How could I have missed this exquisitely divine moment in July? Oh, that’s right 🤭—I was completely enveloped, heart and soul, with the presence of six grandchildren and daughter, wrapped in the warmth of a summer overflowing with love, joy, and connection.
There’s a deep oneness—a connection with the All, with the Universe, with the Everything that serenades us. Whether we resonate in harmony, in chaos, or somewhere in between, that connection is always there, waiting for us. In my quiet, still moments usually in nature, when I truly let go of perception in heightened meditation and open myself, even as fully as I am, to this divine presence, I’ve received profound light, clarity, deeply resonate emotions, and knowledge, as though just peeking behind, or into, the veil of reality.
It’s as though there’s an unseen thread, an invisible lifeline, that ties my soul to something far greater than me. When I plug into it, the skies seem to open, and vibrational waves of light, wisdom, emotion, and clarity pour into my being. The experience is so overwhelming at times, I’m left in awe, trying to absorb all that has been given. Though it may not be on the scale of ecstatic joy some find through mescaline, the resonance I feel in these moments is deeply soulful. It fills me with a tender, gentle peace, and an overwhelming sense of oneness—with others, with creation, and with the infinite creative spirit that exists in all of us.
These precious moments feel like sacred resonance with the divine, reminding me that I am not alone. I am woven into the fabric of all things, and everything is woven into me.
Thank you Mattias; I'm finding that everything you write is worth reading! In response to the very first sentence - I'm busy writing a book ostensibly on "How Do We Establish Truth?" - it's turning out to be quite a big work, & I refer to your book on the psychology of totalitarianism numerous times.. I really appreciate the insights you have provided us!
I was stunned into silence on first reading this. Seriously. I just sat and wondered about what I had just read. It will take time to absorb these thoughts, but I plan on re-reading this until some of it becomes part of me. I don't even know how to thank you, Mattias.
What a beautiful essay, which aligns with what I have been reading in Patrick Harpur, and Peter Kingsley. Mary LeCron Foster hypothesized that the earliest Indo-European phonemes were spatial metaphors, the geography of the world symbolized and miniaturized in the mouth. Merleau-Ponty stayed up all night saying "sleet," which if you speak very slowly, you can sense the metaphor. After reading that, I tried all of our favorite Anglo-Saxon swear word, which also imitates that which it originally meant. I am now reading Irreducible, by Federico Faggin, in which he says that our every cell participates in both classical physics and quantum physics, and that it is no doubt in our "junk dna" that much of what we are and have potential to be resides. This makes the transhumanists not only tyrannical, but clearly either stupid or evil or perhaps both, since they are preventing what could be, what is waiting to be discovered. These Dunning-Kruger despots are also inflated, perhaps dark triad, about AI, which probably does represent their left hemisphere plus psychopathy perspective on humans. AI and AI driven content is hollow and formulaic, and I genuinely think AI doesn't comprehend poetry, partly because it can't participate in the mystery of the source of creativity. It is that participation that makes truly creative people humble in that they know some of what they are creating does not come from themselves, or any aspect of their being that can be articulated or made explicit. In the greatest lyric metrical sonorous poems the voice of the mother, as you say, can be imbibed again, like floating, for a moment again, in amniotic fluid. Read Fern Hill or The Beautiful Changes aloud and you are immersed https://poets.org/poem/fern-hill, https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43055/the-beautiful-changes
Reading your deep thoughts, my mind turned towards troops firing at each other, killing, wounding, crippling each other.........how must they feel......how must they feel ?
Those that survived the war generally never speak about what they did, how they felt; they remain numb for the rest of their lives.
A long way from The Paradise of their mothers voice.
It’s true, it has been a concern of mine from my earliest years, and the question why we go there, and why accept it at the behest of others. As far as I am concerned, it depends on ourselves, what we are, without rejecting the conditionings that can strengthen our opinions and ways of seeing the world. We (individually) shape our societies and our own lives.
You and Mattias have proposed that the question of truth cannot be answered.
I on the other hand submit that knowledge of truth (not just belief) is possible.
Let's take your statement, "To affirm that God exists or not is impossible, one cannot prove it..."
Is this a statement of what you know to be true or something that you just believe (your faith)? If it is knowledge then you should be able to communicate your thoughts and experience whereby that knowledge has been acquired.
No one is too interested in what someone simply believes but if they know something it is worth talking about. I know that God exists. I know more than that about God but let’s limit our discussion to this for now. Proving this statement is not difficult. Here I will present some thoughts that lead to this conclusion and you can tell me if you agree or if you think I have made a mistake.
First it is necessary to define what we mean by God. We are not talking here about the God of the Bible or the Koran or some other religious tradition although those traditions may not be opposed to the God that we are speaking of.
We live in a cosmos where much of what we observe follows the laws of physics(science). Now imagine that as you are drinking coffee one morning you look through the window and you see a leaf drop to the ground. If you are in a contemplative mood you might try to consider the string of events that led up to the particular event that you observed; the falling of a leaf. In this exercise of thought you attempt to trace back to the first thing that happened in the sequence of causes that led to the dropping of that leaf. The initial cause that started the sequence must be non-physical. For lack of a better word we will call that “God”. It(God) must be non-physical because if it was physical it would just be another physical cause as a result of previous physical causes.
In response, someone might propose that the sequence leading to the event that you observed is infinitely long (i.e. that there was no initial event); no event that is not simply the result of a prior infinite sequence of physical causes. This idea, however, is easily debunked. If there were an infinite number of prior physical causes in the sequence that led to what you observed, then you would still be waiting for that infinite sequence to arrive at the present event that you observe. It would not have happened yet. That is the nature of infinity.
This has proved that God, defined as the non-physical first-cause of the event that you observed, exists. It has not considered what God is like other than that he is not physical (we might use the word spiritual). If we are interested we will try to learn more but we will no longer question the existence of God.
If I may join in, you speak of God as the primordial origin, but it seems that He is still in time.
Let us go out of time. God is the necessary condition; He is that which conditions everything but has no condition itself. Only then is it easier to understand how nature and soul/consciousness are related. So, we are talking about a third element that conditions both; it is their source.
Consciousness is in the world, you are right, and we can look for physical causes of how it came to be, but there will always be an explanatory gap in relation to consciousness, to the qualities of consciousness. So, we have to understand there is also another truth: the world is in consciousness. Everything is in consciousness. This is where the opportunity to relate to Jesus opens up. We have to understand him in the context of the "symbolic" (Lacan), knowledge. Here spirituality acquires its "materiality", Lacan describes is it with the theory of the signifier. I would say that Mattias thinks in this context.
Isn't God something that acquires meaning in the context of knowledge and awareness? What can we know? What can we be absolutely sure of? What we cannot doubt, as Descartes would say.
In the study of consciousness, we collide with the necessary structure that makes consciousness itself possible (and with it everything that IS). Consciousness itself can ask what makes it possible, what is its condition. Where does consciousness stand in order to be able to think or be? This is why Lacan says that God is the unconscious. There is another place that speaks. There is a need for an inner split that makes us in the world but not part of the world. Don't you think the key question here is who am I? Do I really know myself? What am I (as Ramana Maharshi would ask)?
What if God is the answer to this question of existential uncertainty? God originally, I think in Sanskrit, means sacrificial smoke. So, it also refers to the sacrifice of illusions. Knowledge is within God, Spinoza would agree. We accept this (unconsciously) out of necessity, invoking the reality that He guarantees. He guarantees meaning. We have, on the one hand, states of ignorant consciousness and, on the other hand, an awakened consciousness - a God-consciousness that is aware of a certain necessary difference that is its source. God is important in this transition from ignorance to knowledge. He is a kind of reference point, an absolute ground, a ground of being.
But it is still not clear what its nature is. Mia, this is where your concern about the indeterminacy of the world comes in. Awareness of God is awareness of the inner split of the world, the necessary condition that makes the world finite but open to infinity. Awareness is always in relation to finitude/nothingness and infinity. In this sense there is no absolute place in the world, but there is a place of absolute division. The world is stateless, indeterminate... all that Mattias says.
Jesus affirms this difference, the God who is dying. We can say that he articulates the truth, we are talking about full speech (Lacan) and what Mattias associates with soul speech. Jesus is the subject of the new possibility, of impossible.
As far as I’m concerned, I appreciate the fact that we’re coming in.
It is an explanation that can be held, personally I do not want nor have the knowledge to argue about all this, since I know nothing about it. I do not subscribe to psychoanalysis, not that everything is false, but too many interpretations, in my opinion. To want to explain everything one can get lost. I listened to Lacan, and also read Spinoza, our readings, exchanges etc. allow moments of reflection, which can have an impact on our personal evolution.
Through my experiences, I can understand the deep consciousness to a certain point, concerning myself and what I observe, how to know where it ends and becomes complete, I don’t know, so I’m not going to go into it.
However, I have no worries about this world, it would be a waste of energy.
What I am concerned with in this world is what I can acquire as knowledge to improve even a little the living conditions of some being in difficulty, and do their best not to directly or indirectly harm their environment. I have no other motivations (apart from music and art) and of course human relations.
I have by reasoning and reflection been as far as I could, I am not looking anymore, I remain open to the arguments of others, who can always bring me reflections, Arguments that are valid and I would not have thought.
«I would say that Mattias thinks in this context,...»
«Jesus affirms this difference, the God who is dying. We can say that he articulates the truth, we are talking about full speech (Lacan) and what Mattias associates with soul speech.»
I don’t have the ability that you do, to state what Mattias thinks or expresses (we can suppose), in my opinion, implicitly, because I didn’t understand it as such in the text. Perhaps the translation...
There may be many interpretations, but not all of them are good. Psychoanalysis and certain philosophies offer better concepts. But I am not here to lecture anyone; I am commenting to see if anyone will respond if they "vibrate" with what I am sharing. It is certainly possible to reflect without going into the specific philosophy of this or that author, but it is also possible to have a very fruitful dialogue with them.
Good reflection leads us to recognize the duties we have to the Universal. It is not just a question of wanting to help this or that person, the environment, etc. It is also about recognising that this is your/my duty.
I appreciate your comments, even if I don’t share some of the points, which is normal, otherwise we would be copies. I like thoughtful exchanges, open-mindedness to try to understand the other.
Indeed, I only think about the best and most relevant ones.
In psychoanalysis, there is good, as elsewhere, but what I do not adhere to, are the explanations of why. One can assume that this or that has a direct link or not with such behavior, lived, suffering etc. It seems to me however good, even if observations, regularities etc. were noticed, that drawing conclusions on this basis necessarily has a direct link with our own personality, our ways of thinking, our lived and conditioned, it can therefore distort interpretations, judgments etc. Not to mention that it is not our job to interpret in an affirmative or so-called scientifically approved way, the lived experience, thoughts etc. of others. And I have heard it many times, everything or almost is explainable, as if we had access to the brains of others, it is not always easy for our own. And to rely solely on the patients' stories is not enough, in my opinion. A certain positive one seems more appropriate.
I share your view that “we can have a very fruitful dialogue with them”.
As long as it doesn’t interfere, but that a fruitful search can be done.
« Good reflection leads us to recognize the duties we have to the Universal. It is not just a question of wanting to help this or that person, the environment, etc. It is also about recognising that this is your/my duty. »
That I don’t share at all.
To begin with, I don’t know if there is a Universal, I suppose something extraordinary (I can not name or describe, because I do not know anything) that allows the living, life being our daily actions (personal distinction).
Then, I have no duty to, shall we say, this possible entity or anything else. I did not ask for anything, neither to be begotten (if it is the case) nor to have been catapulted here (if there is one elsewhere). So I owe nothing to anyone, or any living thing here on earth, this is an affirmation.
"It is not just a question of wanting to help this or that person, the environment, etc. It is also about recognizing that this is your/my duty. "
And concerning your last sentence, it is also not shared, because I do not recognize that this is my task, I have no, even to live, if I want to commit suicide, I’m free to do it, whatever the reasons.
My personal investments in this world, are totally free from a mental point of view, psychological...as far as possible, not from a biological point of view, I’m forced to breathe, to eat etc.
So what I do with the time allotted to me here is my own business, as long as I have no family, live in society and therefore depend on nobody.
Otherwise, I have obligations, which for me are not, because I chose, let’s say, partially my way of life, the conditioning from childhood, It has not allowed itself to be totally liberated from the demands of our societies and its subtly imposed visions. But I’m fully responsible.
I have a family, which I take care of, voluntarily, as most of us, it is a joy and not a duty, same for the environment and other living beings who live there, I owe them nothing, except not to destroy their living spaces, which belong to them just as ours belongs to us, so a balance is necessary to live in harmony, side by side.
I do nothing out of obligation, and I have always done so (if they excluded the conditioning from childhood) to which no one can escape at first, But it can be done as soon as one is fully aware of it.
So I am free, as far as possible and taking into account the present moment, not knowing how I will evolve in time, and what degree of freedom can be achieved, or that I can reach.
It is also for this reason, which I have already mentioned several times (in other comments), that knowledge changes us, having the proof of a God, let’s call it so for now, can encourage some to obey, to submit, not to go to the end of their possibilities (rational, research, life etc.) and many other things.
It would have nothing to do with freedom, one only discovers oneself when this is done without using the acquired knowledge, only introspection allows it, in my opinion.
It can therefore be assumed, because I judge only rarely (when necessary), and according to your comment, that you are not free as much as possible, since you have duties towards HIM (God), and you will consider that you have obligations.
For my part, I consider freedom as a state that one has reached (depending on the moment), the wish that others have the same chances, the same access etc. comes, I suppose, of decentralization of ourselves and possible union with other living beings.
I have noticed that translations are not always accurate, sometimes sentences are omitted, words are unfairly replaced etc., I hope it will be quite understandable.
I share that, the knowledge of truth, although this knowledge is limited, we do not know everything, and to be honest, me very little.
"Let us take your statement, "To affirm where God exists or not is impossible, we cannot prove it..."
No, not a statement, I wrote that I left it open, I can’t answer it, because I don’t know. I do not have this knowledge, I only have experiences that do not allow me to know their origin.
Okay, not the god of religion.
Then I understand and share the thought exercise (sequences of causes).
I also thought about that, which I called creative energy for lack of better, if this is the God you’re talking about, then okay, but another name would be better.
There is something that allowed the life.
The problem of Jesus in there, that spiritual would have sent Jesus, why do?
You’re getting into the Bible story, aren’t you? Historically we can not be sure that it existed, impossible to make the distinction between true and false.
« If we are interested we will try to learn more but we will no longer question the existence of God. »
How do you plan to learn more about him (spiritual...)?
This seems impossible to me, the reasoning is not enough, in my opinion, nor the observation of this world or ourselves.
To begin, you have not answered the question about Jesus, this answer is important for the understanding of your affirmations and certainties.
The problem of Jesus in there, that spiritual would have sent Jesus, why do?
You’re getting into the Bible story, aren’t you? Historically we can not be sure that it existed, impossible to make the distinction between true and false.
I do not ask for advice, nor for the means to learn more, I asked how you were going to do, but I remain open to viable arguments...proposed by others, I certainly have not explored everything through reasoning.
What I want in the exchanges is that when arguments are made in a response, that they are relevant, that the answers are right, that’s not the case, sorry.
Then, what you describe are findings, certainly unexplained, extraordinary...and observed by all or almost, this description is part of the observation of this world, and you deduce:
«All of this shouts day and night of a person who creates, speaks, loves, laughs. » ??
« It does not explain everything but it is enough to compel us to look for more.»
Looking for more, what ??
There you don’t really answer, you said to know more about Him :«I know more than that about God...»
So it seems to me that you’re lacking in valid arguments, not that this is a problem per se but it doesn’t fit with your assertions or the pretence of knowing more. So I am not seeking to know more about a spiritual entity, but a good argument that holds the way in exchanges on subject.
There I am not at all, can you please, answer more precisely. We can also end the exchange, if you prefer.
When I post a comment I try to stick to one thing at a time.
Your question, Why did God send Jesus? , was answered in my initial comment to Mattias. I quoted Jesus speaking to Pilate where he said, "For this cause I was born and for this cause I came into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth."
He came to answer the truth question. He did that with his life, his message, and again with his death and coming back to life.
His short answer to the reality question: The Kingdom of God
This is not an argument; it is just the historical record. You have been clear that you do not accept the Gospel stories as reliable and I can accept your doubts.
Do you think he was wrong?
When it comes to knowledge of the truth it is not just an academic exercise. Experience is required. This is true in all areas of life; not just in the spiritual.
Let's say you want to know about music. You start with an idea of how good it might be to be able to play. You might study about it and listen to music but at some point you form the intent to make plans and take steps to learn and experience. That's faith.
So knowledge of the truth requires action. I do not know much about God but I intend to act on the little I do know. This leads to the experience of seeing him act with me and ultimately to growing knowledge. That is my experience.
If you’re talking about Jesus, I don’t know how I would know.
On the other hand, I suppose that over time, intelligent and benevolent people have had to bring reflections on the subject (truth), to the people occupy to live or survive.
So as such, it seems possible to me.
« When it comes to knowledge of the truth it is not just an academic exercise. Experience is required. This is true in all areas of life; not just in the spiritual. »
I fully agree, to over-intellectualize, we remain in the superficial, and we talk in the void.
Regarding your example on music, and the knowledge of truth, I understand. As far as I am concerned, I live it by observing myself, the world, as much as possible, without adding or removing anything, therefore without any interpretation. Of course this ability was not always there, it happened when I wanted nothing but that, a deep desire, for you is faith, It is assumed that everyone has their own experiences, the important thing is sincerity.
Concerning myself, I was not looking for an entity (whatever the name) to know if there was one or not, what importance, I wanted it to understand this world and its violence, its malice. I didn’t find anything, so I stay in the action trying to do the best. Now, in hindsight, I don’t think knowing would have changed anything. Humans are masters of their lives, animals not, until proof to the contrary, as already mentioned, I have no more knowledge.
My goals are therefore, to continue learning how to do the best, it is not unlikely that one day or another, reflections other than mine will open new understandings or learning. That’s why I appreciate the subjects of Mattias, we can reflect, question, exchange, it is very enriching.
You start by asking Pilate’s question to Jesus, “What is truth?” and then immediately state your assumption that it cannot be answered. This makes one wonder: Do you have a basis for your assumption? and Are you hopeful that you can find the answer?
In his conversation with Pilate, Jesus stated that his life purpose was to answer the question. “For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth.”
And that summarizes the story of what he did and the message he proclaimed. His view of reality (truth) has over the last 2000 years reliably transformed the lives of those who put their confidence in him by initiating in them a new kind of life. I do not know of any exceptions.
Perhaps you do not think his description of truth is consistent with reality as you have seen it? If so you should say so and point out where you see inconsistencies. In any case, in order to practice the sincere speech that you are advocating you can not simply ignore Jesus’ answer.
HI Mark, here is what I think: this question cannot be answered definitively at the rational level. There is no ultimate definition of what Truth is. But Truth resonates in language; it re-appears time and time again, always in a new linguistic dress. Much more about that in later substacks.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it.
To begin with, I don’t know if Jesus existed, what he was, I don’t trust the history etc. which doesn’t mean that everything is false, Only that to make the sorting between one and the other you have to know.
Then I don’t know if we can find the answer, maybe it’s there just now, but either we’re lying or we don’t know it yet. Personally I don’t look for it anymore, if I speak honestly I know, diem if I lie, well of course one can unintentionally lie by transmitting information etc. either not verified or not verifiable, in the latter case, we should perhaps say "I suppose", "I think", "maybe"...
"I do not know of any exceptions."
Well, your circle is small, like all of us. Nobody knows what is happening in the depths of every being, even in our own families, and the transformation you’re talking about may simply be a conditioning linked to this belief, The latter is not a certainty. I respect faith, that’s not the point.
To report inconsistencies we must have more than beliefs, plausible assumptions, facts that are not in reality, or only partially...
"In any case, in order to practice the sincere speech that you are advocating you can not simply ignore Jesus’ answer."
This is a false statement, you selectively gather elements on the basis of your belief. The latter should not be excluded from discourse, but these are personal opinions, which deserve their own space.
This is a matter of truth, which is a fact, limited certainly by our perceptions, of ourselves and of this world, e.g. testifying to a fact may be truthful, as long as it is described precisely without adding or removing any. On ourselves it is already more delicate, it depends on what we talk about, describe precisely a localized pain following a fall...is a truth, describe objectively what we see in this world is also, on the other hand, affirm the why of how maybe, true, false or lying (it depends on what is observed), whether it is voluntary or not does not change anything.
To affirm that God exists or not is impossible, one cannot prove it, hence the word believe, personally I leave these questions open, one cannot answer them. However, it happens that we have access to something not provable but real, verifiable by some only but not provable to all.
In this case, it is specified by mentioning "I know" but cannot prove it.
Regarding the existence of a God or other entity, I do not think that is possible (direct personal experience), From the moment we would have irrefutable evidence of its existence, we would change our vision of ourselves and this world, freedom (attainable as far as possible) would be lost.
I’m not saying that it will never happen, I don’t know anything about it, only that in this world (how to know if there are others), it seems impossible.
Thank you so much for this. How delicious is it that you wrote this just as Neptune is activating 29 Degrees of Pisces (its own sign) and Pluto is in Aquarius, touching on universal themes of self, unity, immersion, union, the numinous, art, poetry, humanity, Utopia(s), Utopian visions, technology, "progress," the dark side(s) of "progress" and more. Fascinating, really, how very many themes came out here -
I agree that it might get downright scary - both inside our own heads at times, or in the manifestation of visions of certain others. Let's tread with clear vision, as much as possible in this seminal point between the old world and the new, . . . like our lives depend on it . . .
I appreciate your clear vision and your voice in this world.
I will like you to touch more upon the ways in which a schizophrenic person is sometimes closer to the truth than her normal counterparts, despite the obvious shortcomings of her thinking. I have started to think, in lines with what Carl Jung perhaps also understood, is that the proclamations of schizophrenic person are often factually false, but sometimes valuable, as a story is often true and valuable despite being fictitious. In some ways, because they are unconstrained by the need to maintain logical consistency and relying on prevalent worldview, they become more attuned to some more obscure aspect of reality. Of course, this is not true for all their proclamations, but some can be of great value in the hands of the right listener. If this is true, it can bring some dignity and respect of these individuals and make them more understood.
Having worked with people who are said to be psychotic (and also other disabilities), I also noticed this, as well as a great intelligence in some. I have since understood that the diagnosis is wrong, as for many other diseases, by design, it still took me time to understand this.
I guess, as for us, the deep reflection on certain subjects, some exceptional events or other... cause questions and require answers, I noticed that some do not want, can not..., how to know, stay without.
They then construct one, see several theories, to which (s) they cling or juggle between one or the other, I suppose, that it could be some false proclamations etc., but again how to know.
Their neurological condition is in the long run affected by, which seems to me to be a continuous overload, I am not a specialist, nor competent in the field, but long and meticulous exchanges and observations allow to assume, without claiming that it is more than likely.
"what Carl Jung perhaps also understood, is that the proclamations of schizophrenic person are often factually false, ...but sometimes valuable, as story is true and valuable despite being fictitious."
I didn’t understand this last part of the sentence, "...as story is true and valuable despite being fictitious."
"If this is true, it can bring some dignity and respect of these individuals and make them more understood."
I fully share, we can learn a lot from them, listen carefully, question with tact, because often very reactive to facial expressions...
I should have written that sentence more carefully. We all read and think about stories, which we know are false. It often stated right there in the preface of the novel. Yet, such stories are often of great relevance. Take for example Shakespeare's plays. Many of them are based on fictional or embellished accounts. They are not valued for being the narrative account of true events, rather for bringing to stand forth truths about life in general. Some of these truths cannot be compressed into a simple sentence and can only be understood with the full context of the story.
In my opinion, stories help us see some things more clearly than an actual account of events. In this way, a story presents truth, despite never taking place. By being able to flexibly build premises, sometimes even using imaginary constructs such as magic, they help us get clear view of otherwise obscure parts of experience.
This flexibility, I believe, is something people with schizophrenia also experience. Like playing story-time with real life. They are highly suggestive and have a different salience landscape. This may allow them to pick up on patterns others may miss. Since they are unencumbered by having to rely on the prevalent worldview, their delusions may seek connections freely between seemingly unrelated stimuli.
Of course, delusions in most patients will also follow the typical pattern which is seen with the disease. However, there is also other content, which might be valuable in the hands of the right listener.
A person with the disorder once told me, "I am being persecuted." I asked why. She replied "because I am a young girl. There are people in the world who hate young girls, who hate them for their youth, freshness and innocence. Once they have become married, and lose this trait, these people no longer hate them and respect them." I often think about this when thinking about patriarchy and feminism. It to me sheds some light on possible motivation behind patriarchy, at the same time, reveals something about the state of the subconscious of a feminist.
No, it is I who have not understood it, I allow myself to ask for clarifications, hoping that this does not bother you.
I understand what you’re saying, the misunderstanding may be due to the fact that I’m of a direct nature, I tried to understand, I got stuck, This shows that our personality can sometimes restrict access to other forms of storytelling.
I don’t appreciate much mythology, except some and some Nordic, Shakespeare yes, and you’re right, this is better accepted and integrated, perhaps because we feel directly targeted, and that it causes a rejection.
« This may allow them to pick up on patterns others may miss. Since they are unencumbered by having to rely on the prevalent worldview, their delusions may seek connections freely between seemingly unrelated stimuli. »
In this sense, it has good sometimes, excessive conformism is heavy sometimes.
Yes, as a psychologist, you have something to think about, and all these cultural or other conditionalities that weigh on our daily lives. What often strikes me is that it’s easy to make, but it takes time before we’re ready to do it.
I have met on trips to some countries where patriarchy is almost omnipresent, that some have not adopted it, and have, I suppose, by nature or reflection...a more balanced view of the relationship between men and women. This could suggest that conditioning alone is not enough, perhaps personal interests come into play.
As for feminism, I have not met one, if my memory is good, or else, I did not dwell on it more than that, I suppose, that there is also a certain imbalance, an excessive focus on promoting gender equality. I fully share this on certain points, politics, employment (often underpaid), citizens' rights etc., depending on the country. But we will never be equal in everything (physical strength...), the way of approaching life in general...our way of thinking, perhaps, related or not to evolution and the respective occupations.
Maybe there is a hint of inferiority, not necessarily a complex, who knows. This may reflect the non-acceptance of the condition to be.
As far as I’m concerned, I’m a woman, but don’t dwell on it any more than that, I feel more human to be honest, I don’t need to emphasize my gender identity, It doesn’t bother me. It manifests itself in different situations, but I tend to feel more like a being.
I am amazed by the capacity of our brain to be able to free itself from many, in my opinion, useless mental constructions.
Psychotics are also wonderful beings, once you know how to approach them, listen to them. It just takes patience, understanding a different state, a different way of expressing oneself etc., once these barriers are overcome, They can also provide us with some ideas.
Thanks Mattias. The following statement you make resonates a lot with me since i think this was kind of my natural state.
"From this exploration, we derive a core characteristic of sincere speaking: in a sense, sincere speaking takes us back to the core of our Being, before it was covered by social conventions and meaning. Sincere speaking is done primarily from the feeling, animated body; much less from the head; it is an emotional speaking rather than a thinking-rational speaking. One who speaks before thinking is more sincere than one who first surrenders too much to considerations about what is right to say, about what must, may, and can be said."
That said being in the corporate world I have in the last time noticed that some kind of behavioral psychology is used to influence our emotions to basically train out this kind of sincere speaking out of you so you conform to the "Homo Deus" idea and conform to the souless corporate agenda which also connects to what you mentioned in your previous de-souling article. It is a known statement from Harari that "Humans are now hackable animals" and I think this is the implementation of what he means. I would be very interested if you could look into the corporate psychological methods and tell more if it is possible to keep your soul in such environments.
Beautiful essay on the power of words and what is expressed behind them. We can use it for connection, to experience we are all one, or we can use language to manipulate others and create fear and separateness.
Recognizing when you are under the spell of the ego illusion of separateness is the important first step to take before you can make contact with your true self and practice the art of sincere speech. 'Past Reality Integration' defines 5 defence mechanisms that form a concrete definition of the ego. Keeping them in mind is a necessary step to prevent errancy and delusion, because of the strong defensiveness of our ego. Our first reactions aren't allways from our true inner voice, like from the innocent, divine baby we once were, but often a defensive ego reaction or ego need we try to fulfill, without us consciously realizing it.
The 5 illusion described by the Dutch psychologist Ingeborg Bosch, who developed PRI are
- fear
- self doubt
- stress
- anger
- indifference
PRI also provides a method to dismantle the illusions and become in a free state, just as the little child must have been in, just before the defense mechanism became active.
How do you see this Mattias? Maybe I state it too firmly that we first have to recognize our ego talk/the mind with its thought and stories. I think you are right that the first and far most important thing is that we listen to our first reaction. But it is not always a good idea to express them. It depends on in what part of your consciousness you are in.
I personally can be way too impulsive with my first reactions, leading to miscommunication or difficult situations.
But in an environment where people are truly listening, it is more easy to be with your true self and speak sincere.
You have contributed to my thinking about truth. Truth is a hard nut to crack, especially if we want to go beyond the theories of correspondence and coherence, but also beyond truth as event and unconcealment, where truth is no longer a correspondence with an event, but becomes an mismatch, becomes a revelation of the real? But what if we introduce another turn, a more structural one, what if truth is a place inscribed in every symbolic form? Then the question came to me: where is truth born? And this is where your essay comes in. Truth has a place, it is born in my body. But is it really about the body? Or is the body a metaphor, because the body is always in the mind. Truth is born in the intellect (nous), in what is sometimes called intuition, which is pre-reflective, which precedes conscious rational reflection. This is how it is. Rational reflection has to take into account what we know pre-reflectively to be true and what we may be deceiving ourselves. We need truthfulness, we need a radical consciousness that feels the vibration of the field we are in. Poetic language can capture the rays of being, the rays of conscious oneness with all that is. Truth is therefore the place where the unconscious is born as the intuition of the mind to "understand" what is happening. Speaking the truth is the articulation of the strings of being that connect us to the whole. I would say that truth is not something rational, not even "corporeal", but a description of the flesh of the world. The love of truth is the condition of all knowledge, and to articulate it is the procedure of truths: love, art, politics, science.
« I would say that truth is not something rational, not even "corporeal", but a description of the flesh of the world. The love of truth is the condition of all knowledge,...»
I agree with that statement, but I think it’s valid to some degree.
The truth of this world is the real, what we observe without interpretation, explanation...none. However this to its limits, because it can happen at some point, that the dark glasses that we have always worn, are removed following a triggering event and that we realize, that reality is much more, quite different, etc. from what we had observed objectively before. There a baculement intervenes, questions...but the love of the truth, condition of all knowledge, accepts not to have answers to everything.
Merleau-Ponty said that phenomenological interrogation is never complete, and Lacan talked about the ontological non-completeness of the world, because there is no meta-language or big Other of the Other....
To accept that you don't have answers and that the world is torn and wounded, like the body of Christ... yes, that's really love.
I started the book of Schopenhauer that is mentioned in the comments, it is difficult, I take notes, an impressive writing, it is beautiful, but we have questions from the beginning, some parts are explicit, other ambiguous (in my opinion), and makes me think of another of his books "the art of always being right", it seems to me to have read a sentence so, I can understand that there are cases like that, but on some points, I found it strange. Anyway, I’m curious about what’s next.
I was talking about the world in general, about this domination, the answers are numerous, and as far as I am concerned, sufficient to take action, but that is another subject.
I haven't read Schopenhauer yet. We are also limited here, by time.
You choose something, then you insist on being open to the openness of the world. You act. But then what, when the abyss opens up again - the emptiness, the loneliness - you touch that which keeps tripping up your life.
Kant already said it: think, then say it out loud (you act). That is the ethical principle. Then you say it, including everything that is unacceptable, that's why you suffer the consequences of not being accepted, people move away and you are left alone again. Honesty is dangerous. Who will you then call? You can only call your friend Loneliness, who is the only one who will not leave you, but also only friend you always want to avoid.
The hero speaks out, he is brave precisely because he suffers and is afraid.
There is a problem that Shunyamurti decribed as: Facing with emptiness ..."is the black hole that the ego isn’t strong enough to confront, and therefore would rather continue its vain fantasies of connections that aren’t real, and stay in a Peter Pan type of state, rather than to grow beyond the loneliness into the truth of what reality is."
I have always observed the world, and wanted to understand what is happening there. I have by chance or other, discovered some things, which I can not however say that they are real, others happened but without knowing the origin, I do not have total control over my brain.
The abyss, I know, I came out of it after having touched the bottom of my sadness, I could not explain how, it happened, I no longer feel loneliness, or quite a few other things, I call it the tipping, I tried a lot to understand, I have no answer, I can only assume, but what good, I have neither the desire nor the time for it.
I leave the "medium" question open, all the answers as to the origin of these are interpretations, which does not prevent experiments can be verified, but this is also recovered by abusers etc., so sorting is difficult. I don’t dwell on it, I let things happen.
It may be necessary for some where all, how to know, a triggering event causing the fall of the ego, hearing the state type Peter Pan is a good explanation.
What about infant male genital mutilation at birth. The young child often without pain medication has the end of his penis removed moments after entering air and before suckling and the sounds of his mother. It occurred in a very high amount of the population in Australia and to this day in many countries.
The bonding sounds of the mother you describe are grasped at through intense localised pain. Poor breast feeding a potential downside.
Give the baby boys the care they need lest they grow up triggered as an Iraq vet.
Let society allow more young males experience that paradise of the mothers voice free off pain and trauma.
Do you know if, apart from unjustified health reasons, there is another reason why they strongly insist on the need for these interventions, as is the case in other countries, mainly religious.
How could I have missed this exquisitely divine moment in July? Oh, that’s right 🤭—I was completely enveloped, heart and soul, with the presence of six grandchildren and daughter, wrapped in the warmth of a summer overflowing with love, joy, and connection.
There’s a deep oneness—a connection with the All, with the Universe, with the Everything that serenades us. Whether we resonate in harmony, in chaos, or somewhere in between, that connection is always there, waiting for us. In my quiet, still moments usually in nature, when I truly let go of perception in heightened meditation and open myself, even as fully as I am, to this divine presence, I’ve received profound light, clarity, deeply resonate emotions, and knowledge, as though just peeking behind, or into, the veil of reality.
It’s as though there’s an unseen thread, an invisible lifeline, that ties my soul to something far greater than me. When I plug into it, the skies seem to open, and vibrational waves of light, wisdom, emotion, and clarity pour into my being. The experience is so overwhelming at times, I’m left in awe, trying to absorb all that has been given. Though it may not be on the scale of ecstatic joy some find through mescaline, the resonance I feel in these moments is deeply soulful. It fills me with a tender, gentle peace, and an overwhelming sense of oneness—with others, with creation, and with the infinite creative spirit that exists in all of us.
These precious moments feel like sacred resonance with the divine, reminding me that I am not alone. I am woven into the fabric of all things, and everything is woven into me.
Thank you Mattias; I'm finding that everything you write is worth reading! In response to the very first sentence - I'm busy writing a book ostensibly on "How Do We Establish Truth?" - it's turning out to be quite a big work, & I refer to your book on the psychology of totalitarianism numerous times.. I really appreciate the insights you have provided us!
I was stunned into silence on first reading this. Seriously. I just sat and wondered about what I had just read. It will take time to absorb these thoughts, but I plan on re-reading this until some of it becomes part of me. I don't even know how to thank you, Mattias.
What a beautiful essay, which aligns with what I have been reading in Patrick Harpur, and Peter Kingsley. Mary LeCron Foster hypothesized that the earliest Indo-European phonemes were spatial metaphors, the geography of the world symbolized and miniaturized in the mouth. Merleau-Ponty stayed up all night saying "sleet," which if you speak very slowly, you can sense the metaphor. After reading that, I tried all of our favorite Anglo-Saxon swear word, which also imitates that which it originally meant. I am now reading Irreducible, by Federico Faggin, in which he says that our every cell participates in both classical physics and quantum physics, and that it is no doubt in our "junk dna" that much of what we are and have potential to be resides. This makes the transhumanists not only tyrannical, but clearly either stupid or evil or perhaps both, since they are preventing what could be, what is waiting to be discovered. These Dunning-Kruger despots are also inflated, perhaps dark triad, about AI, which probably does represent their left hemisphere plus psychopathy perspective on humans. AI and AI driven content is hollow and formulaic, and I genuinely think AI doesn't comprehend poetry, partly because it can't participate in the mystery of the source of creativity. It is that participation that makes truly creative people humble in that they know some of what they are creating does not come from themselves, or any aspect of their being that can be articulated or made explicit. In the greatest lyric metrical sonorous poems the voice of the mother, as you say, can be imbibed again, like floating, for a moment again, in amniotic fluid. Read Fern Hill or The Beautiful Changes aloud and you are immersed https://poets.org/poem/fern-hill, https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43055/the-beautiful-changes
Can't wait to read your book.
Reading your deep thoughts, my mind turned towards troops firing at each other, killing, wounding, crippling each other.........how must they feel......how must they feel ?
Those that survived the war generally never speak about what they did, how they felt; they remain numb for the rest of their lives.
A long way from The Paradise of their mothers voice.
It’s true, it has been a concern of mine from my earliest years, and the question why we go there, and why accept it at the behest of others. As far as I am concerned, it depends on ourselves, what we are, without rejecting the conditionings that can strengthen our opinions and ways of seeing the world. We (individually) shape our societies and our own lives.
Thank-you Mia for your sincere response.
You and Mattias have proposed that the question of truth cannot be answered.
I on the other hand submit that knowledge of truth (not just belief) is possible.
Let's take your statement, "To affirm that God exists or not is impossible, one cannot prove it..."
Is this a statement of what you know to be true or something that you just believe (your faith)? If it is knowledge then you should be able to communicate your thoughts and experience whereby that knowledge has been acquired.
No one is too interested in what someone simply believes but if they know something it is worth talking about. I know that God exists. I know more than that about God but let’s limit our discussion to this for now. Proving this statement is not difficult. Here I will present some thoughts that lead to this conclusion and you can tell me if you agree or if you think I have made a mistake.
First it is necessary to define what we mean by God. We are not talking here about the God of the Bible or the Koran or some other religious tradition although those traditions may not be opposed to the God that we are speaking of.
We live in a cosmos where much of what we observe follows the laws of physics(science). Now imagine that as you are drinking coffee one morning you look through the window and you see a leaf drop to the ground. If you are in a contemplative mood you might try to consider the string of events that led up to the particular event that you observed; the falling of a leaf. In this exercise of thought you attempt to trace back to the first thing that happened in the sequence of causes that led to the dropping of that leaf. The initial cause that started the sequence must be non-physical. For lack of a better word we will call that “God”. It(God) must be non-physical because if it was physical it would just be another physical cause as a result of previous physical causes.
In response, someone might propose that the sequence leading to the event that you observed is infinitely long (i.e. that there was no initial event); no event that is not simply the result of a prior infinite sequence of physical causes. This idea, however, is easily debunked. If there were an infinite number of prior physical causes in the sequence that led to what you observed, then you would still be waiting for that infinite sequence to arrive at the present event that you observe. It would not have happened yet. That is the nature of infinity.
This has proved that God, defined as the non-physical first-cause of the event that you observed, exists. It has not considered what God is like other than that he is not physical (we might use the word spiritual). If we are interested we will try to learn more but we will no longer question the existence of God.
If I may join in, you speak of God as the primordial origin, but it seems that He is still in time.
Let us go out of time. God is the necessary condition; He is that which conditions everything but has no condition itself. Only then is it easier to understand how nature and soul/consciousness are related. So, we are talking about a third element that conditions both; it is their source.
Consciousness is in the world, you are right, and we can look for physical causes of how it came to be, but there will always be an explanatory gap in relation to consciousness, to the qualities of consciousness. So, we have to understand there is also another truth: the world is in consciousness. Everything is in consciousness. This is where the opportunity to relate to Jesus opens up. We have to understand him in the context of the "symbolic" (Lacan), knowledge. Here spirituality acquires its "materiality", Lacan describes is it with the theory of the signifier. I would say that Mattias thinks in this context.
Isn't God something that acquires meaning in the context of knowledge and awareness? What can we know? What can we be absolutely sure of? What we cannot doubt, as Descartes would say.
In the study of consciousness, we collide with the necessary structure that makes consciousness itself possible (and with it everything that IS). Consciousness itself can ask what makes it possible, what is its condition. Where does consciousness stand in order to be able to think or be? This is why Lacan says that God is the unconscious. There is another place that speaks. There is a need for an inner split that makes us in the world but not part of the world. Don't you think the key question here is who am I? Do I really know myself? What am I (as Ramana Maharshi would ask)?
What if God is the answer to this question of existential uncertainty? God originally, I think in Sanskrit, means sacrificial smoke. So, it also refers to the sacrifice of illusions. Knowledge is within God, Spinoza would agree. We accept this (unconsciously) out of necessity, invoking the reality that He guarantees. He guarantees meaning. We have, on the one hand, states of ignorant consciousness and, on the other hand, an awakened consciousness - a God-consciousness that is aware of a certain necessary difference that is its source. God is important in this transition from ignorance to knowledge. He is a kind of reference point, an absolute ground, a ground of being.
But it is still not clear what its nature is. Mia, this is where your concern about the indeterminacy of the world comes in. Awareness of God is awareness of the inner split of the world, the necessary condition that makes the world finite but open to infinity. Awareness is always in relation to finitude/nothingness and infinity. In this sense there is no absolute place in the world, but there is a place of absolute division. The world is stateless, indeterminate... all that Mattias says.
Jesus affirms this difference, the God who is dying. We can say that he articulates the truth, we are talking about full speech (Lacan) and what Mattias associates with soul speech. Jesus is the subject of the new possibility, of impossible.
Point,
As far as I’m concerned, I appreciate the fact that we’re coming in.
It is an explanation that can be held, personally I do not want nor have the knowledge to argue about all this, since I know nothing about it. I do not subscribe to psychoanalysis, not that everything is false, but too many interpretations, in my opinion. To want to explain everything one can get lost. I listened to Lacan, and also read Spinoza, our readings, exchanges etc. allow moments of reflection, which can have an impact on our personal evolution.
Through my experiences, I can understand the deep consciousness to a certain point, concerning myself and what I observe, how to know where it ends and becomes complete, I don’t know, so I’m not going to go into it.
However, I have no worries about this world, it would be a waste of energy.
What I am concerned with in this world is what I can acquire as knowledge to improve even a little the living conditions of some being in difficulty, and do their best not to directly or indirectly harm their environment. I have no other motivations (apart from music and art) and of course human relations.
I have by reasoning and reflection been as far as I could, I am not looking anymore, I remain open to the arguments of others, who can always bring me reflections, Arguments that are valid and I would not have thought.
«I would say that Mattias thinks in this context,...»
«Jesus affirms this difference, the God who is dying. We can say that he articulates the truth, we are talking about full speech (Lacan) and what Mattias associates with soul speech.»
I don’t have the ability that you do, to state what Mattias thinks or expresses (we can suppose), in my opinion, implicitly, because I didn’t understand it as such in the text. Perhaps the translation...
I'm not saying I know what Mattias thinks. But I know the approximate context because I have read his books, including the one on Lacan.
Okay, that’s understandable, thank you for this clarification.
Hi Mia,
There may be many interpretations, but not all of them are good. Psychoanalysis and certain philosophies offer better concepts. But I am not here to lecture anyone; I am commenting to see if anyone will respond if they "vibrate" with what I am sharing. It is certainly possible to reflect without going into the specific philosophy of this or that author, but it is also possible to have a very fruitful dialogue with them.
Good reflection leads us to recognize the duties we have to the Universal. It is not just a question of wanting to help this or that person, the environment, etc. It is also about recognising that this is your/my duty.
Hi Point,
I appreciate your comments, even if I don’t share some of the points, which is normal, otherwise we would be copies. I like thoughtful exchanges, open-mindedness to try to understand the other.
Indeed, I only think about the best and most relevant ones.
In psychoanalysis, there is good, as elsewhere, but what I do not adhere to, are the explanations of why. One can assume that this or that has a direct link or not with such behavior, lived, suffering etc. It seems to me however good, even if observations, regularities etc. were noticed, that drawing conclusions on this basis necessarily has a direct link with our own personality, our ways of thinking, our lived and conditioned, it can therefore distort interpretations, judgments etc. Not to mention that it is not our job to interpret in an affirmative or so-called scientifically approved way, the lived experience, thoughts etc. of others. And I have heard it many times, everything or almost is explainable, as if we had access to the brains of others, it is not always easy for our own. And to rely solely on the patients' stories is not enough, in my opinion. A certain positive one seems more appropriate.
I share your view that “we can have a very fruitful dialogue with them”.
As long as it doesn’t interfere, but that a fruitful search can be done.
« Good reflection leads us to recognize the duties we have to the Universal. It is not just a question of wanting to help this or that person, the environment, etc. It is also about recognising that this is your/my duty. »
That I don’t share at all.
To begin with, I don’t know if there is a Universal, I suppose something extraordinary (I can not name or describe, because I do not know anything) that allows the living, life being our daily actions (personal distinction).
Then, I have no duty to, shall we say, this possible entity or anything else. I did not ask for anything, neither to be begotten (if it is the case) nor to have been catapulted here (if there is one elsewhere). So I owe nothing to anyone, or any living thing here on earth, this is an affirmation.
"It is not just a question of wanting to help this or that person, the environment, etc. It is also about recognizing that this is your/my duty. "
And concerning your last sentence, it is also not shared, because I do not recognize that this is my task, I have no, even to live, if I want to commit suicide, I’m free to do it, whatever the reasons.
My personal investments in this world, are totally free from a mental point of view, psychological...as far as possible, not from a biological point of view, I’m forced to breathe, to eat etc.
So what I do with the time allotted to me here is my own business, as long as I have no family, live in society and therefore depend on nobody.
Otherwise, I have obligations, which for me are not, because I chose, let’s say, partially my way of life, the conditioning from childhood, It has not allowed itself to be totally liberated from the demands of our societies and its subtly imposed visions. But I’m fully responsible.
I have a family, which I take care of, voluntarily, as most of us, it is a joy and not a duty, same for the environment and other living beings who live there, I owe them nothing, except not to destroy their living spaces, which belong to them just as ours belongs to us, so a balance is necessary to live in harmony, side by side.
I do nothing out of obligation, and I have always done so (if they excluded the conditioning from childhood) to which no one can escape at first, But it can be done as soon as one is fully aware of it.
So I am free, as far as possible and taking into account the present moment, not knowing how I will evolve in time, and what degree of freedom can be achieved, or that I can reach.
It is also for this reason, which I have already mentioned several times (in other comments), that knowledge changes us, having the proof of a God, let’s call it so for now, can encourage some to obey, to submit, not to go to the end of their possibilities (rational, research, life etc.) and many other things.
It would have nothing to do with freedom, one only discovers oneself when this is done without using the acquired knowledge, only introspection allows it, in my opinion.
It can therefore be assumed, because I judge only rarely (when necessary), and according to your comment, that you are not free as much as possible, since you have duties towards HIM (God), and you will consider that you have obligations.
For my part, I consider freedom as a state that one has reached (depending on the moment), the wish that others have the same chances, the same access etc. comes, I suppose, of decentralization of ourselves and possible union with other living beings.
I have noticed that translations are not always accurate, sometimes sentences are omitted, words are unfairly replaced etc., I hope it will be quite understandable.
Thank you for your arguments, I appreciate it.
Thank you for arguing too.
I share that, the knowledge of truth, although this knowledge is limited, we do not know everything, and to be honest, me very little.
"Let us take your statement, "To affirm where God exists or not is impossible, we cannot prove it..."
No, not a statement, I wrote that I left it open, I can’t answer it, because I don’t know. I do not have this knowledge, I only have experiences that do not allow me to know their origin.
Okay, not the god of religion.
Then I understand and share the thought exercise (sequences of causes).
I also thought about that, which I called creative energy for lack of better, if this is the God you’re talking about, then okay, but another name would be better.
There is something that allowed the life.
The problem of Jesus in there, that spiritual would have sent Jesus, why do?
You’re getting into the Bible story, aren’t you? Historically we can not be sure that it existed, impossible to make the distinction between true and false.
« If we are interested we will try to learn more but we will no longer question the existence of God. »
How do you plan to learn more about him (spiritual...)?
This seems impossible to me, the reasoning is not enough, in my opinion, nor the observation of this world or ourselves.
How to learn more about the spiritual God?
Observation of the world is not enough but that is where we start.
I see 3 great masterpieces
- Physics, mathematics, precision, power, matter, light
- The phenomenon of life, diversity, fun all inexplainable by physics
- The human race, creativity, art, music, language, love, laughter, and a yearning for transcendent meaning all inexplainable by biology.
All of this shouts day and night of a person who creates, speaks, loves, laughs.
It does not explain everything but it is enough to compel us to look for more.
Mark,
To begin, you have not answered the question about Jesus, this answer is important for the understanding of your affirmations and certainties.
The problem of Jesus in there, that spiritual would have sent Jesus, why do?
You’re getting into the Bible story, aren’t you? Historically we can not be sure that it existed, impossible to make the distinction between true and false.
I do not ask for advice, nor for the means to learn more, I asked how you were going to do, but I remain open to viable arguments...proposed by others, I certainly have not explored everything through reasoning.
What I want in the exchanges is that when arguments are made in a response, that they are relevant, that the answers are right, that’s not the case, sorry.
Then, what you describe are findings, certainly unexplained, extraordinary...and observed by all or almost, this description is part of the observation of this world, and you deduce:
«All of this shouts day and night of a person who creates, speaks, loves, laughs. » ??
« It does not explain everything but it is enough to compel us to look for more.»
Looking for more, what ??
There you don’t really answer, you said to know more about Him :«I know more than that about God...»
So it seems to me that you’re lacking in valid arguments, not that this is a problem per se but it doesn’t fit with your assertions or the pretence of knowing more. So I am not seeking to know more about a spiritual entity, but a good argument that holds the way in exchanges on subject.
There I am not at all, can you please, answer more precisely. We can also end the exchange, if you prefer.
Hi Mia,
When I post a comment I try to stick to one thing at a time.
Your question, Why did God send Jesus? , was answered in my initial comment to Mattias. I quoted Jesus speaking to Pilate where he said, "For this cause I was born and for this cause I came into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth."
He came to answer the truth question. He did that with his life, his message, and again with his death and coming back to life.
His short answer to the reality question: The Kingdom of God
This is not an argument; it is just the historical record. You have been clear that you do not accept the Gospel stories as reliable and I can accept your doubts.
Do you think he was wrong?
When it comes to knowledge of the truth it is not just an academic exercise. Experience is required. This is true in all areas of life; not just in the spiritual.
Let's say you want to know about music. You start with an idea of how good it might be to be able to play. You might study about it and listen to music but at some point you form the intent to make plans and take steps to learn and experience. That's faith.
So knowledge of the truth requires action. I do not know much about God but I intend to act on the little I do know. This leads to the experience of seeing him act with me and ultimately to growing knowledge. That is my experience.
« Do you think he was wrong? »
If you’re talking about Jesus, I don’t know how I would know.
On the other hand, I suppose that over time, intelligent and benevolent people have had to bring reflections on the subject (truth), to the people occupy to live or survive.
So as such, it seems possible to me.
« When it comes to knowledge of the truth it is not just an academic exercise. Experience is required. This is true in all areas of life; not just in the spiritual. »
I fully agree, to over-intellectualize, we remain in the superficial, and we talk in the void.
Regarding your example on music, and the knowledge of truth, I understand. As far as I am concerned, I live it by observing myself, the world, as much as possible, without adding or removing anything, therefore without any interpretation. Of course this ability was not always there, it happened when I wanted nothing but that, a deep desire, for you is faith, It is assumed that everyone has their own experiences, the important thing is sincerity.
Concerning myself, I was not looking for an entity (whatever the name) to know if there was one or not, what importance, I wanted it to understand this world and its violence, its malice. I didn’t find anything, so I stay in the action trying to do the best. Now, in hindsight, I don’t think knowing would have changed anything. Humans are masters of their lives, animals not, until proof to the contrary, as already mentioned, I have no more knowledge.
My goals are therefore, to continue learning how to do the best, it is not unlikely that one day or another, reflections other than mine will open new understandings or learning. That’s why I appreciate the subjects of Mattias, we can reflect, question, exchange, it is very enriching.
For those who have not seen this beautiful film.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHJ0GrYCHJQ
You start by asking Pilate’s question to Jesus, “What is truth?” and then immediately state your assumption that it cannot be answered. This makes one wonder: Do you have a basis for your assumption? and Are you hopeful that you can find the answer?
In his conversation with Pilate, Jesus stated that his life purpose was to answer the question. “For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth.”
And that summarizes the story of what he did and the message he proclaimed. His view of reality (truth) has over the last 2000 years reliably transformed the lives of those who put their confidence in him by initiating in them a new kind of life. I do not know of any exceptions.
Perhaps you do not think his description of truth is consistent with reality as you have seen it? If so you should say so and point out where you see inconsistencies. In any case, in order to practice the sincere speech that you are advocating you can not simply ignore Jesus’ answer.
HI Mark, here is what I think: this question cannot be answered definitively at the rational level. There is no ultimate definition of what Truth is. But Truth resonates in language; it re-appears time and time again, always in a new linguistic dress. Much more about that in later substacks.
Here is an example: a fisherman's insight.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it.
To begin with, I don’t know if Jesus existed, what he was, I don’t trust the history etc. which doesn’t mean that everything is false, Only that to make the sorting between one and the other you have to know.
Then I don’t know if we can find the answer, maybe it’s there just now, but either we’re lying or we don’t know it yet. Personally I don’t look for it anymore, if I speak honestly I know, diem if I lie, well of course one can unintentionally lie by transmitting information etc. either not verified or not verifiable, in the latter case, we should perhaps say "I suppose", "I think", "maybe"...
"I do not know of any exceptions."
Well, your circle is small, like all of us. Nobody knows what is happening in the depths of every being, even in our own families, and the transformation you’re talking about may simply be a conditioning linked to this belief, The latter is not a certainty. I respect faith, that’s not the point.
To report inconsistencies we must have more than beliefs, plausible assumptions, facts that are not in reality, or only partially...
"In any case, in order to practice the sincere speech that you are advocating you can not simply ignore Jesus’ answer."
This is a false statement, you selectively gather elements on the basis of your belief. The latter should not be excluded from discourse, but these are personal opinions, which deserve their own space.
This is a matter of truth, which is a fact, limited certainly by our perceptions, of ourselves and of this world, e.g. testifying to a fact may be truthful, as long as it is described precisely without adding or removing any. On ourselves it is already more delicate, it depends on what we talk about, describe precisely a localized pain following a fall...is a truth, describe objectively what we see in this world is also, on the other hand, affirm the why of how maybe, true, false or lying (it depends on what is observed), whether it is voluntary or not does not change anything.
To affirm that God exists or not is impossible, one cannot prove it, hence the word believe, personally I leave these questions open, one cannot answer them. However, it happens that we have access to something not provable but real, verifiable by some only but not provable to all.
In this case, it is specified by mentioning "I know" but cannot prove it.
Regarding the existence of a God or other entity, I do not think that is possible (direct personal experience), From the moment we would have irrefutable evidence of its existence, we would change our vision of ourselves and this world, freedom (attainable as far as possible) would be lost.
I’m not saying that it will never happen, I don’t know anything about it, only that in this world (how to know if there are others), it seems impossible.
Text translated, ca be not verry well expressed.
Thank you so much for this. How delicious is it that you wrote this just as Neptune is activating 29 Degrees of Pisces (its own sign) and Pluto is in Aquarius, touching on universal themes of self, unity, immersion, union, the numinous, art, poetry, humanity, Utopia(s), Utopian visions, technology, "progress," the dark side(s) of "progress" and more. Fascinating, really, how very many themes came out here -
I agree that it might get downright scary - both inside our own heads at times, or in the manifestation of visions of certain others. Let's tread with clear vision, as much as possible in this seminal point between the old world and the new, . . . like our lives depend on it . . .
I appreciate your clear vision and your voice in this world.
I will like you to touch more upon the ways in which a schizophrenic person is sometimes closer to the truth than her normal counterparts, despite the obvious shortcomings of her thinking. I have started to think, in lines with what Carl Jung perhaps also understood, is that the proclamations of schizophrenic person are often factually false, but sometimes valuable, as a story is often true and valuable despite being fictitious. In some ways, because they are unconstrained by the need to maintain logical consistency and relying on prevalent worldview, they become more attuned to some more obscure aspect of reality. Of course, this is not true for all their proclamations, but some can be of great value in the hands of the right listener. If this is true, it can bring some dignity and respect of these individuals and make them more understood.
Sushrey,
That is a relevant question.
Having worked with people who are said to be psychotic (and also other disabilities), I also noticed this, as well as a great intelligence in some. I have since understood that the diagnosis is wrong, as for many other diseases, by design, it still took me time to understand this.
I guess, as for us, the deep reflection on certain subjects, some exceptional events or other... cause questions and require answers, I noticed that some do not want, can not..., how to know, stay without.
They then construct one, see several theories, to which (s) they cling or juggle between one or the other, I suppose, that it could be some false proclamations etc., but again how to know.
Their neurological condition is in the long run affected by, which seems to me to be a continuous overload, I am not a specialist, nor competent in the field, but long and meticulous exchanges and observations allow to assume, without claiming that it is more than likely.
"what Carl Jung perhaps also understood, is that the proclamations of schizophrenic person are often factually false, ...but sometimes valuable, as story is true and valuable despite being fictitious."
I didn’t understand this last part of the sentence, "...as story is true and valuable despite being fictitious."
"If this is true, it can bring some dignity and respect of these individuals and make them more understood."
I fully share, we can learn a lot from them, listen carefully, question with tact, because often very reactive to facial expressions...
I should have written that sentence more carefully. We all read and think about stories, which we know are false. It often stated right there in the preface of the novel. Yet, such stories are often of great relevance. Take for example Shakespeare's plays. Many of them are based on fictional or embellished accounts. They are not valued for being the narrative account of true events, rather for bringing to stand forth truths about life in general. Some of these truths cannot be compressed into a simple sentence and can only be understood with the full context of the story.
In my opinion, stories help us see some things more clearly than an actual account of events. In this way, a story presents truth, despite never taking place. By being able to flexibly build premises, sometimes even using imaginary constructs such as magic, they help us get clear view of otherwise obscure parts of experience.
This flexibility, I believe, is something people with schizophrenia also experience. Like playing story-time with real life. They are highly suggestive and have a different salience landscape. This may allow them to pick up on patterns others may miss. Since they are unencumbered by having to rely on the prevalent worldview, their delusions may seek connections freely between seemingly unrelated stimuli.
Of course, delusions in most patients will also follow the typical pattern which is seen with the disease. However, there is also other content, which might be valuable in the hands of the right listener.
A person with the disorder once told me, "I am being persecuted." I asked why. She replied "because I am a young girl. There are people in the world who hate young girls, who hate them for their youth, freshness and innocence. Once they have become married, and lose this trait, these people no longer hate them and respect them." I often think about this when thinking about patriarchy and feminism. It to me sheds some light on possible motivation behind patriarchy, at the same time, reveals something about the state of the subconscious of a feminist.
Sushrey,
No, it is I who have not understood it, I allow myself to ask for clarifications, hoping that this does not bother you.
I understand what you’re saying, the misunderstanding may be due to the fact that I’m of a direct nature, I tried to understand, I got stuck, This shows that our personality can sometimes restrict access to other forms of storytelling.
I don’t appreciate much mythology, except some and some Nordic, Shakespeare yes, and you’re right, this is better accepted and integrated, perhaps because we feel directly targeted, and that it causes a rejection.
« This may allow them to pick up on patterns others may miss. Since they are unencumbered by having to rely on the prevalent worldview, their delusions may seek connections freely between seemingly unrelated stimuli. »
In this sense, it has good sometimes, excessive conformism is heavy sometimes.
Yes, as a psychologist, you have something to think about, and all these cultural or other conditionalities that weigh on our daily lives. What often strikes me is that it’s easy to make, but it takes time before we’re ready to do it.
I have met on trips to some countries where patriarchy is almost omnipresent, that some have not adopted it, and have, I suppose, by nature or reflection...a more balanced view of the relationship between men and women. This could suggest that conditioning alone is not enough, perhaps personal interests come into play.
As for feminism, I have not met one, if my memory is good, or else, I did not dwell on it more than that, I suppose, that there is also a certain imbalance, an excessive focus on promoting gender equality. I fully share this on certain points, politics, employment (often underpaid), citizens' rights etc., depending on the country. But we will never be equal in everything (physical strength...), the way of approaching life in general...our way of thinking, perhaps, related or not to evolution and the respective occupations.
Maybe there is a hint of inferiority, not necessarily a complex, who knows. This may reflect the non-acceptance of the condition to be.
As far as I’m concerned, I’m a woman, but don’t dwell on it any more than that, I feel more human to be honest, I don’t need to emphasize my gender identity, It doesn’t bother me. It manifests itself in different situations, but I tend to feel more like a being.
I am amazed by the capacity of our brain to be able to free itself from many, in my opinion, useless mental constructions.
Psychotics are also wonderful beings, once you know how to approach them, listen to them. It just takes patience, understanding a different state, a different way of expressing oneself etc., once these barriers are overcome, They can also provide us with some ideas.
Yes, I think not obsessing over one's gender and living one's life freely is very sensible.
Thanks Mattias. The following statement you make resonates a lot with me since i think this was kind of my natural state.
"From this exploration, we derive a core characteristic of sincere speaking: in a sense, sincere speaking takes us back to the core of our Being, before it was covered by social conventions and meaning. Sincere speaking is done primarily from the feeling, animated body; much less from the head; it is an emotional speaking rather than a thinking-rational speaking. One who speaks before thinking is more sincere than one who first surrenders too much to considerations about what is right to say, about what must, may, and can be said."
That said being in the corporate world I have in the last time noticed that some kind of behavioral psychology is used to influence our emotions to basically train out this kind of sincere speaking out of you so you conform to the "Homo Deus" idea and conform to the souless corporate agenda which also connects to what you mentioned in your previous de-souling article. It is a known statement from Harari that "Humans are now hackable animals" and I think this is the implementation of what he means. I would be very interested if you could look into the corporate psychological methods and tell more if it is possible to keep your soul in such environments.
Impressive! Thanks… 🙏🏼
Beautiful essay on the power of words and what is expressed behind them. We can use it for connection, to experience we are all one, or we can use language to manipulate others and create fear and separateness.
Recognizing when you are under the spell of the ego illusion of separateness is the important first step to take before you can make contact with your true self and practice the art of sincere speech. 'Past Reality Integration' defines 5 defence mechanisms that form a concrete definition of the ego. Keeping them in mind is a necessary step to prevent errancy and delusion, because of the strong defensiveness of our ego. Our first reactions aren't allways from our true inner voice, like from the innocent, divine baby we once were, but often a defensive ego reaction or ego need we try to fulfill, without us consciously realizing it.
The 5 illusion described by the Dutch psychologist Ingeborg Bosch, who developed PRI are
- fear
- self doubt
- stress
- anger
- indifference
PRI also provides a method to dismantle the illusions and become in a free state, just as the little child must have been in, just before the defense mechanism became active.
How do you see this Mattias? Maybe I state it too firmly that we first have to recognize our ego talk/the mind with its thought and stories. I think you are right that the first and far most important thing is that we listen to our first reaction. But it is not always a good idea to express them. It depends on in what part of your consciousness you are in.
I personally can be way too impulsive with my first reactions, leading to miscommunication or difficult situations.
But in an environment where people are truly listening, it is more easy to be with your true self and speak sincere.
Mattias, please write something about ethical principles on the one hand and singularity on the other.
Do you follow the flow of singular events, which can change all the time, or do you follow the principles, which are eternal?
You have contributed to my thinking about truth. Truth is a hard nut to crack, especially if we want to go beyond the theories of correspondence and coherence, but also beyond truth as event and unconcealment, where truth is no longer a correspondence with an event, but becomes an mismatch, becomes a revelation of the real? But what if we introduce another turn, a more structural one, what if truth is a place inscribed in every symbolic form? Then the question came to me: where is truth born? And this is where your essay comes in. Truth has a place, it is born in my body. But is it really about the body? Or is the body a metaphor, because the body is always in the mind. Truth is born in the intellect (nous), in what is sometimes called intuition, which is pre-reflective, which precedes conscious rational reflection. This is how it is. Rational reflection has to take into account what we know pre-reflectively to be true and what we may be deceiving ourselves. We need truthfulness, we need a radical consciousness that feels the vibration of the field we are in. Poetic language can capture the rays of being, the rays of conscious oneness with all that is. Truth is therefore the place where the unconscious is born as the intuition of the mind to "understand" what is happening. Speaking the truth is the articulation of the strings of being that connect us to the whole. I would say that truth is not something rational, not even "corporeal", but a description of the flesh of the world. The love of truth is the condition of all knowledge, and to articulate it is the procedure of truths: love, art, politics, science.
Point,
« I would say that truth is not something rational, not even "corporeal", but a description of the flesh of the world. The love of truth is the condition of all knowledge,...»
I agree with that statement, but I think it’s valid to some degree.
The truth of this world is the real, what we observe without interpretation, explanation...none. However this to its limits, because it can happen at some point, that the dark glasses that we have always worn, are removed following a triggering event and that we realize, that reality is much more, quite different, etc. from what we had observed objectively before. There a baculement intervenes, questions...but the love of the truth, condition of all knowledge, accepts not to have answers to everything.
Oh, yeah.
Merleau-Ponty said that phenomenological interrogation is never complete, and Lacan talked about the ontological non-completeness of the world, because there is no meta-language or big Other of the Other....
To accept that you don't have answers and that the world is torn and wounded, like the body of Christ... yes, that's really love.
I started the book of Schopenhauer that is mentioned in the comments, it is difficult, I take notes, an impressive writing, it is beautiful, but we have questions from the beginning, some parts are explicit, other ambiguous (in my opinion), and makes me think of another of his books "the art of always being right", it seems to me to have read a sentence so, I can understand that there are cases like that, but on some points, I found it strange. Anyway, I’m curious about what’s next.
I was talking about the world in general, about this domination, the answers are numerous, and as far as I am concerned, sufficient to take action, but that is another subject.
I haven't read Schopenhauer yet. We are also limited here, by time.
You choose something, then you insist on being open to the openness of the world. You act. But then what, when the abyss opens up again - the emptiness, the loneliness - you touch that which keeps tripping up your life.
Dylan Evans in a blog (https://medium.com/@evansd66/the-immortal-life-of-ida-bauer-300093fb4040) talks about what a hero is all about: speaking honestly in public.
Kant already said it: think, then say it out loud (you act). That is the ethical principle. Then you say it, including everything that is unacceptable, that's why you suffer the consequences of not being accepted, people move away and you are left alone again. Honesty is dangerous. Who will you then call? You can only call your friend Loneliness, who is the only one who will not leave you, but also only friend you always want to avoid.
The hero speaks out, he is brave precisely because he suffers and is afraid.
There is a problem that Shunyamurti decribed as: Facing with emptiness ..."is the black hole that the ego isn’t strong enough to confront, and therefore would rather continue its vain fantasies of connections that aren’t real, and stay in a Peter Pan type of state, rather than to grow beyond the loneliness into the truth of what reality is."
Relevant
I have always observed the world, and wanted to understand what is happening there. I have by chance or other, discovered some things, which I can not however say that they are real, others happened but without knowing the origin, I do not have total control over my brain.
The abyss, I know, I came out of it after having touched the bottom of my sadness, I could not explain how, it happened, I no longer feel loneliness, or quite a few other things, I call it the tipping, I tried a lot to understand, I have no answer, I can only assume, but what good, I have neither the desire nor the time for it.
I leave the "medium" question open, all the answers as to the origin of these are interpretations, which does not prevent experiments can be verified, but this is also recovered by abusers etc., so sorting is difficult. I don’t dwell on it, I let things happen.
It may be necessary for some where all, how to know, a triggering event causing the fall of the ego, hearing the state type Peter Pan is a good explanation.
What about infant male genital mutilation at birth. The young child often without pain medication has the end of his penis removed moments after entering air and before suckling and the sounds of his mother. It occurred in a very high amount of the population in Australia and to this day in many countries.
The bonding sounds of the mother you describe are grasped at through intense localised pain. Poor breast feeding a potential downside.
Give the baby boys the care they need lest they grow up triggered as an Iraq vet.
Let society allow more young males experience that paradise of the mothers voice free off pain and trauma.
Do you know if, apart from unjustified health reasons, there is another reason why they strongly insist on the need for these interventions, as is the case in other countries, mainly religious.
It’s become thoughtless tradition. The health benefits have all been debunked. No other mammal does it.
Yes, one can assume that the origin of this so-called necessity is lost, in this case remain clinging to the tradition with terrible consequences.
Thank you for your feedback.