Aristomenes X

Seize the initiative and claim yourself. Be determined to grow and thrive. Choose to choose no matter what, and embrace all meaning vibrantly alive. To create, to redeem, to be free as was meant.

Musings over Online Encounters: Part I

This diatribe is an attempt to organize thought in the aftermath of experience dissonance in online encounters. This dissonance involves witnessing conflict even more than participating in it. The dissonance is steeped in the sense that online manipulation abounds more than any individual who takes their reasoning for granted would like to think. It is more than just a conspiracy effect.

It is that people have been conditioned to deny in certain instances- and idolize in other ones- qualities that spread suffering. In this way, without directly intending the aforementioned pseudo-discernment can sabotage inspired motivation that might lead to a better tomorrow. As such the rant is my desire to depressurize the force of dissonance without pushing it further under the rug.

To begin, I realize online interactions can sap our energies, especially when dealing with people who may not even realize they are projecting what they don’t want to face in themselves. I am not referring to the proverbial “troll”. The very extremity of that scenario is usually so blatant that guiltless and effective action, as simple as blocking them, is a mouse-click away. There are, however, fine lines and gray areas in the multifaceted topography of online human interaction. This is the arena of subtle manipulation, be it conscious or not, where the receiver is not even sure they are being psychologically played.

It isn’t as rare as one might think, or hope to experience discomfort, stress or even trauma when confronted with projected emotional states. The more repressed the hurtful issue underlying the state of projection the more extreme the discomfort can get. Even so, unless the receiver is also already traumatized and holding it in, it is most likely that their suffering is far less than that of the one doing the repressing.

To clarify a bit; my understanding of “projected states” involves not just how people feel, but also what they are denying in themselves in favor of a more sustainable to them self-image. That denial tends to spawn dramatic pressure, a subconscious desire to act out the issue in some way without being hurt by it. The internal pressure is itself a form of suffering and it does not go away with time, although it may appear to go dormant.

I would not call this a guilty conscience. It happens to be more prevalent in a victim than someone who has victimized after all. In extreme cases, victimizing itself is a form of projecting one’s repressed victim state. Hence the more members of a group or society are made to suffer the more suffering prevails overall.

Some appear more sensitive to emotional energy than others, their own as well as what permeates their environment. That does not guarantee that reason can make sense of an encounter with projection. Being sensitive, in other words, doesn’t mean we can easily understand what is going on. Are we somehow forced into being recipients of projection, just minding our own business when the bird poop spatters, or are we participants and perhaps even main protagonists in a drama with many screen-writers? Should we even consider that we are the prime creator of this drama?

In my experience when engaged in online discourse where fingers are being pointed, all participants fall into a state beyond default reasoning. The reasoning from the side-lines and that of hind sight is what I would call closer to our default or normal reasoning state. When engaged in finger pointing we at the very least fall into crisis reasoning mode. This is more like warfare than discourse. When sustaining the upper hand especially psychopaths love this frame of engagement.

Therein, anything said can be turned back to the one saying it as their issue or fault. At a deeper level of perception, the issue isn’t one of me vs. another, but of individuals finding themselves in a ‘vibration’ or felt sense that triggers trauma echoes in both of them. This is true even when one group or person engages in gas-lighting or demonizing another as a means of defeating them. In less consciously deliberate scenarios, however, battlefront polarization occurs because the discomfort demands reparation, and that leads to projecting blame and/or guilt on top of the most convenient scape-goat.

Usually options of avoiding blame and guilt are offered that involve some form of manipulation, by one or both parties. Because the field of experience is temporarily mutual, any guilt or blame can be turned back on the other party with tension and denial escalating as a result. In merely complaining about being a victim of projection one can have all one’s arguments flipped on their ears and end up looking or even being convinced it is all one’s own fault.

I have seen ‘self-help’ presentations that trigger rage in me. The speaker (or writer) will turn it all back on their audience. They will even speak of themselves claiming they “used to be in that position”. It’s only right to state that the aforementioned speaker often could have- and more times than I would want to admit- has been me. Notice how I too am turning it back on myself, but past tense so I don’t piss myself off as I’m writing these words. Being tripped with guilt hurts. When tribulation you want to share or communicate is rejected, the result is also hurt.

On the flipside being tripped with guilt does not imply we have done wrong and must atone, at least not in the immediate or moral sense. We have, on the other hand, experienced the wrong of being unable to prevent our own verbal abuse, and demonization, which in any online community often results in being ostracized. There are often frighteningly primitive elements at work in online communities. Judging from the twists and turns of global events and the trends of western civilization, it is not farfetched to say that innocents may suffer from demonization in more ways than just having a tarnished reputation.

To avoid the end of addictive drama we can vacillate back and forth between extreme views, being doormats of tolerance in one instance and shifting to howling mobs of righteous indignation the next. All to avoid that disturbing zone in the middle where all bets are off and we are left with the tribulation of facing our existential desperation.

It helps in my opinion to admit our own perspective as a starting point and consciously stand as a self-centered being. This cuts the moral confusion down, something that guilt trippers may find discomforting. The fact remains, however, that when you are on a plane and the cabin depressurizes, you would be prudent to pick up your oxygen mask first and put it on.

By the same logic, when confronting a field of trauma, or post-traumatic reverb (acute or chronic), you would be wise to direct compassion to yourself first. It is only selfish when you shut the other out after you are cleansed of guilt and/or blame imprinting and other judgments. Yet that is a contradiction because selfishness in the derogatory sense does not occur when imprinting is not operant. Therefore, allow me to rephrase what I consider to be a cliché type phrase that is easily open to misunderstanding: It is only selfish when you neglect your deeper needs in the process and focus on the surface state of self.



Balance and the Utility of Absolutes: Part III

This post continues the examination of the issue of maintaining balance in the context of absolute notions. Is that really what we want? Be that as it may, we are engaging in grounded and pragmatic exploration and not pie in the sky speculation. That is because the cultivation of understanding where the aforementioned issues are concerned is a valuable resource in an information age where deception, conditioning and deliberate stress induction appear more and more to be definitive factors in our world.

In this final installment, we extend the exploration of the relationship between balance and concepts that appear- and may well be- universal and absolute. The previous installment referred to concepts occupying the poles of a spectrum, and offered that they do not necessarily guarantee a pivot-point or fulcrum between them where one might sustain functional balance.

If the balance, or any other state we seek, enhances the experience of existential value fulfillment, if it is sustainable and if it reinforces the power to live according to one’s truth, for me it is functional. If one’s idea of balance is remaining safe and secure in one place, set of circumstances or ideological stance, I would strongly hesitate to call it functional. That kind of state would be a candidate for stagnation, if not corruption.

It is not difficult to come up with an example of absolute poles tempting us with a dysfunctional or nonfunctioning midpoint passing off as an idealized state of balance. The most prominent one involves the duality of life and death. Imagine life as the extreme end of a continuum and death at the other extreme. Ponder what the midpoint of that continuum would be. We can see therein a state between life and death, not quite one, yet not quite the other either. Can this be anything other than a state of disease or something out of a horror movie?

The conceptual pairing of compassion and cruelty as extreme ends of a continuum offers a more convincing promise of balance at the midpoint. Ironically, the somewhat relative nature of the terms increases the likelihood of a misconception that compassion is at the midpoint of its extreme expression (martyrdom for example), and its extreme lack, which would appear to be cruelty. The continuum might otherwise have sadism on one end and masochism on the other, with the middle being love.

This is where I disagree with a prevalent idea that admittedly appears to make sense at first: that our ideals are points of presence on a continuum of unacceptable or compromising options, the worst or most unhealthy of which lie at the extremes of the continuum. According to this view, if we somehow tune our awareness like a radio dial along a band of stations that are not in our best interests, we can find “the one” that is. This state is different than the others of the continuum because it lies at the sweet spot where opposing extremes are in balance.

There is a similar view, identical in fact, but with a twist. Here the continuum holds the desirable trait at one end and the most undesirable one at the other. The idea of balance is idealized throughout, and we are led- by the nose as far as I’m concerned- to the logical conclusion that we need to compromise our idea to maintain balance. This is where the example of Life vs. Death comes in. Nobody sane, at least as far as I understand sanity, would choose to be a zombie. If told, however, that this is what it means to be in balance- and our logic convinces us that balance is always the best of all options- then zombie or not, that is where we must go.

The view expressed prior to the one immediately above, which I believe is known as the Virtue Continuum, would express things a bit differently. There Life would be at the mid-point of a continuum whose extremes are Death and Overpopulation- from that of multi-celled organisms like rabbits and people down to cells where the issue of cancer arises. My contention with the continuum view is that it promotes idolization of static or compromised balance, where we end up locked and bound in and by the linear frame the continuum represents. We become effectively imprisoned by a metaphor.

The way I see the example of the previous paragraph, the issue is one of reproduction, which is one of quantized life, not its qualitative sense. Then the balance is a reduced population, but not because we kill half of all who are born, or insure a limited life span. So long as we ensure a proportioned- need I say balanced–  relationship between bodies and their resources, there is leeway for life extension and the perpetual maintenance of youthful vitality. Reproduction can diminish or even cease so that the choice is between the immortality of one’s gene pool or one’s own embodiment of it. In any case, it is the qualitative dynamic that is in our best interest to maximize.

The so-called Virtue Continuum is nothing new. The idea is even found in Cabala Philosophy, expressed through the notion of the three pillars of the Tree of Life. The middle pillar represents balance and the pillars on either end, the divine absolutes of judgment and mercy. Too much judgment (or blind justice) and suffering increases because we are all flawed and judgment of this sort tolerates no leeway. Too much mercy and everyone gets away with murder so to speak. In both cases order breaks down. This order is maintained by the balance of the middle pillar.

The continuum in this case is that of divine justice. Divine judgement lies on one end and divine mercy on the other. The same continuum can be seen as one of divine love, where we are judged for our own good (though love) and forgiven (nurturing love) in good measure as well. Ideally we tune our radio dial so that we are treated justly, with enough toughness to be tempered properly and enough soft love to avoid becoming brittle and bitter.

I don’t know about you, but to me this continuum notion smacks of behavioral conditioning. The implication of abiding by such a continuum is accepting the necessity of the extremes because without them the center we are prompted to honor is meaningless. Just as in the other example, cruelty is touted as necessary because it lies at the other end of the love continuum. If the watered down balance isn’t touted then a fulcrum at the center tells us that compassion must be up some times, and cruelty gain the upper hand at others. That’s the way the seesaw wobbles.

I imagine to dare not only moving outside the box, but throwing out the whole box concept. It’s the damn box, after all, that convinces us there is a pie and there is the eating of the pie and that we can only have one or the other if anything at all.

The virtue continuum simplifies things, but that is the allure of boxed-in awareness. There will always be example that make life outside the box appear risky if not outright deadly. If we let everyone have the pie and eat it too, then all hell is going to break loose. I agree! But only when we are still under the spell of the matrix or engineered and trauma directed thinking.

No matter how this may occur collectively, one can envision a horse that needs to go before the cart if one is to get anywhere. In other words, there are priorities. Before we go around trying to change the world and everyone in it, let us reach the point where we have become free of the box. That freedom is the balance we rightly covet, independent of continua, unshackled from extremes and their mid-point pivots.

One of its most promising attributes, furthermore, is that it is unbound from concepts of absolute vs relative- so much for that utility. We don’t need to argue when we are free. In freedom our minds seek creative solutions, and our hearts are nourished in wellbeing. The body is respected and loved, and even if we must engage in challenging activity, our options increase exponentially.

Logic may not see this clearly, but perhaps we can consider it. Better yet, if anything is taken from this long diatribe then I pray it is the sincere willingness to imagine a state where the box or the line or the rule of law and dictate does not enslave us into the compromises we are prone- more than we may think- to obey. That state is the balance I cherish to experience; a dance of life, harmony and meaning. In a paradoxical way, the only “absolute” I’ll ever need.

Part I

Part II

Balance and the Utility of Absolutes: Part II

It’s a bit more than obvious that that the examples of Part I do not resolve the issue of balance amidst polar conceptions. This is the part where the answer precipitates closer to pragmatic sense. Fortunately, the question itself- as I understand it- considers two things a given, or close enough: a) that balance is a desired and beneficial state and b) that relativism and the wishy-washy, arbitrary interpretation of basic memes is not where we want to go.

The aim of this essay is to affirm and show that we can cultivate natural states of balance. These are beneficial in the midst of solid conceptions that form two ends of a spectrum of options. In balance we are in an embodied psycho-spiritual state free of denial or repression. Balance allows an efficient distribution of forces so that we are free to be who we are, and unstrained in all our relations.

We are, therefore, most ourselves when balance is the status quo between body and mind (and/or any other quality and attribute of healthy human nature one wishes to pose in the works). To understand balance, however, it behooves us to note that polarization can be either creative or destructive, and that balance is meaningless when we are dealing with the latter.

We see proof of creative polarization in the form of a battery whose poles generate a current of electricity that is a valuable resource, and hence benefits lives as we see fit. Destructive polarization, on the other hand, is conflict: a clash of rivals and competing foes. This is not to be confused with themes such as sportsmanship. That involves ritualized competition meant to diffuse otherwise destructive social energy and channel it into constructive resolution. Therein we have the positive attributes of athletic competition or any situation involving pitting one’s self against an obstacle to be transcended or overcome.

If our poles are creative, therefore, it is in our best interest that they are absolute. In the case of electrical poles, science proves that they are a universally natural phenomenon we can technologically reproduce under specific conditions. You cannot really fake electricity in a convincing manner, unless you use electricity to do it.

This is not the case for the more abstract conceptions of understanding. Therein there is danger of deception. Destructive polarization sold as creative, and creative polarization used as a scapegoat for what is destructive. Both are common today, so that up is promoted as down, good as bad and the innocent are victimized for the acts of the guilty.

Given that the above is often due to deliberately conspired, criminal manipulation, navigating the sea of lies and misconception in our complicated information age is more than challenging. It is designed to wear us down unless we can engage in a state of balance.

Part I offered examples of natural body/mind balance, where body and mind were in complementary states. When mind was sharp, body was relaxed. When body was strained, mind was relaxed. In this form of balance one side charges with energy to feed the other side. Body and mind are not the polarizing concepts. Together they actually represent the wholeness of body/mind (keeping it simple and free of complicating concepts such as soul and spirit etc.). Body and mind in opposing states encouraged creative balance between them and that enhanced the wholeness of body/mind in its chosen pursuit, be it philosophical revelation or climbing a mountain.

Even though relaxation and strain are not objectively absolute, they are still very human states. I have no doubts when I am relaxed and no doubts when I am stressed. There is no arguing this because my subjective sense is definite. If someone were able to cast doubt in my sense of stress vs. relaxation and convince me I was relaxed when I was not, my psychological integrity could be in jeopardy. It is significant, therefore, that strain and relaxation represent a prominent dynamic continuum of our being whenever we deal with psychological and ideological polarization.

Instead of looking at the correctness or lack thereof of ideas and concepts, it is probably more constructive to focus on being sensitive to our stress/relaxation response when thrust in an arena of destructive polarization. It is irrelevant if the concepts are posed in absolute or relative terms (as my/your/their truth or as the truth).

If we consider mind and body as two expressions of a single entity, the key to getting the most out of polarized absolutes and sustaining creative balance is to practice maintaining said state when free of conflict. So many today we are stressed, scheduled, threatened, moralized, demoralized, terrorized and enraged in a manner two systematic for it to simply be happenstance. Instead of diving headstrong into the issues themselves like philosophers, mountain climbers, warriors or negotiators, we can consider that we are being set up for being victimized by chronic stress.

When mind and body via creative and complementary polarization support each other, balance is natural, and we build immunity to the engineered effects of chronic destructive polarization. When extremes co-exist in a single medium the result is either conflict or mutual dilution and co-operant weakening. In other words, if the mind cannot balance with body, and both are strained, then both can break. If both are relaxed perpetually, both can get dull and weak.

The idea is to indeed engage in the stream of polarized concepts, even if they appear destructive. How else will peace come if there is nothing to stand between conflicting factions, or destructive extremes? But if such a thing is to be done dynamically, with power and strength and wisdom, then we must sustain intrinsic balance first. The mind especially is challenged to find its balance within a balanced body/mind experience so that it can engage in heroic relationship with polarized absolutes in a peace-making, harmonizing, and even transforming function.

Concepts can will either be in conflict or in complementation. They dilute each other or one dominates. They mate and establish a synthesis for better or worse or remain mutually alienated or in conflict. When we reinforce creative poles, however, we strengthen the current between them, or the synthesis they generate. In doing so we may experience the dawning realization that the sought-for balance manifest through the experience of the ‘energy’ that flows between the poles, or it can be the very synthesis of their mating.

To conclude this installment, I want to note that the conception of absolutes can be problematic, and when oversimplified the poles can manifest destructively. The next installment of this essay will attempt to address the issue. I encourage the reader to think on this: Just because concepts, memes (truths) are polarized doesn’t mean that balance between them has any meaning, especially when our idea of balance is remaining safe and secure in one place, state or ideological stance.

Part I

Part III

Balance and The Utility of Absolutes: Part I

I have pondered the utility of absolutes, i.e., good/bad; right/wrong; true/false. In a sort of visual description these absolutes reflect polar opposites. It seems that the adoption of either results in imbalance. Would you care to address this observation?

The above was a question posed to me, and not one easy to answer in a straightforward manner. Let me go for it anyway. I just hope readers don’t abandon me to blather alone in the mental wilderness of my own meandering complications. As challenging as that is, in other words, I am making a note to keep it simple.

I imagine this is one of those questions one expects to hear in a circle of stuffy old men stroking long white beards as they recline amidst the marble columns of Plato’s Academy. Just imagine that for a moment. The hurumphing of old farts dominates the scene- a figure of speech by the way. It is not conducive to the current discourse to expend mental energy imagining an aging puff of gas thoughtfully say: “hurumph!”.

Suffice it to say that the revered lovers of wisdom in our imagined circle of accomplished argumentation are certain they have all the bases covered. They will possess their certainty with a straight face even as they quote Socrates- their reluctant idol- in proclaiming “the only certainty is that we know nothing”.

A few of the more insightful in their midst must surely comprehend the paradox: sharp intellects contrasting soft rears endlessly shifting on hard marble recliners for the ever-elusive comfort zone. If they are especially mindful, our wise men might notice the seed of revelation concealed in the conundrum of discomfort that a well-placed pillow could appease with ease.

Still with me? Let’s blow the exaggerated caricature of that imaginary Academy. Let’s put our mind’s eye to better use and find ourselves relaxing on a nice sandy beach. We are reclining comfortably with our favorite drink, sitting back to listen to the soothing sound of the tropical surf for a spell. Not a care in the world.

Those wizened philosophers of yesteryear made it a point to recline in comfort when pondering the mysteries of nebulous mentation. That soft and supple pillow under the rump was an absolute necessity for the demands of higher discourse. It virtually- no pun intended- guaranteed the finely honed blade-like intellect these philosophers brandished with the expert grace of hardened veterans of legendary battles.

Facing questions like this can create a cold and brittle mood when the acuity of the intellect is emphasized more than what makes relaxing and comfortable sense. I want to point out, however, that where the body is comfortable and relaxed, ideas can balance on the razor’s edge of a vibrant mind. This is balance, and it is not a given.

Sustaining a sharp intellect without rest is stressful and can cause fatigue and burnout. Sustaining perpetual relaxation, on the other hand, can dull both mind and body leaving the spirit flaccid and the heart as slothful as the physical frame.

Balance is, therefore, a treasure that is not just cultivated between opposing absolutes. It is a valued state earned by the act of confronting forces engaged in a struggle with us. In this case our balance lies in the integration of a relaxed body with a sharp mind. Part of the value of this state lies in the high stakes of the struggles we face with it. If we submit to the will of what opposes us the core of our experience of self and world is thrust into a corner of conception, backed into it to be bound by the programmed conclusions resulting from our alleged “defeat”.

In other words, we can become victims of possession by various forms of the meme: “unless I am a winner, I am a loser”. One version is the variant: “unless I am right, I am wrong”. We may think our struggle is with something tangible, like a force of nature or a human oppressor, but we are physically relaxed in the world of ideas. Therein what is challenged is our sense of self and what is meaningful to it.

In that sense balance means throwing out the either/or and choosing to learn from the engagement. Experience is the coin of purchase in this process, and balance involves its best investment. In my book that is worth pondering.

The metaphor that led to all this pontificating, however, is two-fold. Balance comes from understanding both aspects of it. The second aspect contrasts the image of the sharp-minded philosopher with flaccid body with the reverse arrangement. This time, we can imagine finding ourselves among a group of athletes climbing a mountain, struggling against the elements to gain the victory of standing at a pinnacle of nature’s majesty.

As we climb, we realize that the warrior stance of a mental blade-wielder is the last thing we need.  Instead, circumstance asks that the mind relax, and its intellectual blade stand aside for a deeper visceral intuition to enter to scene.

In doing so the mind may find itself “in the zone” where the body is one with the nature it seeks to pit against its own limitations. This mind-zone is zen-like in its mystery and paradoxical luminous silence. It is also part of the appeal of extreme physical struggles that to the average plodder seem more like examples of human lunacy than achievements.

Make no mistake, the mind is not dull. It is not dead, nor is it vacuous. It is infinitely deep, yawning into its own mystery of pre-conceptual calm. It is the ocean without waves to distract from sensing its true depths. And when the body is challenged, and forced to plumb its own potentials of resourcefulness, the mind steps back and falls over the precipice of residual assumption into the fathomless expanse of its own nature. Paradoxically, when that happens, the body becomes stronger and more capable. This is balance as well.

Part II

Part III

Learning from Time Obsession-Free

This is the first post of the Q&A category. Namely, a reader asked the following interesting question:

“How do we learn from possible futures without becoming obsessed with the future?”

Those who seek to awaken their potentials of awareness, are often challenged to confront their relationship with time. They are challenged to experience permanent residence in the present moment. In parallel, they are challenged to understand the past, and to navigate the future. This may sound counterintuitive, but from the perspective of grounded and applicable esoteric wisdom, the future is the least important of the three standard temporal references.

In some of the more marketed versions of metaphysical thought there is the notion that the higher dimensions of time refer to everything occurring at once. There is, in other words, only the present and future and past coexist in it. Another perspective associated with the previous is the notion that everything has already occurred in all its variations, and we are just running a thread through one version or probability of happenings.

Our common reason gets to stretch beyond comfort zones with these notions, and especially where their logical implications or conclusions are concerned. Yet all too often we are prone to paint ourselves into a corner and end up arguing against our free will, all in the name of objective reason. So let me say that I will only pursue models of reality that don’t turn me into an automaton of fate, or even some stale form of Divine Will.

This is not my own wishful thinking talking. We obsess because we stress, and we stress because we’re trapped and insecure by the way our mind interprets things. It is not the fault of our response. That is to say, trying to simply not be stressed, or not be obsessed, is not the solution. It isn’t even healthy. I would instead suggest altering the model of perception and evaluation toward a form that allows natural response to lead to empowerment.

Even so the more ‘realistic objectivists’ among us might call this approach wishful thinking. I disagree. Choosing unhealthy world-views in the name of Murphy’s Law (basically the “Life Sucks” model) posing as realism is the less rational attitude in my opinion. It isn’t only dysfunctional, but it happens to help those who would want us weakened by despair and confused in the labyrinth of our own callous reasoning so they could manipulate us against our own interests.

My point is that trafficking in the future is like drinking a good wine with one’s meal. It helps digestion and makes for a good mood when imbibed in moderation. But it can make you sick if you indulge in large doses. You certainly cannot live on it for very long.

Instead of looking at the future as something set, let’s look at it as a void of potential, a field of any-thing and no-thing. Any-thing is possible, but no-thing is what the future is. In addition, the more probable or likely to occur outcomes can be traced to the past via our here and now.

Our positioning in the present moment- our presence- with respect to this void determines how the past looks to us. How the past looks to us determines how we can best use our experience to chart our course. This, in turn, alters what is more and less probable to unfold out of the field of no-thing that is the future.

The most important consideration in this is that the present moment is our position of empowerment. The present is the only real temporal frame. It is where we always are. Orientation in this frame, however, is still a choice. We can face the future or face the past. In modern western culture “living in the past” is discouraged, while looking ahead is praised.

On the contrary most every source of wisdom from our collective past advices to remain in the present. Where do we look? What is more real, the past or the future? I say it’s the past because we have experienced it. We don’t have to live in it, because it is already in us. We can look and evaluate all it has taught us.

The future cannot teach us anything. It doesn’t exist until it becomes the present. If we look for it all we do is project our preconceptions onto a blank screen. Because there will always be uncertainty with the future, our preconceptions will most likely be weaved with fear, or at the very least with degrees of insecurity. We will be challenged to compensate with faith or calculations of the most ‘objectified’ reasoning ‘just to be sure’.

Intuition might be delusional because we are not in the present moment where it naturally operates. Anxiety is the prime sign of disconnecting with the present in our temporal assessments. Anxiety begets obsession. We gnaw at something to make sure we leave no stone unturned. We hold on in fear it will bite us or worse if we let go; or we fear we will lose it somehow and cause things to derail out of control.

My recommendation, in a nutshell, is to practice being present first. The simplest way is to feel one’s own body in space. Time is connected to space and the body is always in the present. The mind then grounds, and in a relaxed state one can open to intuition via the great record banks of experience, one’s own and via all the information at one’s disposal. It is that which then calculates the probabilities that appear to be the “possible futures” facing us.

Let me confess that I practice methods of divination. I use Tarot cards, a pendulum and sometimes the I Ching to help assess the flow of probability. It is easy to obsess and even get somewhat addicted when using divination. Experience and determination, however, are great teachers in inhibiting projection beyond the present moment.

Whether using a method of divination or one’s intuition and inner guidance, one can see, sense, feel and/or cogitate the patterns of probability that flow through the present. The past teaches, the future is acceptable when we associate the lessons with the probabilities extending from them and work to making them happen. How that can happen is beyond the scope of this presentation, and any single answer. Just turn your back on the future, remain in the present and learn from the past. Then obsession should be kept at bay.


Thinking the US Election

There is much ado about the US election process, mostly among Americans (citizens of the United States, in other words). As usual the citizens are tasked by the establishment to pick the lesser of two evils. One individual likened this to one of those games I remember some of my friends liked to play when I was a child living in the US (and even when I was a University student much to my chagrin).

This is the distasteful to me challenge of being given two and only two options, amounting to being forced to opt between a rock and a hard place, or even more accurately, between the frying pan and the fire. In this particular instance the choice given was: put the kitty in the microwave or the blender. And if the cat-loving victim of the “challenge” opts out and says “neither”, then the promoter claims they are guaranteeing the poor kitty a gruesome death.

All this, of course, is compared with the argument that if you don’t vote for what you think is the lesser of two evils, one of two evils will be elected. If you do vote, one of two evils will still be elected, but at least you’re participating in the system.

Let’s take a step back and think for a moment. The friend who shared this actually did so in the context of being amazed at how little thinking is being done…anywhere. So let me prove that at least some thinking is being done. Nothing to write home about, but at least it won’t involve thought experiments with cooked kitties.

First consideration: being pressured to choose between two and only two options is hopefully about participating in a game. Even then, the game is considered to be rigged. When such conditions are imposed in real life it is called coercion. If the choices amount to the hang man’s noose or the electric chair the result is still death. If they involve electing a powerful political figure then we are talking of pseudo-democracy, effectively amounting to dictatorship that escalates to tyranny and from there enslavement. Not that there is much difference between the three terms in my book.

But imagine someone telling you that unless you choose the noose or the chair, you are contributing to your own demise. Imagine someone telling you that in a democracy you have no choice that matters. Imagine them getting angry if you reject their conditions and seek a third option. Who are these people?

Second consideration: It is assumed that if you are not instrumental actively in your own enslavement then you must be passively instrumental in it. But if you are told you only have the options dictated to you (it’s what dictators do), then rightfully you will do whatever anyone against their enslavement does: seek to create an alternative option.

If you are not free, then you are challenged to create or establish your freedom. It is not by magic, and it doesn’t occur in an instant. It isn’t even guaranteed success. But unless you reject the options given, where will you find the space and the time and the energy to proceed?

Third consideration: These days we can barely think. Thinking hurts when the brain is saturated with toxins, Wi-Fi, and let’s not forget the mindless cultural stimuli shoved in every mental orifice like so much fetish overkill. As if that weren’t enough, we have increasing trends of bullying where stupid people have fun hunting down anyone showing signs of sporting a brain cell or two more than them.

Spice the mix with a media engineered to lobotomize as they saturate the info-stream with so much sewage that it’s infected the so-called “alternative” forms.

Unless brain cell inflammation has atrophied the thinking process, the lucid individual in my book cannot help but conclude that so many converging factors are by design. And if that is so then there are those who think and think and think and pay those loyal to them to think even more all to keep us from thinking and worse.

Then there is the question of doing. Thinking and doing appear to be divorced and at each other’s throats these days. When the otherwise well matched couple get together and find harmony, they inspire people toward making a difference. But those who rock the boat of someone’s master plan tend to “disappear” if the waves they make are more pervasive than think-tanks predict they “should” be.

Given all the above, it is a miracle we don’t just shuffle into our graves like good little lemmings. That’s why I say one should nod in approval to any thinker. Should you, however, find an individual who both thinks and acts accordingly then it is cause for celebration. You should organize a holiday in their honor, throw them a party, with a parade and awards and accolades, ice cream (organic) and cake (homemade with the finest ingredients). That is how rare it is.

And one should hurry because the thinking/doing person, if they are heard and make a difference and fire up the grass roots of society for real, may have an accident sooner than later. But none of the above need lead us to despair. Even though thinking is rare and acting on it even rarer, we are challenged to a counterintuitive path if we want to make it through the think tank obstacle course.

This is how I see it:

We are challenged to think together, to think beyond our apparent places in this world, to think according to what is not obvious and to act in ways that think tanks cannot chart even if we are all butt-bare for them to data mine at their leisure.

Thinking may be short-circuited in most today. But as people and their antics appear- or are made to appear- to get dumber and dumber we are faced with an opportunity to think differently. Consider that we have more than just the brain in our heads. There are functioning neural nets around the heart and in the gut, that only the anti-thinking types would want to ignore.

Our body/mind (note it is ‘both/and’, not ‘either/or’) is more than a mass of programmable genetic wetware. It is one of Nature’s greater miracles as far as I’m concerned, and we are blessed with it; or rather we are it. Thinking need not be the thinking we have thought- as we have been taught- to think it is.

And that is the kind of thinking that will give social engineering psychopathic tyrants a run for their homicidal machinations. Or so I think. 😉

Reality Sculpting 101: II. Facing The Challenge

Reality sculpting is not the same as creating reality from nothing. It does not mean we say “behold”, wave a wand and the Hollywood effects take over. Nature expresses with a certain economy for a reason. Bypassing, defying or even transforming that economy are possible in my view, but also in my view, not readily, nor easily done. I do not think it is wise to consider reality sculpting in terms of a simple technique one can apply in the matter of mental, spiritual or life-force gymnastics.

At the same time reality sculpting is natural. It is potentially an art for those who would engage thoughtfully and creatively in its possibilities. I want to approach the issue of reality sculpting because we live at a time in history when it seems that our reality is being literally forced toward ends that would very likely horrify us if we had the full picture of that situation.

In this state of affairs we are challenged to learn to breath and live and see and think outside the box. Much of the time, however, outside the box means being incoherent in the face of conditioned reasoning. It, therefore, takes time to acclimate and gain a sense of being ok with “different” thinking, feeling etc.

The enthusiast in alternative thinking soon realizes they cannot drag everyone else outside the box with them. Social programming enforces a reality context that is like a maze of confusion. In this maze, there is low visibility with no straight lines, and no clear outcomes. Simply pushing to visualize, affirm and will one’s chosen reality frame, because of the rigged status of that maze, will get us nowhere but believing in nothing but the futility of hope.

Anything that appears more rational and direct is likely out of a menu of memes we have been taught to respect and designed to get us in one of many chess game extensions of chasing our tails and wasting what meager resources we have left. The way things stand, it appears people cannot be forced out of denial. They cannot be talked into waking up. They cannot be un-brainwashed by another’s intellectual arguments, nor by emotional plea.

Going out and organizing revolution followed by counter-revolution is well and good, but it has been factored into the “game plan”. I would say that if we want a possibility to be globally fruitful it is best to consider those the establishment doesn’t credit or understand, or better yet, cannot even perceive.

Those are the issues I feel we are challenged to address before any semblance of tangible and lasting reality correction ensues via the power of our direct intentions. In this state of affairs it appears to me that there are many who want nothing more than to be told where the off switch to their problems is. I’m relieved things don’t work that way. It would be a very bland universe if they did. It is not, and I don’t see workable simple answers in this tangled web of ours. The challenge we are called to face here is rather to think beyond how we are conditioned to think.

Somehow we know we need to think for ourselves. We are encouraged in western culture to do so, in fact, but that does not mean the practice is genuine. Instead we are mostly told by authority figures and experts what and how to think, and even threatened with reprisals that sound reasonable (like incarceration and drugging) to those most programmed.

I can understand how so many are fed up with being told what to do these days. Yet they probably don’t question authority much, since anyone who is not an expert and authority is just an asshole venting hot air most of the time. At most they only have an opinion, which is pretty close to an asshole in most people’s regard, I would say.

The internet seems to be full of blow holes these days. It is hard to tell them apart from those who know what they are talking about. Hell, I can’t come up with good arguments for myself in that regard. I just hope readers can grasp the notion of an outside the box perspective beyond the cliché. I hope paradox is not equated with bullshit, but can be seen as reason beyond social programming.

Where reality sculpting is concerned there are those who discourage themselves and others with an all or nothing attitude. Anyone attempting to support psychic means of changing reality for the better- if I am not wealthy, healthy and happy- is not credible. If reality sculpting hasn’t solved everything or even one single important thing in the life of its advocate (mostly concerned with monetary stability) then it isn’t worth a glance, let alone the actual commitment required to make it work.

At face value it’s a reasonable condition. Someone who assumes they can wish their way to desired outcomes, when disappointed, can resort to either fatalism or the standard rout of applying themselves in mundane ways, legally or illegally, with or without moral integrity. If they are disappointed further their consolation is that at least they’re being realistic.  

Reasonable as the sentiment may be, it is not a product of deep and thoughtful analysis nor even intuitive insight. I want to address the topic, being aware that I am not the first nor will I be the last to do so. I want to address it because the critique is to be expected in any promotion of reality sculpting, and because I trust in the intrinsic value of this view to shed some light on an easily misunderstood topic. 

There are reasons why the situation is not so simple as a “law of attraction” would have it. There are reasons why it only appears to work for a minority, and it is not because they are doing things right. There are measures we can take as well, but it means expanding our view toward a bigger picture than just material or spiritual gain. I want to continue this series because it interests me, but I think it can be useful to those who have not thrown the baby out with the bathwater in their disappointment in reality sculpting.

At the same time, I won’t hesitate in critiquing the oversimplified perspectives that for whatever reason are made popular, and which have done more damage to the possibilities of positive reality sculpting maturing in our culture than any form of ridicule or modern day witch-hunt could do. So let me roll up my sleeves and stay tuned.  

Reality Sculpting 101: I. Changing Beliefs

The idea of creating one’s own reality is not new, neither philosophically nor esoterically. No matter what one’s opinion on the matter is, and regardless of how much has been said and done about it, I would say it still pays to examine it in depth.

It appears to me that the ideology of creating one’s reality has been misunderstood; marketed in a superficial manner, oversimplified and exaggerated in unrealistic ways. Some claim it works, many have been disappointed by it, and most don’t seem to give it the time of day. Whether reality is created by beliefs or not, altering one’s own deeply rooted notions is not that easy.

To add insult to injury, we live in a world where we are under constant belief programming. Some have named this state of affairs “the matrix”. It propagates in all our relation and is amplified via the latest technologies promoted for that purpose. We may alter beliefs within the context of the matrix of reality indoctrination, but beyond it there are obstacles not easy to overcome.

I would say the first step would be to ensure we can alter belief before worrying about changing the reality it represents. I view this notion to be largely misunderstood. A few affirmations are not going to do it. Faking it isn’t either, because the very notion contradicts that you actually believe in what you are doing.

In any case, I want to present basics of practice as I understand it. Such practice is not a cure-all for all the ills reality may be shoving down our throats. It is a start. I will, therefore, return to the topic to develop it further and work with it myself. It may actually be educational.

At this stage I think it is safe to say that positive effects are more likely when practice is consistent. It also helps when negative and positive emotional feedback experienced without condemnation. The mental feedback or backtalk is best set aside as just words. Thus a playful attitude is adopted instead of one that is critical, desperate or involves faking.

It is important to be rooted in the understanding that beliefs are not the same as reality attributes. They are especially not attributes of self. I am not what I believe. I may believe I am ugly, and that may cause a shift in my form in that direction, but that shift can easily shift back. It is not indicative of me, per se.

The challenge of this playful attitude is to assume self is inviolate, where beliefs are concerned. The latter may alter the shape and course of things, but not their essence. In this understanding form follows the expression of psyche, and it pays for it to change into what more naturally represents our deeper sense of meaning.

That deeper sense may be unrealized because our energy is invested belief-wise elsewhere. We want to remove that investing energy and place it where it matters more, all the while being aware that physical reality has a powerful momentum and staying power, something that goes without saying. Thus patience is another challenging quality in which to invest.

It is also important to observant so as to notice how things develop without condemnation or imposing optimism in the situation. Critical evaluation involves coming to conclusions, which is another form of imposing beliefs, or rather reinforcing the old ones more often than not. This is an art of sorts that comes naturally to children, at least prior to the aggressive social indoctrination hoisted upon them.

Children play, but the notion of faking doesn’t realty come in. The felt quality is different in play than it is in deliberate hypocrisy. That felt quality is a must for both belief change and the reality conditions to follow it. Children also take their games very seriously, but without losing playfulness. They do not much think about the end of their imaginary game because they are having too much fun playing it. Their passion is in the process.

It may be useful to view beliefs as scripts in which one has invested. Change the script via playful imagination. Transfer the invested energy- emotion, passion sense of life- to the new script and play it in imagination. That part of the process can be challenging when one’s emotions represent an investment of self in the old script. Investment is of one’s life force and expressive potentials, not one’s sense of being. Self is what benefits from the belief, not what feeds it, not in a healthy scenario.

All our beliefs are tied together forming a web or matrix of reality scripting. Some are rigidly tied and some loosely. Forcing change of beliefs that amounts to beating oneself up is counterproductive to say the least. But to keep ourselves from engaging in counterproductive activity, obvious or not, it helps to be mindful of what goes on when we examine and playfully alter our scripts.

It also helps to engage in inner dialogue from a second person perspective. Beliefs are not us. So using the first person can fall on deaf ears. However, when young and impressionable our beliefs were often forged by statements stated in the second person- “you are”, “you do” etc. I suggest trying that instead of the often used “I am this” or “I do this” approach.

In conclusion, forging a new script or reality frame may involve revelations of beliefs being in conflict, or even causing conflict as old beliefs come into contact with newly scripted ones. Thus the process may not be as straightforward as popularized formats would have us “believe”.

As this is an involved topic, I will continue with it. There are questions here. Are will and imagination always aligned? Is willpower the guide for imagination or is it the other way around? How do I remove my investment from the collective belief bank when the bankers impose capital controls? In other words, what if I feel threatened every time I seek to liberate my life force, emotional will and sense of being from being entrapped by imposed belief structures. That is for the next installment.

For now I would say this: it is far worse to not notice that investment in beliefs is a rigged system than be discomforted by the dissonance of the situation. Dissonance may well be the first sign of success.

The Demonizing of our Inner Resources

I’ve been doing videos with an online friend of mine, Ron Van Dyke since 2013 if memory serves. It was kind of fun, sitting there just talking about things that interested me. A few times there would even be dialog, but mostly it was just me releasing the hounds of personal viewpoint, as it were.

Ron and I share a certain common mindset, one that I have seen attacked and even touted as a sign one is a ‘shill’. It goes something like this: addressing the issues of humanity from a purely mundane framework of conventional or even unconventional reasoning- including religious and philosophical reasoning- is not going to resolve the situation, nor even make a dent in it. To me it is a conclusion akin to one definition of insanity: approaching a problem in the same impotent manner, always hoping for a different outcome.

In effect most who realize all is not right with the world appear to think that applying this or that system, philosophy, financial or social/psychological approach can make a difference. In comparison, anyone suggesting a different and paradoxical way is marginalized, and can be bullied and ridiculed. Even worse they might become a cultural icon and hence a caricature and joke of all they claim meaningful.

The aforementioned state of affairs- the demonization of the real inner alternative approaches- is more than a little bothersome to me. When definitions of what is ‘good’ vs. what is ‘bad’ thinking are ironed out people can cease to think. Instead they tend to refer to the menu of definitions and feel very intelligent in the process. Call it the frugality of mental function or its delusional tendencies.

In any case, I too am oversimplifying for the sake of making a point. Ron and I understand that the way things are, we need more than a physical revolution or a new system to redeem our species, and all other life on this planet, from the suffering it endures at the hands of human psychopathy/sociopathy. Where Ron believes only a transcendent Divine Creator (or rather the Creator) can make a difference, I ascribe to the view that human beings have it in them to awaken alternative resources of heart, mind, body and spirit to engage at a depth of meaning with the conditions of existence necessary for results to be satisfactory for all. In fact, I would say that kind of cultivation has been part of the ‘Divine Plan’ all along.

Unfortunately, the depths of which I speak have been simplified, conceptually packaged and reworked by the deluded and opportunistic. The possibilities have certainly been corrupted by malicious individuals working for the pro-global enslaving establishment known colloquially as ‘shills’. The umbrella label used to demonize our inner resources as been known by many names, and over the last several decades as “New Age Thought”. Indeed the meme has so many facets I find myself singing its praises one minute and criticizing the shit out of it the next.

Finding one’s self on the schizoid seesaw of love/hate with a contrived meme is not flattering when you come down to it. It is damn humbling, and to me underlines the need for a discerning filter to make sure babies don’t end up down the drain with dirty bath waters. And therein lies the challenge.

We don’t like racial, religious or gender labels, especially when it is our race, religion or gender that is labelled. But we still apply them wherever we are not put on the spot by this or that ‘correctness’ mindset. New Age is a label. It does not reflect reality except in the sense that a minority of promoters of pseudo-spiritual crap have run with it. The rest is often the result of ignorant human nature, one of the greatest resources of tyranny throughout the ages.

Interestingly, many of those who keep claiming that we have to research and investigate seem to do nothing of the sort where this label is concerned. They (to use the pronoun common among the paranoid and deluded) mix ascension with awakening, Satanism with occultism, magic with trickery (although it can be, but not always), connecting with non-corporeal existence (which can be anything from the essence of other life forms to something beyond our comprehension of space-time) with the religiously demonic.

They associate psychopathic and sadistic practices with the reverence of nature, and religion with mysticism- rarely compatible. As a result of the labelling there is division among those who think rationally, and even between those who explore the trans-rational but in different ways. Yet it is common for individuals (as ‘normal’ and nonviolent as anyone) who are into ritual magic to make fun of ‘new agers’, and individuals with strong pro-ascension beliefs being wary of black magic wherever an occult ritual is involved.  Christians on the other hand consider ‘new agers’ and occultists as peas in a ‘Satanic’ pod when they clearly mix as well as oil and water.

Instead of falling into the traps of the labels, lets consider the following: Esoteric potentials (expressed in ways mystical, occult, alchemical, shamanic, psychic etc.), known to humanity since time immemorial and monopolized by those who would control others from well before the dawn of known history, are a potential resource we need to examine as we would any promising application. We- always meaning those who naturally feel inclined in this direction- need to explore it privately and in creatively minded groups in healthy ways, free of new age, religious or pseudo-occult trappings, after first identifying what those trappings are. It is always important to save the babies and let the bathwater drain away.

There are, and have always been, interests against this kind  of thing. We have enough history of persecution and disinformation regarding esoteric potentials under our collective belt so that the ones benefiting from our weakness need not do much to get us pointing fingers and derailing any possibility of taking something that is our birthright seriously. But if those of us who are so inclined dare to move forward, there is the promise- albeit not the guarantee- of learning to create our reality, and maybe really help make things right for once. In any case,  as it stands it appears either nobody is doing it deliberately or only those who have little regard for life. Or perhaps we are in the humble beginnings of something truly wonderful. I, for one, like to think so.

Britain has Spoken

Yesterday the Brits voted to exit the EU. The margin was narrow, which is something noteworthy in itself. I look at this as an example of the implementation of strategies and tactics toward the consolidation of power. It always is like this for psychopaths. Psychopaths can be understood to be individuals who really lack any working connection with life and ‘creation’. They don’t care about anything that feels meaningful to a psycho-centric human. That last word means soul centered.

I would say there is a tendency today to oversimplify the psychopath. It appears the tendency condenses them to the childish level of ‘bad’ and that’s all we need to know. Maybe then we can sweep them under the rug or just annihilate them physically. I am not advocating some sort of ‘love-in’ response to them. I consider myself more of a realist in that regard, and want to encourage others to study them in relation to ourselves, because they appear to have researched all our weaknesses. Perhaps we can look at this referendum deal from that studious perspective.

Let’s start by looking at this referendum in terms of “who benefits” from the decision, in the long run if not within the aegis of the emotional high of ‘victory’. The establishment calculates risks and benefits and comes to conclusions with respect to getting to the goal/prize it covets with as little loss as it can. To insure minimal loss, grand scale events need to be progressively and multiply simulated to account for an acceptable spectrum of variability.

One thing is noteworthy; that the establishment realizes the element of surprise can go a long way. But those cards are limited and several have been played already. It’s like Hollywood screenwriters trying to outwit an increasingly plot-savvy audience. I would say there are many probable moves in the chess game psychos play, and one can endlessly speculate. I realize I can appear uncharacteristically cynical and pessimistic in this analysis. When I say that the establishment will not allow real positive change unless it causes a greater change toward it’s agenda, I am doing so in the spirit of rising to the challenge, not dashing hope. Hope, in my honest opinion, is like a muscle that needs to be strengthened, not coddled.

After writing the above I came upon this article that collapses the proverbial wave-function of the vote results, or at least hints toward a specific ramification path. Remember the Greek referendum? It was practically a year ago this month. If authoritative control freaks are into the science of behavioral manipulation, it makes sense to dispense self-similar events under similar conditions. That sends a message of synchronistic significance to the masses, and increases the probability of a response similar to the one in the parallel circumstance. In this case, the EU gave the Greeks the finger regarding their vote.

Here’s the metaphor: give baby candy. Then ask for it back politely, and then more firmly. Then let the baby think it won. Then dash its little baby hopes to pieces. There is no greater victory over a human psyche than that revolving around the dashing of hope. Not only is the candy taken, but if the baby cries or in any way attempts to show disrespect to the authority looming over it, then terror is dispensed liberally, in the form of abuse impending or directly applied.

There are any number of ways the firm parent can reveal itself to be an abusive monster to the Brits. Some years ago there were riots, and I’m sure those memories are burned in the minds and bodies of quite a few. Perhaps that was the point. To let people know what may happen if they think they can ‘revolt’.

Although speculation here is informed and thought out, it is still speculation. Things can play out differently, with Britain being left alone to stand similar to Iceland in terms of establishment independence. That’s radical, but not unprecedented. Think of the colonial acquisitions Britain relinquished in the 20th century. Those countries are still under the thumb of globalist interests, still under the machinations of destabilizing elements, yet officially they are more likely to believe it’s an ‘internal’ problem, or an issue with a neighboring country. The usual suspects actually look generous.

Although there may be many paths twisting to the same goal, we need not predict them specifically. It is more important to brave the manipulation and learn from the patterns. It is said that great clarity comes to those who realize the noose waits for them. It comes after they transcend the initial terror. The practice of thinking or simply being present- not freaking out- under the duress of psychological manipulation can strengthen us, especially if thought is deep, clear and outside the box. This could lead us to a stronger in mind and more determined in heart.

The fact of globalism in the frightening sense is not the crazy theory it used to be. More and more are taking it seriously. Sociopolitical awakening is something the circumstances in the world themselves can do these days, even if much is controlled information. At least a few can resist the somnambulist momentum of cooked ‘disclosure’ and strengthen their minds to be more resourceful in ways they discover, share and innovate further.

I believe we can discern what we can do and in what way to do it. Suffice it to say, disrupting the impact of all those experiments against us, ‘should’ in my honest opinion be a priority. We are not sheep and we are not helpless children. Those are facts we can stand upon so the formerly knowing but firm parent cannot proclaim themselves to be a raving butcher/pedophile.

To conclude this little commentary I want to emphasize two points. First, that there is such a thing as intelligent revolution. Second that IQ only marks a slice of what constitutes ‘smarts’. Let us learn from events, and know ourselves and our world, the real and the programmed.