Tag Archives: Stability

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

Advertisements

4 Comments

Filed under self-forgiveness

Critical positioning just isn’t enough – comments on Patrick Henningsen’s post on the Occupy Movement

During my research on the internet I often read up on the latest political developments posted by the “Centre for Research on Globalization”. I generally see value in the posted insights, though as I found out today, this depends largely on the author who has contributed to the current edition.

When I read the recent post I realised that critical positioning towards world affairs just is not enough to make valid statements that will help us create a better future for all. The article I am talking about, titled “Here’s the Risk: “Occupy” ends up doing the bidding of the global elite” by Patrick Henningsen, makes this point.

The article starts out with a first promising sentence:  “History shows us it is easy for ‘grassroots’ campaigns to become co-opted by the very interests they are fighting against”. When I started reading here I was quite intrigued in finding out where the author would take this provocative phrase, and saw it as a great opportunity to expose a much overlooked point by those who are fighting on behalf of the Occupy Movement.  However when I read on, I saw that Mr. Henningsen simply gave us an overview of similar occurrences in our political history with a concluding paragraph that reads like this:

“When the dust settles and it’s all said and done, millions of Occupy participants may very well be given a sober lesson under the heading of “controlled opposition”. In the end, the Occupy movement could easily end up doing the bidding of the very elite globalist powers that they were demonstrating against to begin with. To avoid such an outcome, it’s important for a movement to have a good knowledge of history and the levers of power in the 21st century.”

From the first line of this article to this concluding paragraph, the relevance of the issues that are being raised initially is entirely missed from the perspective that I am coming from –  namely, to create a viable future for all humans.  Moreover, the content and choice of words for this opening sentence already implies the issue that would need to be addressed if the author was going to write a bit more than a historical review. Mr. Henningsen’s choice of words then does not justify the concluding paragraph.

The dead give away of where this article should be taken is in the use of the word ‘co-opted’. To co-opt something means that that which is being co-opted is disconnected, in some shape or form, from the lived and shared reality. It means that not all aspects of the idea have been understood, or have been properly evaluated. To ‘co-opt’, in the case of the Occupy Movement, means that those who are part of the movement come to this movement to fulfill a reactionary role, which meets, in logical manner, with more reactionary control by those who are in charge of the money.

It means that Occupy movers have not understood that their reaction towards the global financial and political situation entails a form of aggression similar to the aggression that is being launched in the name of the global money markets. A co-opted act or idea states clearly that somewhere is a flaw where the idea or the act has not been pinned down, where it has been left ‘open’ so that it can be used against those who are acting on the idea. Thus, the outcome is all the same, it has no effect in containing the real issues, or bringing about changes that can be practical and useful for the population.

In the last paragraph, the author sums up the dilemma of the Occupy Movement of being one of lack of knowledge about similar historical situations as well as knowing the “levers of power in the 21st century”. Again, this is a missed opportunity to point out that just ‘knowing’ is not enough as the author himself demonstrates by having written the historical review. What is missing is common sense, or a practical solution that addresses the real underpinned issues of the bigger picture. This bigger picture tells us, first of all, that we are all in the same boat i.e. one planet. This common sense ‘knowledge’ would already take us back down to earth in grasping that any form of aggression will not resolve the situation. It would tell us that the Occupy Movement does nothing more but Occupy our time and common sense and in the end stifle the process of implementing a solution.

A solution that will help us all is based on the recognition, as I said above, that we are all in the same boat, hence all have to take part in this solution to be brought about equally. To scratch the word ‘co-opted’ and maintain an inclusive approach,  without anyone having to subscribe to emotional involvement such as aggression or anger –  it simply means each person has a voice to contribute… and that translates to democratic means: “one man, one vote”.

I am one vote for an Equal Money System!

Get your facts straight and be part of the solution – stop wasting precious time and bring about a peaceful change –

Joins us!

2 Comments

Filed under Equal Money

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

How those who hate what I do are helping me close doors

It’s an interesting experience when one can look back on oneself and see how the practice of Self-Forgiveness has taken effect and as a result definite changes in one’s behaviour are apparent.  When such change occurs in my life, most likely I don’t perceive it in detail, I may notice an aspect suddenly, out of the blue, that strikes me because I no longer RE-act in a familiar way to a familiar situation. Those are the moments I realise that I am here, and that this change is a manifestation of me in ‘hereness’. Moreover, it is clearly showing me that change is possible through forgiving oneself in what I have accepted and allowed to be in this world, who I have become through accepting and allowing myself to function from a place of ego.

Like I said, this is a momentarily occurrence, when I make myself “aware” that I am not reacting from emotion, I am not experiencing anger or guilt, and similarly I am not experiencing the ‘high’ of something beneficial that happened to me. I am just stable, here. Recently though, I saw a concrete development of a self-change. A situation where I was previously experiencing strong emotions, which changed over time and I began to see how the emotional charge was waning away enabling me to settle into stability.

In particular, this change was prompted by responding to those who hate what I do. I am talking about those, who go out of their way to attack Destonians by posting belligerent YouTube videos with fictitious content that in no way reflects what Desteni is about, or by leaving defaming and offensive comments on videos made by Destonians, which are videos where we document our process for the world to see.

In an attempt to clarify our position, Destonians have started to respond to these ‘hater’ videos by addressing the content directly. We do that by explaining and straightening out the misrepresentation of what we do, and who we are. When I first started to make these ‘response’ videos, I felt much resistance because I had previously conditioned myself to avoid conflict or disagreement with others. I considered it bad and exhausting, and when I was faced with a situation where conflict was brewing, I would simply walk away or pay no attention. Only if I had no other choice I would stand up to someone but under duress and much emotional charge inside of me. This charge I would try to contain with all my might. Well, who would want ‘to lose it’, if one could help it! With these ‘hater’ videos, I had to respond to statements that were made about my activities with Desteni, which were not only untrue but often quite difficult to decipher, because the ‘hater’ had little clarity why he or she was engaging in the act of making these types of videos in the first place. In some ways it was as if the person was dumping their emotional debris on us through the making of these videos.

Not only was I experiencing resistance to the task of making a video, but I was also experiencing anger, rage and backchat. This was in the beginning of this video-making journey. As I got into the making of these videos and used Self-forgiveness in the process, my emotional states ebbed away, and with each new ‘response’ video I made, I saw less resistance within myself and a calmer demeanor. I could suddenly hear the ‘hater’s’ fears, or their anger, their insecurity and confusion. Increasingly I saw them as who they were, the self-programmed being that was so layered by their accepted and allowed beliefs that they had no access to their ‘real’ self. It gave me the ability to see more clearly that I am one of the self-programmed beings because the statements that were being made were in essence all similar, maybe with varying emphases but made from the same belief components. I realised that it is through my interaction with the world around me I could understand my opportunities for self-change as all is one.

Over the course of several weeks, I came to enjoy producing these ‘response’ videos because now I was making them from a point of stability and support. When I had no emotional charge and reaction towards the process of video-making, the ‘hater’s’ words where simply outlining to me the world I exist in, and the world I have accepted and allowed to exist within me. Through my gained clarity I could see beyond the veil of emotions, I could see how I was blinded by them, and how emotions and feelings paralised me. I could see what had obviously been right in front of me all along – but I was unable to see because of memories, emotions and feelings. I could see because I had changed a world within me.

The other day I met a colleague, who I perceived as quite argumentative and competitive. He often invites me to come along but I mostly decline because I have labelled my interactions with him as ‘hard work’. I only realised this recently because I am now looking to understand my protective stance of my ‘alone’ space. Though this is another issue beyond the point that I am making here. What is relevant to the point I am making here is that when I met this colleague recently for a little walk he had invited me to, I accepted without a second thought. During this walk we came to a moment where I stated that he was limiting himself on a particular issue, which, as expected, set him off to a heated and accelerated manner of speaking. He did not only cut me off in mid-sentence but also was visibly angry. As I see it, there are two perspectives here that have been the result of the support I gave myself through the making of the ‘response’ videos I described above.

The first one is that I spoke about what I saw in his statements, meaning his self-imposed limitations. I do recall a time when these types of observations would have had to stay in my mind, because I was too afraid of making the person angry and being rejected. In those days, I would gently knot my head, and let the person continue talking, merely listening without honest participation. What I was really observing would be kept locked away in my secret mind. Now this was different, I gave him my perspective of what I perceived as fearful and self-limiting behaviour. Furthermore, while he was shouting and cutting me off, I remained relatively calm. There were some moments where I was making my point stronger than in other moments, but it was not from a place of angry or fearful behaviour. I could also see that I could actually listen to his words and respond, where I would previously just turn off. I mean ‘shut down’, wrapped up in my emotions with an unresponsive, blank mind. That was the past now. I was able to continuously point out to him the dimensions of the point I was making, illustrating it clearly and directly to him.

When I went home that day, I realised that I had created a sliver of heaven on earth for myself, because I always wanted to be able to be fearless in the face of conflict, and concentrate on the issue at hand. In the situation I had experienced I spoke and conducted myself from a place of certainty, a place of shared existence because all the way through the conversation, I did not see him as an antagonist in separation of me. No, I merely saw his ego, as I can sometimes see my own ego, and that was all. Beyond that, I knew and experienced us as one. I could walk through the points he was making, stating what I saw, the fears and conditionings, yet I was stable inside. Eventually our conversation calmed down because we changed subjects, and I had truly changed something within myself. Thank you, to all those who hate what I do because it allowed me to close this door and keep it shut.

1 Comment

Filed under self-forgiveness