“Spirituality is great but what about life?”

Because I like to have fun, because I seek a more complete existence than to merely exist as a spirit, I make attempts to be part of life other than the very necessary, like basic survival –feeding my body etc. And so I often do neglect the basics I have learnt as a spirit; the simplicity of freedom of my nature. And so I also often run around in circles.

Society is rigged to run around in circles, for the most part. You’re meant to struggle for money, love, other things but never quite finish doing so. You have to try on and on but never make it. You have to join a political organization at age 18 and to be told that you need to push and that the problem is you don’t push hard enough. And you become 58 and you’re still told the same. And if you start questioning that notion you might easily noticed your former allies for life turn against you and label you things you have never been; because that’s how cults work like, and this planet has many of those; and miss society as a whole is a cult by itself. Once you enter you just have to co-operate or else… and if you try to be outside it, you’re not allow to either. It is the cults of cults.  Or at least so she claims, while she also calls herself freedom. But if that which she claimed was true, there would had never been any problem.

I’m not saying that to complain. In fact that wouldn’t help with anything. Vanity is not inevitable and doom is not certain. What is inevitable is that we as spirits cannot perish, we cannot be harmed, and consequently society cannot solve our problems -that we do not have- either. I’d like to join a group to accomplish something good. But they all revolve around that notion that the group will save them all. That there is a huge invisible enemy they need to counter. But they never look inside themselves, and so they don’t solve what they wish to solve. And the more they struggle the more ashes they create, and the more apathetic they become. They know that wont work, but they also see no other way in within their binary thinking of what’s good and what’s bad.

There can be other ways; we can push forward towards what we wish to be not against what we don’t wish to be, that is most often nowhere to be seen anyway. We can create what we want, without fighting any vague enemies. In fact that is the workable way. Just like for a couple endless arguing will not resolve endless arguing, but sticking to how they want things to be between them will. That is how it works with everything, and with ourselves too. Focus on and give energy to what you want and what’s what you will get. And society and life can become pleasant and never need to be a distraction from your spiritual pursuits, either.


How to avoid gossip and other offenses

First of all, this is not the only way, but it is a -nevertheless- workable way, as well a rather unrealistic one.

Something I have observed in myself as well as in others is that when I am free to bring about a good result I am not that interested -if at all- in the bad results others might bring about. It makes sense if you consider that ‘being free to bring about a good result’ means you are unhindered by others.

If one considers that -for example- his life so very dependent upon other’s condition and other’s actions (whomever those ‘others’ are) he doesn’t consider himself that free.

But that’s not where the story ends; as when somebody feels his freedom, his good intentions, his potential to survive is hindered by something, he then tries to destroy that which he thinks that hinders it. And that might then mean talking ill about something, somebody, and everybody else if he thinks everybody else hinders him, which would be a pretty bad condition for that person.

Unfortunately the preached norm to compete against each other in order to survive brings about such conditions and endless hostility, and efforts to control each other in a bad sense. Based on such a state of affairs, if somebody wishes to avoid being attacked he must be quiet, and not achieve much. And the way to correct that would be to eliminate the notion that ‘one’s success means the loss of the other’ which is an untrue notion, and only becomes true when humans oppose each other.

What does that mean? It means if somebody with something like that in mind attacks another he does it because he considers that other a threat. It means that guy who gets gossiped or otherwise reduced by others is thought to be a potential threat, that there is fear he will rise above the one who tries to reduce him. So then yes, it can be common that some of the most free, able persons get the least acknowledgement and the most attacks and the most betrayal than other more low-profile ones who are shy in showing their potential to others.

But even that doesn’t have to occur. And if it occurs the person who receives such offenses doesn’t have to take offense, because how one receives and interprets the intended offenses by others is up to him. If he think that ‘because others say so it is so’, or if he is depended upon other’s approval he can then be controlled like that. If he sticks to his own perspective, he can’t.

A revolution of values

One wouldn’t feel like jumping up to the ceiling by hearing the word ‘values’ if he hadn’t had in mind the ‘values’ taught by people whose main concern had been to make people guilty of their sins, to make a few quick bucks and to take little boys in bed.

I wouldn’t take any such person seriously, but again I wouldn’t consider all values to be as evil as them.

The truth of the matter is that there is no such thing as absolutely ‘no values’ even if someone isn’t religious; as any values will conquer no values. In other words if one has no values of his own, he will adopt another’s. And I’m not writting now to do such a thing to anybody, but to remind him of this fact that he can have his own.

The problem of values has been reflected on politics thoroughly. The sole motive and argument in politics has been the acquisition of material possessions, and nothing counts beyond that to any significant degree. And thus it shouldn’t be of surprise both major waves and wings have lead to lesser or greater slave systems. Whenever somebody works four others take a cut of his money to criticise and to protect him from themselves. Nobody cares about self-determination, nobody cares about honesty, nobody cares about intergrity, love and pride; as long as you can have your chicken, your prostitute and a roof above your head so as not to get wet, you win in life…or not?

So, after all that winning, what are the drugs and the therapies and the rest of the efforts to modify one’s mood for? Could it be that’s not all there is in life, all that we’re after, all that could make us happy. If so, what is that?

In my life I’ve had many more self-imposed rules to keep than just ‘making money by any possible means’, ‘getting laid by any possible means’, ‘getting others to agree with me’ even by lying. And it’s been more challenging than if I didn’t have to keep them, considering those aren’t considered to be normal. However, it’s also been more rewarding as well.

The internet’s wasted potential

I read recently that some ‘Russians’ had set up some facebook pages, disguised as American political pages and that through them they were trying to influence American politics somehow, and that facebook intended to show which ones they were…

I’m not at all surprised at that. I don’t think it’s anything new and I don’t think it’s just ‘Russians’, whatever that generality means.

The internet is very dangerous as it allows people to communicate directly with each others and to learn each other and to learn from each other instead of having a limited number of centralized terminals informing everyone ‘how things are’ and how everyone is like. It creates opportunities for mankind to create more and to be freer meanwhile it -of course- allows the same freedom to the dishonest guys who’d wish to control others through lies. I know I could make hundreds of fake facebook pages myself, if I wanted to. And I could post messages and then even reply to myself, using multiple fake accounts.

I have some disappointment as I rarely ever get to read from my ‘social media’ friends directly, but they copy/paste other mass media sources instead. And it’s usually about some politician or another and then in the comments people throw tomatoes at them, or they throw tomatoes at each other instead. Tomatoes however, are not going to create that new, better world some of us wish to have; and that we now have a potentially wonderful tool to help us create it.

Being in a bubble

If ten persons argue about something against one person, that one person is liable to be accused he lives in a bubble or something of that sort. And that is because what they consider reality to be is the degree that each one’s thinking resembles each other’s thinking.

They can talk about events that they might have experienced themselves or merely heard about. But arguments are rarely -if ever- about what is being experienced in present time; they’re usually about the past and they’re about assumptions of the present and future.

If they are all inside a bar they’re not going to argue whether there are chairs and tables or whether there are bottles of wine. No, they’re going to argue about ‘capitalism’, and ‘religion’ and some variety of such vague concepts. But where are those things the moment they are being talked about? If there were there and if they could be observed, there wouldn’t have to ever be any argument.

So most -f not all- of the reality one talks about and one fights for is in fact his own thinking, and whether others have identical thinking or not, is the degree that he doesn’t ‘live in a bubble’. And so then one seeks to be in agreement with others, to adopt their ideas or to impose his ideas to others, in order to avoid suffering that terrible insult (if he is driven by such an insult); just like punishment-driven religions enforced their thinking and speech unto others in order to have them avoid other sorts of punishment like getting cooked or like being labeled shameful things in public. That never really stopped. It just got mutated.

How the leader became a boss

Most -if not all- do have an inherent inclination to offer their support to whom they consider to be a ‘winner’ and that term is very similar to what is called a leader.

But what is a ‘winner’? A winner in what? Exactly, there is no such thing. One can win in playing video games, another can win in amassing money, another can win in enjoying life or in being a good liar or a good serial killer and so on. Winning is related to what what wins in. There is no such thing as objectively being a ‘winner’, despite that arbitrary term that the media have propagated.

Surely, if you learnt from somebody who had mastered a topic (is a winner) he could -if he was honest- show you how to win too. And if you teamed up with such a person, if you assisted such a person you could -in turn- receive some of his wins as well.

However, there’s been a scarcity of such leaders, such winners lately who get acknowledged for being winners in some particular field. And on the contrary there have been people who don’t win themselves in any particular field(s) and are yet considered to be ‘winners’ because they say so and because they team up with others and they tell each other (and about each other) that are winners, leaders in some particular field(s).  And that’s due to false objective standards that -more or less- assert ‘if you don’t win in my game that I’ve set up for you, you’re a loser’. And that implies everyone must be contained in some other person’s game and try to win, otherwise they are ‘losers’. Well, not all care to engage into that.

You can tell the difference between a leader and a boss by various means. A leader is  good at something, he can do it well, so he then shows others how to do it as well. And because he is good at something he able to help others become good at it too. A boss tries to have others do what he cannot and what he doesn’t do himself. In other words a boss cannot work, or he is very bad at it. And the worse he is at work the more hostile he becomes at those who can work, and they cannot then work as well as they could.

Because there is a scarcity of people who take credit for what they can be good at by others as well as by themselves, and because -on the contrary- people who are not truly good at things take credit, things have been reversed and the term ‘winner’ and ‘leader’ have been confused with that of ‘the one who dominates others’, the ‘bad boss’ and so on. But it hasn’t always been like that.

So now a person can call himself a winner because he doesn’t allow others to win, or because he leeches from others what they themselves create, and the rest can look upon such a person and somehow ever ‘admire’ him and seek to profit themselves by supporting him. And that never truly works out. If you make a boss your leader for personal profit be sure that’s what he does too, despite what he says. The original sequence was the opposite; one used to assist a leader and the leader assisted that person too –but unlike now days, that used to be done honestly from both sides.

Kind dishonesty and plastic relationships

If I was asked to forget all I ever knew about life and to only keep a small number of useful information that would be to never force myself to ‘like’ what I don’t like.

It’s not that I hadn’t always known that, nor that others don’t know that. It’s that the indocrination to do the opposite is so intense.

How is it that there is much effort to produce liking, love as if we were machines and we could do it by pressing a button, and yet there can so much hate a distrust? And it mostly because all that talk about ‘love’ is hypocrisy.

Forcing opposites together, forces them furtherly appart, in turn. And we probably wouldn’t had been opposites in the first place if we weren’t forced to be together. One couldn’t possibly have an opponent, an enemy if he was free to connect that person or not, in the first place and if the other had been free as well. Freedom is not at all irrelevant to love, by the way. That’s some mean propaganda.

I don’t enjoy the concept I ought to have friends, a girlfriend and so on. Nor would I want anyone to think the same while being my friend. Nobody has to like me. I’m courteous and honest enough to keep clear from what I dislike instead of buggering them how wrong and bad they are, and for the same reason I could truly connect and be with somebody too.

The benevolent boss however, couldn’t make much money with such freedom in people’s thinking and with more genuine love, and a new mental illness wouldn’t pop up every third day either. But who cares? Soon they will be remembered as the tyrrants of the dark ages of the modern age.

More about freedom and rules

‘Having the right’ to do something or to become something or to have material possessions or anything else, has come to mean what others allow us to do so. However, no matter the polical, religious or other system(s) that is not the case.

Rights are inherent to causality. And that means the moment you make something happen you automatically ‘have the right to’. Responsibility is the knowing you make something happen, and so it also means the knowing you have the right to.

Whether others agree with what one makes happen or not is basically irrelevant. It only becomes relevant when we start to introduce other rules in life. And we can introduce rules in life because we can, in order to achieve something. So you see the ‘I can’ is above all that.

We introduce rules in life because what one wants to make happen and what another wants to make happen are not necessarily the same, so there can be conflicts. And we try to sacrifice as little as possible in order to preserve as much as possible. In other words, to do ‘the greatest good for the whole’. And that ‘whole’ includes all humans, all planets, all lifeforms, all that can exist.

Exactly because we can, because we are free to, because we have the right to we can introduce an unlimited number of rules into life to a degree that life becomes very narrow, very limited. And it can become even more limited if those rules contradict each other; like ‘in order for the capitalists to give you a car you must have money, and if you have money the communists will want to kill you’… That’s very common, so one can get stuck in-between contradictory rules and have problems.

Now, deep down, a society’s rules are non existent. Some sit and write rules and then they say that they exist, but they don’t exist. In order for a rule to exist all must agree with them to exist for them; for each one makes or agrees with rules for and by himself. So what they do is to say ‘agree with this rule and with the other contradictory rule otherwise we will kill you’. And because we already agree with a bunch of other rules-like that having your body killed is bad- we force ourselves to agree with even more rules.

So you see how by means described above we deviate from simplicity and arrive to complexity and life becomes hard, just because we can.

Now, I don’t really advocate going rogue, illegal, opposing the state etc. I’ve possibly created an impression I’m an anarchist because I speak ill of authority from time to time, and that is because I -indeed- don’t accept (not oppose) authority. I -however- unlike anarchists don’t think a state’s or other people’s authority is actual. I don’t think anyone can control me. On the other hand I also think I can control myself –whatever ‘myself’ means, and I don’t think I am truly dependent upon other’s approval. Like I wrote above, I don’t think that can truly happen, unless I put such a rule unto myself.

Myself, you and everybody else are -in truth- free and it is out of our freedom, our free application of our will that rules, problems, misery, happines, fun, love and death can come to exist by an for each one of us.

Our nature and social constructs

An average person must have heard or read what ‘our nature’ is like more than one trillion times in his or her lifetime. There is some contradiction concerning that though; if someone’s nature is such and such why does he need to be told what his nature is every second day?

Apparently, if my nature was to eat candy I wouldn’t need to be told that, I’d eat candy, right? Yes…but some smart guys have figured out ways to make us ‘bypass’ our nature, which -in turn- seems to create a need to correct that by being told -or by discovering by ourselves- what our nature is.

You see, as usual it is the problem that creates further need for solutions to that problem, and it can be pretty ironic that solution most often perpetuates that problem even more. Because nobody can truly tell me, you, others what is true for us; nobody can know us better than we can know ourselves. It’s only in times of great need -in case somebody is very ‘lost’- that such external help could be of actual help.

But anyway, most of the times when one explains another’s nature he doesn’t do it to help. He either does it to attack or to betray –that is to say, to attack by pretending to help. If you tell another that his nature is a ‘wanker’ or ‘insane’ that wont help him. But he if goes on considering what you’ve told him he will be reducing himself using something external to himself –something untrue that is. And one can observe most people doing that, and ironically it is those who have a relatively good sense of responsibility that do that to themselves in an effort to become better. The rest only do that to others.

It’s possible that all or most the criteria you use to judge yourself and others (if you do) are not your own. But they are based on ideas you have inherited from other who have been doing the same. And this most often starts from the most judgmental ones who are also the most irresponsible ones on the same time.

That is a reason why I have been recommending and describing that thing called direct perception over and over. Because by knowing ones truth by oneself external lies, external influences, external control vanishes. I don’t really wish to be a teacher nor a preacher. I only wish to point out and validate something someone might know to be true by himself, and might have yet thought that it’s incorrect, wrong, false, invalid because he has been taught so by others. My task is not to teach, it is to unteach.

We do have some things in common, in life; starting with our impulse to exist as ourselves, and thus we exist. However, that is not all. The reason you’re not supposed to take another’s life is not the state’s law, and it isn’t good manners either. You just aren’t supposed to do it unless that would save more lives, and that would be a nearly impossible dilemma. We are bound by some few laws in life, indeed. But they are not what we have been told; that is the problem.

The laws of life are fairly simple and obvious, without them life doesn’t exist for every limit, every existence that doesn’t cease to exist is a law. The laws are life itself in it’s totality and optimum condition for it’s totality. And that allows much freedom in-between. There can be many ways we can go about that. There is no ‘right’ way. There is being life or not. Absolutely no law, no rule would also mean no life, you see.

The laws of life -however- are not the thousands of laws a state could vote for. They are not the infinity of rules one could figure out for another to abide to by making him feel wrong, guilty or otherwise bad for himself. No one is entitled by any mother nature to do that, he entitles himself. No, those have been made in society, or more correctly by very few for the rest in society to abide to. Being life doesn’t have to be strenuous. It can become like that too, but it doesn’t have to. It can be pleasant. That is the purpose.

Fake understanding

There can be a number of reasons why one might failt to be understood, and that’s rarely due to using bad grammar, syntax and mispelling words. Of course I know some whose writting style is much more artistic, pleasant and easy to understand than others including myself, but that’s not what I’m writting about now.

Words are often deliberately being given dual, triple or more meanings. A supporter of capitalism doesn’t understand the word ‘capitalism’ like a socialist does. Similarly a socialist doesn’t understand ‘socialism’ the way a capitalist understands it either. So even if they decided to ‘put their differences aside’ for a while and try to talk, they couldn’t truly understand each other unless each one of them used those words in the exact same meaning, although they could be pretty much convinced they actually did understand each other indeed.

Now beyond political factions, giving different meanings to words than they originally have can be done deliberately in order to create a ‘cult’. How do you create a cult? You give the impression everything outside the cult is evil and everything inside it is good, as well as that the cult group is a victim of the outsiders. You also make sure the ‘insiders’ can never understand the ‘outsiders’ to any great extent for then their fighting would end.

Religious cults aside, numerous other groups can exist that follow the same mode of operation. And the result is larger or smaller groups that cannot truly understand much outside that group and that they hate outsiders for reasons that they’ve been told.

That misunderstanding and hostility works as a shield protecting the cult’s drivers from being uncovered. Instead of them, those who believe them fight each other. In their minds they think they actually understand others because of what they’ve been told about them. But in actuality they make no effort to understand but they only accuse them, which -in turn- results in furtherly becoming misunderstood and consequently even more hostile. It’s a self-perpetuating cycles and it results in ashes.

What is the solution? If someone accused you of being something you weren’t it could result in yourself becoming hostile towards that person (or more than a single persons) too. But you see, that way you would be playED in a game others would had set up for you to be playED in, and that game wouldn’t had been set up for you to win in the long run. Fighting others will never make them understand you better. What would make them understand you better would be to make yourself, thoughts, intentions, actions known better, instead of sitting and arguing whether you are actually as bad as you’re told or whether the other is, which is what most often happens.

Understanding resolves misunderstanding or no-understanding. Always devote energy to the desirable and never to the undesirable. What you work towards, what you pay attention to, what ‘pay for’ you get. So if you want to be understood simply try to be understood. And if you fail, get better at it. And of course your will to understand and to be understood must exist before you should attempt it.

Of course, there is a minority of persons that simply don’t wish to be understood and consequently they have a much harder time understanding others as well, regardless of what they pretend. And that is because their intentions are not good, and they need to hide them. It is them who then spread misunderstanding amongst others. And putting others to fight acts as a good distraction hiding their own bad intentions.