Tag Archives: science

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

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under All

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

Realisations on ‘Trust’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 Comments

Filed under self-forgiveness

How Destonian actions are no longer limited by human nature – a call on the scientific community to investigate the effects of self-honesty

From the perspective of a self-willed, responsibility-taking individual in process, all actions are performed in equality regardless of the nature of these actions. In other words, Destonians do not simply execute an action but are standing as equal to the action itself. Inevitably, this entails all dimensions of an action including the actual content that is being dealt with in physical space. An example to make this clear would be someone serving food and drinks to someone else. In our current system this is often done for money, as it is the case in restaurants, on airplanes and trains, or other public venues that sell food and drink. Under these circumstances, the server is more or less a machine, who has no say in the food and drink that he or she passes on to the next individual.

By contrast, in an equal money system such scenario would not take place because people will not earn money through the actions they perform. In an EMS, money will merely be an organisational tool and earning one’s living will be a thing of the past because we will have shifted from “performing for living” to “life as living”. Hence the person serving the food takes responsibility for whatever she is ‘dishing’ out. Responsibility alone is a key factor in an Equal Money System, because when we are no longer paid to perform actions, we can no longer point fingers to someone else, and relinquish our participation in the consequences of the actions we have performed.

In the current money system this is a mute point. Most actions we perform we execute because we function, and are trained to be, cogs in the turning wheel of hierarchical structures that run throughout the various areas of our society.  Therefore we have laws and rules that outline behaviour and keep us in check. These structures, together with their rules, replace our autonomy as acting bodies in space, and are the breeding ground for abuse. On a basic level the abuse begins with the exploitation of having to perform actions for money where the individual has no say whether the action to be taken is in its consequence best for all.

This orientation towards collective human-to-human interactions meanders and penetrates all spheres of our lives. It already starts in childhood, when children observe how their parents ‘take responsibility’ for them because as a society we have the accepted belief that a young human cannot be responsible for his or her own behaviour because of the developing intellectual and cognitive capacities. Anyone can readily observe these types of behaviour in daily street life when, for example, a child moves into the close proximity of another human, one of the parents will happily apologise for the child as he or she feels responsible for the child’s behaviour.

Of course this aspect of human existence has never been challenged, or is never considered otherwise – it is just a fact of life, or else it’s human nature.

At Desteni, we do not accept the limitation of human behaviour because we understand that limitations are created by belief. Learning to distinguish between belief and what is here, what is available to us as physical beings, is achieved through applied common sense. Thus, in common sense we know that we cannot fly in the air but we also know that all interactions with other humans are open to change depending on the starting point that guides these interactions. In other words, we do not just accept this undefined notion of “human nature”, because most humans have bought into a certain manner of speaking or acting. We understand that what this says about us is that humans are intrinsically interconnected and that we function as a collective.

The myth of human nature is predominately perpetuated through scientific inquiry where studies reiterate that we are limited to the common denominator, in terms of how the majority of humans act and interact when investigated scientifically, rather than making the common denominator a starting point for change.

However, even in science there are plenty of examples that human nature is changeable but this is not taken into consideration by the scientific community because if it were we would need to investigate further who we truly are, and we may, just may end up in the place where Desteni is going – a place where the human can become self-honest through self-forgiveness and no longer exist in separation from others.

If the scientific community was thoroughly scientific and not biased to maintain the status quo, they would be willing to investigate what happens when self-forgiveness is applied to human behaviour. The community could even look at Destonians as a group to conduct study, together with those who have not yet applied self-forgiveness as a control group.

One such perspective could be given through “information transfer”. We are all aware of distortions that occur when passing bits of information onto other people. I even recall a way of playing as a child. As a group of children we would form a long line in space and the child on one end would whisper a sentence or two into the ear of the child that stood next to her. That child would then turn around and continue whispering what she understood to the next child, and so forth. The child at the other end would eventually get the information and state it out loud, together with the child who had originally stated the sentences in the beginning. The result of this was always big time laughter because the distortion that occurred when transferring the information made the outcome funny.

It’s a simple example to show how we are not trustworthy, not even with a few sentences. Once we apply self-forgiveness this changes in the process of becoming a self-willed individual. So if science was truly working for the good of all, then why would the scientific community not tackle these limitations and come to see with Destonians that a new world can be created by changing ourselves to act and interact from a starting point that is best for all on every level of existence. The only answer that science can give us here is that in truth science is not interested in creating a better world for all but that scientific inquiry is just another paradigm of the system, working in deception and abuse.

For details on the DesteniIprocess, click here: http://desteni.org/dip/

For more information, click here: http://equalmoney.org/

We are in the process of creating a comprehensive publication on Equal Money where many of your burning questions are answered- we will notify those interested when our book is completed – if you wish to sign up you can do so by clicking on the link below:

http://equalmoney.org/the-book/

2 Comments

Filed under self-forgiveness