

What has happened since is that once I made the decision to walk the relationship of my Self, I enter situations differently. Sure, I am in the developmental stages of building a relationship with Self yet I am clear on the position that I take within myself. When I am one and equal with and to myself, then, losing my connection because of reactions is only a temporary occurrence and I drop the separation immediately and reconnect. It happens in the moment, my awareness shifts back to my body. The answer to the question “who am I ?” is therefore “I am ‘how’!” – I am connected to myself – which I see now is the gateway to all other relationships that I create in the world both physically and conceptually.

So, Bernard, if you were here, I’d say to you “I got it”.

gotit_bernie

Bernard Poolman at the Desteni Farm

Advertisements

5 Comments

Filed under All

Nothing has changed, everything has changed – a personal tribute to Bernard Poolman

Bernie_smile

Bernard Poolman in the recent years before his death

It still seems unreal to me, when just weeks ago I was talking to Bernard Poolman at the farm where I was visiting for three weeks – and now Bernard is dead. He passed away on August 11th from the impact of a heart attack. I remember it was dark already, an early winter evening in South Africa, when I first met him in person, as he had just returned from a city trip dealing with some legal administration. He stepped onto the veranda and called my name making long rolling sounds with this mischievous twinkle in his eyes that I was to see more than once throughout my stay. It was as if he was saying to me “and so it is, we meet again”, but of course, this is just my interpretation. Bernard was like a mirror to each of us, he reflected our own perceptions back to us, and he understood very well what was happening inside of us in that moment, so that he tailored his words as a point of support, to help us see what we were doing to ourselves, the things we wanted to see in the world that weren’t there. Interactions with Bernard were a real-time opportunity for self-change.

He then proceeded to give me a hug and we sat down at the table and started talking. There were moments were he was visibly in pain because of the work that he had taken on using his physical body. He was preparing our world for a rebirth into equality and oneness but how many of us have an understanding of what that means on a physical level? Bernard did not care much about the pain, for him this was the byproduct of an extraordinary task that had to be done to sort out this world – a world that is in reverse.

A world in reverse starts with our pursuit for pleasure, for well-being, for fitness, beauty, comfort, and health. Bernard showed us by example of his life the difference between existing as a picture and existing as life. Becoming life is to stop catering to the picture, it is a process that requires us to step out from behind the smoke screen and become the real thing – passed the pain, passed the resistances – a self-willed entity, and to see the web of relations we have created within every aspect of this world.  ‘Fractalising’ our existence, ourselves, and every living thing on planet earth into an endless array of divisions, restrictions, and segmentations. This is what we do as a default, we are  “naturals” at this and call it “human nature”, we submit ourselves to our minds and we don’t stop ourselves from getting sucked up. With each ‘mind sucker’ a new concepts is created that enhances the divisions, restrictions, and segmentations. Fractals are infinite repetitions that create our world over, look at the branches of the tree or the tiny veins in your hand. We have copied these cycles of repetition only we allow ourselves to default into the separation instead of coalescing the world into equality, where the principle of equality repeats in all aspects of worldly affairs and LIFE succeeds SURVIVAL. Once and for all.

Piecing ourselves back together is accepting that the world must be straightened out without concessions. We must move from negligence and convenience to absolute and unlimited caring for the place called earth. First, however, we must understand how we, each for themselves, have actually reached our current point. Bernard was there to facilitate this understanding because he had taken a machete to the thickest of mind and emotions and cut himself loose – all by himself.

After this initial meeting, I spent whatever time was available visiting Bernard in the main room. Unlike any other stranger I have met before, there was this instant connection, a clear link of communication between us – it was so clear that there was no room for anything else, awkwardness, anxiety, insecurity or any other emotion that typically interferes with our communication signals. Bernard’s uncompromising stance was available to me in every moment of interaction, to centre myself within it. I saw the potential of communication, not in a SciFi “beam me up Scotty” kind of way – this was not about transmitting thoughts, or having a perfect understanding of what was being said between us. Rather a point of communication where I actually got to see myself, where the veil comes off, and where I see what lies behind the words I use, the way I use them, and how I have applied myself over the years in the same mind tracks, like a train forging groves on wheels of words in which I move myself along – struggling, stumbling – a layer so impervious to myself where only glimpses reach my awareness after an intense session of self-forgiveness. Through my conversations with Bernard I realised the true level of carelessness I bring to the world, practically, in every word I speak.

Whenever I entered the room and saw Bernard’s head peek out from behind the computer, he was approachable in the same way, today, as the day before, as tomorrow. There was never a shift or a change and within him that I experienced and because of his absolute stability, our conversations where always only about me. Bernard was self-complete. Let me clarify, selflessness is a “program”, it is what it says: a missing self. It feeds our urge to exist in the denial about who we really are by filling ourselves up with others, with tasks, objects, and services that are apparently needed in the world – selflessness is another escape mechanism. I say ‘apparent needs’, because unlike self-completeness, selflessness cannot respond to what is really needed which is what is best for all in each situation, in each moment, because the person is preoccupied by the reasons he/she wants to escape from. Because Bernard is complete as a self – as is – he was able to respond to what I needed to see and hear at the time. He no longer operated from desire, preference or judgement, the fluctuating emotions that move us like a puppet on a string and that make us blind to our acceptances and allowances in the world, so that we create a world dominated by suffering.  Because Bernard is self-complete (and he still is even when he is no longer in physical form) he could utilise his ‘self’ as a tool for support – for social engineering – one person at the time, to bring about a world that is best for all, beyond his own physical existence.

In Bernard’s presence I experienced myself like a child again. I am talking about a specific aspect of being a child, the innocence that children bring to the world, an unspoiled receptiveness that has not been caught up in all kinds of filters, the ulterior motives we usually place in front of ourselves when we come to speak with others, in how we attempt to protect our vulnerability. I was free of this pre-programmed prompter that supports my survival and I could relax into a part of me that was once my starting point to grasping the world around me. Only now I was grasping myself. Bernard’s self-complete being created an unflinching point of reference in which I could expand my awareness. A reversal of what we usually experience when interacting with others where we suppress and limit ourselves.

Answering my questions was only a part of our communication, he volunteered much of what he saw about me, even when he had to scream it into my ears. He could never scare me though, not for a moment I perceived his expressive way of talking, loud voice and beastly face, as scary. I realised what I had originally considered as scary in my online communications with him, when I first joined the group, was the purity and stableness of his interactions that cut through all the pretences. The fact was that Bernard, the man who died on August 11th, lived entirely without fear. We never encounter a being that does not exist on and in fear – with Bernard fear as a basis to each breath had become life at the basis of each breath. This cannot be easily grasped by the mind because there is no entry point to attach one’s programs – his words, his movements, his actions are not marked by fear, and the mind is at a loss for parity in pre-progammed settings that simply are not there. This can threaten the mind if we allow it.  The main points that Bernard told me about myself where wrapped up in questions inside of me, dinosaur questions, that I had actively pursued years ago. I had all the pieces to the puzzle but I was unable to put them together in the way that they would make sense to me and give me direction. Bernard resurrected these questions and put the puzzle pieces for me in order so that I could leave the farm with more of myself than when I came.

My encounter with Bernard has given my self-realisation process detailed direction, it has sharpened my focus. What I have seen and realised about myself cannot be undone. It has changed everything for me because the more we see about who we are and what we have created, the greater the stakes of responsibility to give everything all of the time, 100% of a no-return investment. Bernard’s death can only be understood from that perspective, he gave everything all of the time and each moment of giving he was aware of the no-return policy – he even told us so many times.

There is an uncanny parallel between Bernard and Jesus, which we can revisit 2000 years from now. It’s not the obvious one that both men lived the principles of equality and that both men gave up their lives as the living principle of responsibility. It’s the parallel that emphasises US – those who have committed themselves to equality as the principle of life. Jesus’s death brought no merit to this world, his words were distorted and his principles misinterpreted, 2000 years later we have a world of abuse, poverty, corruption and war. What the world will be in 4013 is entirely up to us. Jesus and Bernard opened the doors to a new world order using everything available to them, and once again we are left with an opportunity to step out from our pre-programmed designs and become living beings.

I cannot deny that I will miss the man, and that tears cannot do justice of the profound loss we have all witnessed these past few days. As Cerise said, the world is poorer for it, now that Bernard no longer walks the earth. It is however, not a question, that we will continue walking our process. Hearing of his death, much of the shock we experienced are the voices of selfishness –  entitlement to convenience in our processes –  regardless of what Bernard has done for all of us, how much he suffered through the physical pain, we insist on him being here for us, so that we can fall back on our crutches. I speak for myself here and all those who have relied on getting Bernard’s perspective, his encouragement, living vicariously through his commitment. As a group, it’s the moment of realisation that we are always alone in making the decision to stay here breathing and nail our awareness to the ground, or to drift into the illusion of the mind. In that sense, nothing has changed, though everything changes from now on – we walk for real. The time has come.

Bernie_hotshot

Bernard Poolman in 2005 – picture by Rozelle de Lange

6 Comments

Filed under All

My encounter with Desteni’s portal

 Zaque and Sunette

Zaque and Sunette – Photo by Anna Brix Thompsen

In this post I am writing about my personal experience with Sunette Spies in the moments and minutes when she is portalling the dimensions.  I am talking about the bio-technology of connecting to the dimensions by creating a pathway of communication via Sunette’s physical body.  Sunette utlises her body in that she makes it available to those who come through the portal to which we  have direct access to the other side – the un-embodied dimensions. Our bodies have no access because this gateway is realised without the mind. In other words, the mind, as it is, stands between and separates the physical dimension from the un-embodied dimensions. There are many reasons why that is the case but that is not my focus here.

So, we are looking at a technology which is the human body as interface for communication. Before I go on I want to point out that what I am reporting here is seen from my perspective which comes with my personal history, however I am committed to lay out what I have witnessed and comprehended with scrutiny to fully describe to you the added value that this experience has given to my life.

Briefly, my personal history is such that in the past I have been involved with forms of spirituality because I was on a quest to understand myself in this world that did not make sense to me, and where I was not ‘feeling alright’ with how I was experiencing myself. Those paths have included channelling, chanting, affirmations, yoga, mediation and so forth. I moved through a lot spiritual traditions and did not shy away from study and practice, which is why I learned to read and write Sanskrit. I took no shortcuts because I wanted to find the truth. Similarly, I have never suspended my doubts and given into blind belief which is why I am here as a member of the Desteni group. With this group, I have satisfied the ‘urge’ that has driven me most of my life because through Desteni I have learned the tools that enable me to find the answers myself.

Therefore, when I first learned about the portal I was skeptical but yet open-minded to investigate what is being said, and prior to meeting the portal in person this was done through listening to the interviews on Eqafe. These audio interviews are Sunette’s voice used by the various beings from the dimensions, who are recognisable when listening to because of subtle tonality and pitch shifts in her voice.  Once I met the portal, I realised that in my own unawareness I had built up an image of the setup or the environment of what it would have to be like to produce these interviews. When I saw the real deal, it was a humbling experience. There are no props, there is no fancy technology, just a dictaphone. Sunette sits modestly on a couch-bed seamlessly and effortlessly moving into the dimensions as she starts to speak.

I have seen many speakers throughout my professional career in labs and research environments rehearsing for public talks, even quite seasoned ones. These experiences have given me a grounded understanding of what is cognitively possible for most people, to produce comprehensible improv in front of an audience.

The first notable experience for me was that Sunette does not rehearse and that she does not speak from notes. If you know Eqafe, then you know how many parallel series are online which are constantly getting updated with new interviews, and which build in their content on the previous interviews conducted in that particular series. For someone in this line of work, giving interviews that are part of an ongoing process of multiple, parallel strands of topics, concepts, references, analogies, metaphors and so forth would be an overwhelming task. A task that would be unmanageable regarding our mental capacity of remembering data and information from days or months ago.  To create continuity in the delivery of the interviews, where each interview of a particular series was left off for example, would require extensive support, involving people and tools.

Here, with Sunette, there is none of such extensive support, as I said there is a very basic recording device and a woman sitting cross-legged on a couch-bed, speaking. Surrounding Sunette and sitting close by are other visitors who are staying on the farm and who are listening to what the dimensions have to say. Some fall asleep during the interviews, others are completely absorbed. I can’t say what it depends upon, I suppose on the various stages of one’s process or on the topic.

During the interviews Sunette’s body moves in fluent ways complimenting the words with large gestures. It is as if the body is speaking as whole ‘platform’ rather than a mind with a head and a body. I noticed that difference because whenever we see someone gesturing in a pronounced manner, the gesture is still only a secondary aspect to the face and the head, because we predominantly perceive a person talking. With Sunette as the portal, the body is perceived as the primary entity and that which is personal to her, simply fades away. In other words, I only perceive the impersonal and not the character or personality that is Sunette.

During my stay at the farm, there was a change made to the way the portal interacts with the visitors. Prior to the change of how Sunette is portalling, her gaze did not address anyone in specific. This, then, was changed and she looked at us visitors during the interviews. In my experience that only enhanced the perception of the body as body and less as the person that is called Sunette.

To give you an analogy, it’s similar to when you go to the zoo and you see for example a lowland Bongo, or some other animal to which you don’t react because you have absolutely no reference, because you have never seen the animal in reality, your reference points are vague and distant images from books and other media. By not reacting I mean that the animal has not been associated with either collective or personal emotions.  Hence, the experience we have is that the animal is mostly ‘another body’ in space. This ‘otherness’ we perceive is the absence of an emotional relationship but we still identify with the animal as a living being.

Every interview I listened to was a combination of subtle shifts in tonality and pitch depending on the beings that came through yet consistent to the previous interviews in meter and rhythm. And it was this consistency that also made my focus on the words very solid. It’s similar to how we design technological interfaces for human-computer interaction. When an interface is consistent in layout and in structural access points, the learning curve is not only low but the interface becomes transparent in the process of interacting with the information. We call the interface user-friendly.

Therefore, if Sunette, as the portal, would have displayed emotional shifts, it would have been just like listening to any other human. But she does not and this is why I had a clear connection to the words as they were spoken by the portal, and when I did pick up emotions, I realised they were my own.

The portal’s consistency goes beyond what I just described, it also pertains to the content of the interview itself. Whether it is a life review or a reference interview, like one of the quantum systemization interviews, the points that are being drawn out are focussed like a laser beam. It is through the beings’ direct way of seeing the reality that we live in without interpretation and emotional obstructions that we can have unencumbered access to what is shared, the relationships that are conveyed between ourselves and life we create in the world. This is what lead me to insights and realisations, time and again.

I recall that I sat in when the Altanteans came through the portal to talk about the emotion of worry. The Atlantean moved like a drill deeper and deeper into the various dimensions of the relationship we have created with ‘worry’. Let me describe it like this: All humans share the same emotions and our emotions move very fast. All we ever ‘get’ is the experience of the emotion, the intensity and the physical reactions. At this stage we have no access to all the different connecting points of emotions between ourselves and our reality. Psychology cannot say much about emotion beyond a description for the sole reason that psychologists are also walking around with their emotions and they cannot step out of that which has made them.

What the Atlantean did was slow down and stretch out the emotion of worry and then look at the individual relationship parts, in how they ‘fit’ together with our individual realities. Let’s take a visual metaphor. In popular Hollywood movies, you often see – well, as of late –  a fast movement of someone jumping or fighting in action slowed down, almost to the point of still stand. Perhaps, I saw this for the first time in the Matrix movie, was it Agent Smith? Normally we cannot see what an actor’s body actually looks like in these movements because they are too fast for our perception. However, when the movement is slowed down through technology we can see how the legs relate to the arms and the head to the feet, and we see the sequence of arms, head and feet as they twirl through the air.

Similarly, when the Atlantean talked about the emotion of worry, the being was able to communicate a 360 view of the relationships we create in real life when we worry. The moment the words are being said by the being, it is crystal-clear that this is how we experience it without being aware of it. There is a tangibility to what is being said that just stuck to me, and I could apply it to my own life, and see exactly how I create these ‘worry’ relationships.

Because the Atlantean can see directly what “worry” does in the relationship we form with it, the being can then point out solutions that we are able to apply ourselves, to change by disconnecting ourselves from the toxic relationships we create with worry. The week after I listened to that particular (2-part) interview, I have been in a situation where I have already utilised the insights gained from the realisation. I can see more about myself and how I can stop being completely addicted to emotions. It’s the kind of support that supports me to become autonomous in deconstructing myself because the work of walking my process is to be done by me – that is my responsibility.

In an nutshell, I consider these interviews my real education because what I learn here is real and directly linked  to how I can make a difference in my own life.  The learning has transformed me in a way that no conventional education, including my PhD, has ever done for me.

It is clear to me that the essence of our existence is relationships that we all share and that these relationships are the basis for how we have created the system, the culture and our individual lives. We are differently configured with various emphasises in our energy production that determines our emotions: the biochemical production with physical and behavioural reactions as output to the world  – that which we produce as end product in our relationships. At the same time, it is also clear to me that we are able to change the program (such as the ‘worry’ program) when we see what we have done. Currently we don’t see and this is why these interviews are an incredible resource. They are the library of the future through which we learn to see ourselves for real – for the first time. The future part is this: once you have seen what you have become, you can’t go back not having seen it. At that stage, it then becomes a matter of moving forward by learning the tools to change your relationships with the world. As we do so, we change the world to one that is best for all because it’s the obvious thing to do.  So, this is why I wrote this post, go on take chance with Eqafe and have a listen to the portal.

5 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

No more pilgrims to India seeking spirituality

Pilgrims to India are god’s business. Every year thousands of people flock to India to seek something that they cannot find within themselves. Spiritual pilgrims have become a money making machine in the Western world. Countless organisations cater to those who have the time and money for a ‘well-deserved’ break from their stressful lives. These pilgrims promise to put people in touch with the ‘rawness’ of life, to bring relief and to support the search of a ‘spiritual’ self which can only be found at some far off location in rural India.

For the longest time the concept of spirit has been the excuse par excellence to avoid dealing with reality as it is – as we have all participated in its creation. The concept of spirit has given us a card blanche, Westerns and Easterns alike, in turning a blind eye to the atrocities and sufferings that are occurring in every moment. The result shows that the more we have denied it the more the suffering has increased. It is through this idea of spirit that we excuse ourselves from taking responsibility, from letting the world go to pieces as long as we are alright. It is this idea of spirit that forms the blindfold towards any type of questioning whether it is truly acceptable to let members of one’s own species suffer without lifting a finger.

Along as we can have the luxury of travelling to the outskirts of our civilisations, of sitting somewhere cross-legged in hopes of enlightenment – then even those who starve should be happy because aren’t we working on their behalf as well…? The answer is clearly NO. Those who are deluded in thinking that they are working on behalf of all, to achieve world peace through spiritual pursuits seem to forget that to do so they utilise their bodies. Bodies that move in a physical reality, bodies to which they have to attend in order to ‘spirtitualise’ themselves anywhere in the world. This truth is far from evident to those who have wrapped themselves in the blanket of love and light while ascertaining that suffering can be ended through denial of what is here the world.

I speak from experience. For the year 2000 I travelled to India to sit cross-legged in an Ashram and chant for world peace. I was convinced that this was the path to changing the world because it required me to obtain a higher vibration, the discipline to meditate, to give up certain foods, and so forth. All of those things that I entertained as part of my spiritual path were an act of achievement, and I liked that. Achievement is something that we are taught to take seriously at an early age, every child, in every society on the planet. Achievement comes through performance and if we perform correctly we are rewarded in the end. This is what we call education. From a common sense perspective this is brainwashing. There is nowhere to go in this world except to be here. From a common sense perspective we can look back onto our personal history, or the world history, and we can learn that all we have ever achieved is the intensification of the same human traits which we use to excuse ourselves.

Expanding this truth in the context of love, light and spirit, we see the parallel unfoldment. Likewise, the mental state of achievement is just another brainwash. We discipline ourselves through the performance of spiritual practices in hopes of a reward – a blissful existence, world peace, or whatever else we can imagine as reward. Whatever else it is we get emotional about that we would like to wish away because it hurts to think about suffering – a convenient shutter to any kind of questioning of who we are in this world. This convenience only has one outcome: absolute denial and the inability to see things for what they are. To see the world for what it is, seriously. I mean how could we otherwise justify our inertia in a world where we as a species watch the murder of our own kind as a form of entertainment?  – and this is just to name one aspect.

The denial however has over time become so thick, like the gold-plating on a Buddha statue, that we are willing to continually draw on our own blindness from the past, our spiritual traditions – with awe and inspiration so that we can pursue following an ever so ephemeral non-existent, non-physical god. We are more willing to believe in something we cannot grasp with our senses than suspend the thought: “we do not know where we come from”, and accept that living without an answer cannot deter us from making the necessary changes for a better world for all.

Needless to say in an Equal Money System spirituality has come to an end in all its facets. There will be no spiritual holidays for Westerns, no spiritual merchandise – none of the spiritual material culture we have come to cherish over life itself. It will be the end of bringing food as offering to the gods, instead we will bring food to each other. It will be the end for Buddhas and other statues to have better shelter than most humans. It will be a total reversal of the spiritual damage we have inculcated in the exchange of denial that we are physical, in the world here, as life and that that must be the only thing on our agenda – to care for life – equal and one.

Wake up to the fact that you have been blinded – become seeing and join us for a better world for all!

http://www.equalmoney.org
http://www.desteni.co.za
http://wiki.destonians.com/Equal_Money_System

1 Comment

Filed under Equal Money