New Civilization News: Commonsense, Fascist Regimes and the Ego    
 Commonsense, Fascist Regimes and the Ego7 comments
28 Jun 2007 @ 17:25, by John Ringland

Commonsense, Fascist Regimes and the Ego

Whilst talking about commonsense realism and truly overcoming it, are two very different things it is still very useful to talk about something when there is extreme misunderstanding about it.

To give an example - talking about the dangers of smoking and actually quitting are two very different things however if a person believed that smoking was totally natural and normal and there was no reason to quit then first they need to overcome that illusion before they have any chance of actually quitting and becoming healthy. Talk can be a vital preliminary to actually doing.

So I'll clarify commonsense realism a little more by talking about commonsense in general. Commonsense is just a blanket term for whatever unquestioned belief system is dominant at the present time.

At various times it has been commonsense to keep slaves or to beat children or to oppress women or to carry a sword or to wear high heels or to smoke cigarettes. Commonsense is a collective trance that changes over time according to its own dynamic.

Furthermore, civilisation is a communal understanding and commonsense is the foundation of that understanding. It is a subtle dogma that maintains a regime. See The Gaian-Ego Hypothesis and Collective Meditation to Counter the Collective Ego.

Every regime has its dogma which is a set of beliefs that are protected from reason by a culture of denial. The nature of a regime is determined by the nature of its commonsense.

A fascist regime is a cultural construct that arises in a culture and appropriates the society, using that society as its body to pursue its agendas and act out its delusions. The regime believes that it is the real entity and the society is just its body - that is its deepest commonsense.

Similarly an ego is a thought construct that arises in a mind and appropriates the cellular society, using that society as its body to pursue its agendas and act out its delusions. The ego believes that it is the real entity and the cellular society is just its body - that is its deepest commonsense.

There is no permanent entity in a society that 'is' the regime. The regime is just a phenomenon that emerges from the culture and persists through cultural memory. If everyone was to forget that it existed it would cease to exist. So the regime needs to make sure that it stays in the cultural memory by creating symbols, traditions and a constant stream of propaganda.

Similarly, Krishnamurti says of the ego: "Every time a thought is born, you are born. When the thought is gone, you are gone. But the 'you' does not let the thought go, and what gives continuity to this 'you' is thinking. Actually there's no permanent entity in you, no totality of all your thoughts and experiences. You think that there is 'somebody' who is feeling your feelings - that's the illusion."

A well balanced ego is like a friendly fascist regime and an unbalanced ego is like a totalitarian regime. All regimes are very attached to their commonsense belief system and they protect it at all times. If the beliefs were to change the collective discourse would change so the nature of the communal understanding would change so the regime would change.

A commonsense dogma is a paradigm, i.e. an interpretive mechanism that transforms raw sensory stimulation into a meaningful world-experience. It gives meaning to all features of that world-experience and defines what is believed to exist and what is believed to be possible, it also guides one's actions and agendas within the context of that world-experience. So different paradigms create different world-experiences and different ways of existing within them.

The main purpose of commonsense dogma is to maintain a false interpretation of the underlying reality and thereby create an illusory world that enshrines the regime at its very centre. So whilst commonsense can be very useful to the regime as it navigates the illusory world that arises from the commonsense paradigm, its main purpose is to keep the underlying society in a trance that maintains the existence of the regime. It also serves to keep the society enslaved within the regime's agenda and subservient to its will.

In regards to social commonsense we are led to believe in the state as the central power nexus and we cannot even conceive of a society without the state. Furthermore the social commonsense discourse determines the nature of that state and guides it as it manipulates the society in pursuit of its agendas, desires and delusions. In regards to our own commonsense we are the state and our inner commonsense discourse guides us as we manipulate the cellular society in pursuit of our agendas, desires and delusions.

The mind/culture is like a mirror that reflects an image of reality. Commonsense is a form of memory, it is an accumulation of dents and scratches on the mirror that form a particular pattern of distortions, which create a distorted world-experience. The biggest intrinsic distortion is that the perceptions arise from a localised perspective and are processed by a centralised mind/culture - this creates the idea of a centralised entity and an ego-centric or regime-centric view of reality. Within the context of this distorted view many dents and scratches accumulate on the mirror thus producing further distortions of the view.

Through commonsense realism that central entity assumes that the distorted world-experience is the actual reality. It thereby comes to believe itself to actually live in that distorted world with itself enshrined at the very centre. Hence every sense experience is misinterpreted and every thought, belief and agenda is from the perspective of the ego/regime and is therefore out of alignment with the actual reality.

Hence, regarding the world-experience that is mistaken for the objective reality, the Lankavatara Sutra says: "It is like an image reflected in a mirror, it is seen but it is not real; the one Mind [universal consciousness] is seen as a duality by the ignorant when it is reflected in the mirror constructed by our memory... the existence of the entire universe is due to memory that has been accumulated since the beginningless past but wrongly interpreted."

One can either remain in an unthinking condition and simply accept the distorted world as being reality or one can recognise the distortions and seek to clarify one's illusions and thereby polish the mirror. An open mind eventually polishes the mirror whereas a closed mind eventually gouges deep scratches into it.

Regimes and egos are loathed to polish the mirror - they find any excuse or denial tactic to avoid it. They polish only certain narrow grooves and make intricate patterns (e.g. traditional science) because they fear the bigger picture. If reality was to intrude upon the unquestioned dogma then it would reform the corrupt discourse and the regime could no longer appropriate the society. So regimes are especially fearful of reality because it liberates the underlying system which wakes up from the trance and realises that the regime has no permanent reality and that they need not be enslaved by it.

The regime experiences such an influx of reality as the breakdown of its precious commonsense dogma and the weakening of its grip on what it confusedly thinks is itself. Regimes experiences reality as a death blow and are horrified by it because they are a construct of illusion. If reality is light then the ego/regime is a shadow creature that is destroyed by the light.

Often as the society begins to awaken from the trance the regime panics and tries to shock the society through outrageous actions that throw the society into chaos and they even inflict deliberate harm on the society. If pushed to the limit many regimes would choose to destroy the society rather than be overthrown by it. They often cling to control until the last dying breath of the society because that is all they know.

The regime/ego is totally caught up in its illusory world and experiences a process of liberation as an existential crisis. In its mind 'it' is the real entity and if the society liberates itself then the regime ceases to exist. So its experience is one of anxiety, despair, psychosis and often suicide.

A mystic is initially a regime that deliberately and carefully works toward the liberation of the society and the dissolution of the regime. As they proceed the society becomes more and more free and vital and harmonious and upon final liberation the regime dissolves and the being dwells in reality rather than commonsense delusions.

A schizophrenic or manic depressive is someone who is in a state of revolt, where the society is attempting to overthrow the regime but the regime mindlessly clings to power. The role of psychiatry is that of other regimes assisting the embattled regime to assert and maintain its oppression of the society.

Hence R.D. Laing says: "Mystics and schizophrenics find themselves in the same ocean, but the mystics swim whereas the schizophrenics drown."

Whereas a 'normal' person is a fascist regime where the society is totally dominated and unable to do anything but submit to the regime and dream of freedom. Whilst the mystics and schizophrenics are in the ocean between the island of oppression and the island of freedom, the average person is busy making a home and trying to find a comfortable rut on the island of oppression.

The average person keeps to commonsense and lives out their days in oppression, which is tolerable if they are lucky. The schizophrenic falls into the ocean and flounders whilst the commonsense people try to drag them back onto the island of oppression. And the mystic swims across to the other island after which the oppressed people speak of them in hushed superstitious tones as being 'enlightened' when all they are is free. But a slave cannot really know what freedom is until they taste if for themselves and generations of people born into slavery think that oppression is natural and freedom is supernatural.

This little story gives some idea of the depth of delusion that most people dwell in. They are a regime exerting control over an underlying society and they believe that they are the only entity. But they are a figment of the mind and the underlying organism is the real entity. We are regimes living within a regime. There is a two tiered system of oppression and delusion. Our own oppression of cellular societies creates a personal commonsense discourse that we amplify between us into a commonsense culture that oppresses human societies.

All of this delusion originates from commonsense realism and it grows into a corrupt discourse that enshrines the illusions within a commonsense dogma. The way to liberate the cellular and human societies is to question the commonsense dogma and to eventually overcome the commonsense realism.

Best wishes : )
John Ringland



[< Back] [New Civilization News]

Category:  


7 comments

30 Jun 2007 @ 05:35 by a-d : Just to make a point
about the ENGLISH word "COMMON Sense"....

I'm now starting to see how and what you see as commonsense (realism)
the RATIONAL and among a select group of dorks agreed upon that "this is how it is -for ALL to follow!" to support a SYSTEM that is put in place -and kept in place by these EGO-MEGALOMANIACK-IDIOTS with THEIR Hidden Agendas to fulfill for THEIR OWN SELFISH reasons... HOW IN THE ----- world can that be seen as Common Sense??????????????????????

In other languages it is called : (one's ) HEALTHY Sense = one's (0wn) TRUTH -or ( yet in other lingos) one's WHOLISTIC Sense/wholistic Truth = LOGIC.
God's secret name is Logos/Logic(Word) Words are logic to those who master them! Besides, the word really has nothing to do with what you guys make it out to be (in english use ). Why one's truth is to be "sneezed at", Idunno!... Do you? (ONLY) the TRUTH will set you free -after all.... Let's talk about this more when you can turn water into wine with your intention, walk on water, wake dead back to life etc!.... ; ) .... these things and greater will "you" (Iiiii... ) -eventually- do!... (because I totally understand the Logic of it all. "All" I need is to walk from this vibration to the vibration that allows me these things -and the greater things as well!... : ))

Cheers! see ya there. eh? ; )
I forgot to mention that I love RD Laing. He was one of the first I ran into as a young gal, who -guided by his COMMON Sense = what he felt to be true -that is indeed how he knew it (all) and he spit it out loud to all who were receptive -and we were a few- that it isn't the "mentally ill" that "really are the mentally ill in our Western Culture, they were indeed a HEALTHY RESPONSE to a sick society (in ) the Western Culture. One of his first books had this very theme and if I were to translate the Swedish Title to English, the book would be called: "Society as Illness" /" Samhället Som Sjukdom" and there is no such book (in English)!.... I've been looking for years to find something more about Laing. I never managed to find this book of his, that I read...nor here -or back home... ( Ahhhh, it must have been (the revised ) Self & Others /1969. (that matches with 'who' gave the book to me and with whom I associated at that time. as a young RN-To- Be-Student in H:ki.)

But I still don't understand your choice of words here!.... You use it differently than ANY person I ever ran into in my whole life!.... Do you have secret/Hidden Agenda, a need to confuse people???? I see it more and more in all you say!... You might as well talk chinese; the only thing seem s to be that I first THINK you're speaking English and me hence understanding it to the same measure as I would any other English speaking person's talk -only to, as time goes by, to realize that obviously you didn't talk the english I thought you did!.... Geezz.. soo weird!  



30 Jun 2007 @ 16:41 by istvan : NCN Rage
Fantastic.  


30 Jun 2007 @ 20:31 by vaxen : Heh, heh...
Well, A-d, interesting. GoD has so many names. And Logos is Greek and etc., etc., But that was fun. I'd wanted to tear the compound word apart, commonsense, and place it more in lieu of how we presently being humans, apart from the pack, understand it but Johns point is marvelously taken and I decided not to say anything. Then along comes A-d and Kerplow. Heh, heh... Fantastik!

Good thoughts John. Thankyou. You, too, A-d...

The other night whilst watching the CBS "NIghtly" news (ahem) I noticed the commentator was saying: "President Bush is not only a lameduck president, he is a dead duck president." Interesting, I thought to myself. ;)  



2 Jul 2007 @ 21:21 by anandavala : Semantic Riddles and Un-Confusing Things
The disagreement is over semantics. This is a complex, subtle and personal issue so it's bound to be difficult to discuss. To further compound the problem we effectively live in a 'newspeak' society where the meanings of words are subtly or grossly distorted and it is very difficult to use those words to challenge the false beliefs that are distorting them. The truth when spoken in a distorted language generally sounds like a riddle.

For literal clarity I should have been more pedantic in my definitions - I'll try and clear it up here - sorry to confuse people but it's not easy to untangle a knot of confusion that has grown over centuries. I should probably use different terminology in this case but for now I'll just comment on some things that A-d said in order to do what I can to clarify the misunderstandings... This is very fertile territory for clarification so forgive me if this reply is rather long and detailed but there are important distinctions and issues raised, which I feel should be addressed.

First I'll address the issue of language and riddles so that the rest might make a little more sense - then I'll explain the distinction that I make between 'commonsense', "common sense" and "commonsense realism" (which I call "naive realism" here just for clarity).

Regarding your comment:
"Do you have secret/Hidden Agenda, a need to confuse people????"

I would relate this to your quote of R.D. Laing (which is one of my favourite quotes too): "it isn't the "mentally ill" that "really are the mentally ill in our Western Culture, they were indeed a HEALTHY RESPONSE to a sick society (in ) the Western Culture"

And I would add that, feeling confused is a healthy response to living in a corrupt discourse. It isn't I who is trying to confuse people - they are already confused and I am trying to un-confuse them by encouraging them to question the foundations of their confusion. Those who are comfortable and oblivious of their confusion are the most confused but those who struggle with confusion are potentially on the mend.

But people generally only accept things that align with their confusion and reinforce it so it is difficult for them to un-confuse themselves when in the midst of their confusion - only those who apply effort and careful clarity of mind can succeed. Do a search for "general semantics" if you want some other help in the matter - and check out the book "drive yourself sane".

Regarding the comment:
"You might as well talk chinese; the only thing seem s to be that I first THINK you're speaking English and me hence understanding it to the same measure as I would any other English speaking person's talk -only to, as time goes by, to realize that obviously you didn't talk the english I thought you did!.... Geezz.. soo weird!"

We are both speaking English but using different conceptual frameworks - therein lies the riddle. If you try and understand this as you "would any other English speaking person's talk" you will totally misunderstand but if you understood the mystic paradigm you would see that I'm talking about very elementary principles and I'm going to great lengths to be as clear as I possible can. Most mystics would sum it up in a few lines and just assume that you need to do decades of meditation before you will understand - but I am inspired to try and communicate it rationally to people who are open minded enough to contemplate the issues. It's not impossible to do but those few lines expand to fill whole essays and websites and e-books and mathematical discourses and software - but if people understood the basic principles then just a few lines would suffice.

But a major difficulty is the confusion of language and also the depth of naive realism. It is an artefact of naive realism that people assume that their associative experience of a word IS the meaning that is being conveyed - but they often fail to adequately account for the fact that their subconscious associative network that transforms the raw sensory data into an experience of meaning is entirely a construct of their beliefs. If people have different subconscious beliefs their words may appear the same but they have entirely different meanings. When an average person says 'I' they are saying something totally different to when a mystic says 'I'. So too with the words person, world, being, doing, mind, matter, God, existence, and on and on...

Experience with mathematics is good for overcoming the habit of using inappropriate associations - because a symbol often has no history of association and you need to determine what it means solely from the way that it participates with other symbols. But the symbols 'sex' or 'God' carry a great deal of associative baggage - which is useful when that baggage is relevant but very troublesome when it is confused or inappropriate for the context. I try and juggle both factors - I am redefining words based on their participation with other words but I'm also trying to salvage the appropriate associations and ditch the accumulated confusions.

Much of the process of un-confusing people is to un-confuse the language. For example: a naive realist believes that there is only one objective world that we all experience as an undeniable fact of life - but in reality we all experience our own subjective worlds that are cognitive impressions that we confuse as being the objective world (this confusion is naive realism). So the phrase "the world" has totally different meanings for different people and the common meaning is entirely false and misleading. By propagating the idea of a common objective world that we all have direct access to we reinforce naive realism and steadily drive people deeper into delusion. Only in the more realistic understanding of a 'world' as a subjective experiential context that we share via culture communications about our various worlds - only within the context can one understand the Buddha when he says: "with our thoughts we make the world."

There is definitely 'something' objective there that is stimulating the senses and mind but we have no sensory information by which to say what that 'something' is - but materialists just believe that it is matter and they believe that that isn't a belief so they are doubly blind believers where as they consider non-materialists to be blind believers. The confusions go very very deep and the riddles can be mind boggling - but it can all be ironed out with simple clear awareness. In contrast to the materialist beliefs - actual experience and rational science indicate that we are not objects in space but more like virtual beings in a virtual reality where there is no material external world at all but things still 'seem' material - it is all the flow of cosmic consciousness.

As consciousness flows within we call it mind and as consciousness flows without we call it matter so the objective reality is cosmic consciousness. This is the cutting edge scientific conclusion that quantum physics is forcing physicists to slowly and grudgingly accept after almost a century of denial - it is the ancient mystic conclusion - it the conclusion from experiments in consciousness - also from work in computational metaphysics and system science - and it is also a point that I make repeatedly throughout my work such as in The Scientific Case Against Materialism - and most of my website is dedicated to that point.

To give you an idea of the differences in the conceptual languages that we are speaking here is a small glossary of basic terms that I composed for a recent e-book. For example, here is the entry for physical:

/quote/
In the OLD-PARADIGM physical means the naive idea that implies that physical objects ontologically exist and that all ‘real’ things are physical objects operating within a physical universe.

In the NEW-PARADIGM physical means an idea that arises in human minds due to their experience of a systemic perceptual illusion based on the flow of information within a common information space. It is the pervasiveness and voracity of the illusion that leads us to believe in it. The systemic universe appears in a system’s subjective perceptual field as objects that seem to possess solidity, density, mass, colour and other empirical observables. From these experiences we form the idea of solid objects and we communicate our ideas and come to a consensus that we dwell in a physical universe. See virtual for more.
/unquote/

Such a paradigm shift changes the meanings of every concept that we've built upon the false foundation of materialism. But the shift away from egoism is even more transformative - put simply the ego is a naive realist illusion that has no existence in reality. It's not just a matter of assimilating these ideas into your current conceptual framework - but of radically restructuring your conceptual framework to be able to accommodate the idea. Just as the photo-electric effect is small in itself but it blew classical physics off its pedestal even though it had been entrenched for centuries - simply because classical physics couldn't accommodate that single idea - from this arose quantum physics which can accommodate it as well as much more besides.

When it is the foundations that shift everything else shifts with it. If there is no 'matter' and no 'I' then everything that relies on those flawed ideas needs to be rethought and realigned with the actual reality. Our common knowledge is still valid within narrow contexts but we need to expand the scope more widely to encompass all the things that it cannot comprehend. Materialism and egoism need to be re-contextualised within a more holistic paradigm just as classical physics is still useful within certain contexts but it is curtailed from intruding beyond its scope into contexts in which it simply has no meaning.

Paradigm shifts are the nuts and bolts of treading a spiritual path - there are many ways of walking it but these are the kinds of fundamental shifts in consciousness that need to occur somehow in order to stop dwelling in delusion and to realise reality. When reality consists of matter and ego we dwell in delusion - when we shift out of that paradigm we dwell in reality - at least, much closer to reality than we were.

--------------------------------
'commonsense' and "common sense"
--------------------------------
I should stress that in my usage 'commonsense' and "common sense" are very different things. Sorry to confuse you A-d. I should use different terminology - both to be clearer and to reclaim the term 'commonsense'. Maybe just use corrupt-commonsense and commonsense - I do this with many other terms such as religion but I didn't think to do that here... I'll make it clearer in the future.

The meaning that A-d associates with both, I only associate with "common sense" - this distinction is necessary because of the 'newspeak' society we live in where the term commonsense has been largely corrupted. Whilst the dictionary defines commonsense as "native good judgement without specialised knowledge", the way it is used in many contemporary idioms it refers to a phenomenon that is very rarely based on any kind of 'sense', in terms of being aware or being rational, it is more of a reflexive thought process that is programmed into our minds. It short circuits awareness and rational thought and it automates the thinking process into reflexive responses. It has become a culturally indoctrinated system of subconscious truisms and unquestioned beliefs. This is the antithesis of "common sense" which is "native good judgement".

Commonsense has become associated with being sensible within the social context - so it is sensible to obey authority because they wield the power and they will hurt you if you don't conform - but for any who are inwardly aware and open to their inner sense (as in mode of awareness), which is common to all (i.e. common sense) - it is common sense to live a life that is free and creative and that doesn't let itself be bound by authoritarian delusions. Furthermore - for a teenager it is commonsense to spend your money on that pair of Nike's because they make you cool, but it's common sense to avoid all of that consumerist brainwashing and focus on growing and living more fully and creatively. So commonsense says conform and common sense says be yourself and rebel if your environment tries to enslave you. If there was more common sense geniuses would be the norm and wage slaves would be an abomination.

The unquestioned reflexive programming of our minds occurs through a subconscious cultural resonance of minds - it is a memeplex that has evolved for many centuries largely outside of human control (the ancients nurtured it for the common good but over time we became largely unaware of it - although psyops such as advertising have been remastering it to manipulate people for profit and power). This subtle conditioning dictates our thought processes and it is very rarely recognised let alone called into question. Indeed it is commonsense not to rationally question commonsense - one just accepts it and believes it without even being aware that one is accepting and believing it. For this reason I call it a 'subtle' dogma and it has become the preferred field of operation for psychological manipulation - it is very different from a traditional dogma which is too crude and obvious to be really effective.

Just look at the difference between modern advertising / propaganda and traditional versions - modern versions are very subtle and use countless subconscious cues that are meaningless in themselves but through repetition and pervasive placement they wield enormous influence on the subconscious. Another aspect is subtle inferences that circumvent people's rational thinking and shift the discourse of their subconscious beliefs. Rather than explain why a product is useful you just make an eye catching logo and plaster it over entire cities, tv screens and anywhere you can place it so people cannot get away from it or you insinuate that it's 'cool'. The meme 'cool' is an extremely powerful psyop weapon that is routinely conditioned into young minds and then wielded against whole populations. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the 'cool' meme was one of the cultural creations arising from the CIA's MKULTRA program - it is certainly one of the most powerful psychological weapons in use today, almost as powerful as the 'normal' meme.

Modern dogma isn't so crude as to tell us what to consciously believe - it tells us we are free to pursue our desires - and then it subtly conditions our concepts of what is 'desirable'. It instils a fear of being uncool so people's egos strive to be 'cool' and then conditions our concept of what is 'cool'. It instils a fear of the 'abnormal' and then conditions our concepts of what is 'normal'. It knows that we like to be sensible so it conditions our concept of what is 'sensible'. Throughout all of this we are like rats set free to run around a maze but the subtle propaganda determines the layout of the maze and all the exits have been blocked off with memes such as undesirability, abnormality, uncoolness, insensibility and so on. This maze is what I mean by the term 'commonsense' and anyone with intact "common sense" would be fighting to find a way out but commonsense tells people to just relax and have fun - don't make trouble for yourself - here's some more distraction for you - that's better - don't go getting caught up with those crackpots - they're just so uncool...

But meanwhile - outside the rats race - beyond the maze of consumer frenzy - the ecosystem and the human spirit are being driven toward a precipice. It is naive realism and lack of awareness that traps people's minds in the maze - with awareness they can see beyond its walls and without naive realism they aren't fooled into believing in the reality of the walls so they can walk right through them. But first you have to realise that you're in a maze and not simply in reality. Knowing that you are trapped is the first step to achieving liberation. Understanding the trap is the second step.

What A-d describes as:
"among a select group of dorks agreed upon that "this is how it is -for ALL to follow!" to support a SYSTEM that is put in place -and kept in place by these EGO-MEGALOMANIACK-IDIOTS with THEIR Hidden Agendas to fulfill for THEIR OWN SELFISH reasons... HOW IN THE ----- world can that be seen as Common Sense??????????????????????"

That I would call dogma of a very traditional and un-subtle kind. Traditional dogma is very different from commonsense - which is a subtle dogma - or a subconscious memetic dogma. Furthermore dogma is the antithesis of "common sense".

A-d describes "common sense" well as:

"(one's ) HEALTHY Sense = one's (0wn) TRUTH -or ( yet in other lingos) one's WHOLISTIC Sense/wholistic Truth = LOGIC."

This is a good definition of "common sense" but this has little to do with 'commonsense'. And has even less to do with dogma and "commonsense realism".

I agree with A-d that one's truth is not to be "sneezed at" because only the TRUTH will set you free. But 'truth' is a powerful concept so it has become distorted in order to disempower people and turn them away from their inner truth and to make them dependent on dogmas that are either proclaimed to be the truth or subtly insinuated to be the truth. Too often people don't listen to their "inner sense" which is an inwardly directed awareness that is common to all of us (i.e. common sense) and instead they become entranced in the reflexive programming that is commonsense, which is characterised by a lack of awareness and an outward focus into the naive realist 'world' that is really just the illusions of the mind that are confused for reality. Too often people spend their lives mindlessly chasing sensual gratification and simplistic ideas of 'happiness' or 'romance' that are woven into cultural consumerist / nationalist propaganda mazes. They feel empty inside and slowly starving in spirit but they keep chasing the delusions because that's what their commonsense tells them to do. They no longer know what their "common sense" is and they lack awareness and they believe that those illusions are the reality - they quite simply don't know any better - they don't know what's outside the maze - they often don't even know that there is an outside to the maze.

Another distortion that keeps people trapped in the maze is the confusion between skepticism and cynicism - people usually use the word skeptical when they should really be using the word cynical. People know instinctively that skepticism is a worthy stance - but the confusion allows them to be cynical whilst believing that they are being skeptical. Skepticism is the application of reason to any and every idea - no sacred cows allowed. Skepticism can break people out of the maze so it has been twisted and in the name of skepticism people are encouraged to be cynical which is a scornful or jaded negativity, characterised by distrust of peoples stated motives or integrity. Skepticism is open minded enquiry whereas cynicism is closed minded clinging to one's current prejudices. So the propaganda uses this twist to fill people with prejudices and then encourage them to be 'skeptical'.

---------------------------------------
'commonsense' and "commonsense realism"
---------------------------------------
Secondly, regarding A-d's comment: "I'm now starting to see how and what you see as commonsense (realism)"

I should stress that 'commonsense' and "commonsense (naive) realism" are also VERY different phenomena. They are related in the sense that commonsense could not exist without naive realism and commonsense prevents people from questioning naive realism, but in terms of the actual phenomena themselves they are totally different and the main similarity is that they both use the word 'commonsense'.

It is technically more accurate to use the phrase "naive realism" but philosophers use both interchangeably. I prefer the phrase "naive realism" myself because it is much clearer but I've stopped using it in general contexts because I found that too many people's egos took offence to the word 'naive' - at which point their minds would become closed and they would totally fail to comprehend what "naive realism" was about. So "commonsense realism" is a gentle euphemism that isn't as offensive to sensitive egos. People's response was often a classic example of how naive realism keeps people trapped in their illusions but they were too caught in their illusion to see it as an example and learn from it. To them the word 'naive' was an insult and that's all it was - nothing more than an insult. They couldn't understand that that was just how their ego interpreted things and that in the actual situation it was just part of a philosophical term that was introduced in a rational discussion - but to them their impression WAS the reality - they couldn't discern the difference between their cognitive experience and the reality - to confuse these two IS naive realism.

I'm not suggesting that egoic obfuscation is what is happening here - there are a lot of subtle points and potential confusions - but taking offence is a very common tactic of egos so it is useful to watch oneself closely if one wishes to stay rational whilst discussing concepts that challenge the sovereignty of the ego and the validity of its domination over the organism. The ego is always trying to sabotage the discourse and looking for an excuse to throw a tantrum. Over the past few years I've witness scores of egos throw tantrums - the academics are often the most childish because they often have such huge and sensitive egos. The moment their ego gets a hint of where the discussion is going they become totally irrational - their mind goes into a storm of irrationality and first they go on a rampage to try and find something to object to so they can preserve their illusion of being rational but when they can't latch onto anything they become quite abusive and then they storm off and hide. I've learnt a lot from these encounters - it doesn't matter how gentle I am with them - they are trying to become offended - they want to neutralise the idea rationally and when they can't they get upset.

People in progressive movements are familiar with the way governments use similar denial strategies to avoid confronting issues that challenge governmental sovereignty and the government's right to dominate the population - people's egos use very similar denial tactics, using emotive triggers and reflexive thought processes to create a false impression which is then confused with the reality via naive realism, this serves to subvert the rational thought processes when those thoughts are challenging the dominion of the ego. All of this happens subconsciously so the organism is unaware that they are being manipulated by their ego which is trying to keep them enslaved in its web of egoic delusion.

Regarding the comment by A-d:
"Let's talk about this more when you can turn water into wine with your intention, walk on water, wake dead back to life etc!.... ; )"

This is a common avoidance tactic or confusion that naive spiritual seekers (especially westerners) often require of mystics and saints. I am aware of many of the Indian mystics who have spoken about this because westerners who had been confused by centuries of corrupt dogma and superstition would turn up on their doorstep and expect some 'miracle' before they would 'believe'.

The mystic would simply explain that the seeker was lost in a delusion and demanding that reality conform to their delusion before they would accept reality - that they were refusing to put their delusion aside and open up to reality - as it is - not just as they expect and assume it is. They have been deceived by a corrupt discourse and led into disempowering ideas such as liberation is only for special people like Christ or it's only for the long distant future or that its just too hard and impossible for 'normal' people to comprehend and attain - but it is natural and it is everyone's birthright - but we have been enslaved - first by our egos and then via our egos by an authoritarian culture (the collective ego). Spiritual realisation has nothing to do with miracles - sure it sometimes leads to things that the deluded call miracles - but the spiritual texts and aeons of experience show that those who seek siddhis (miraculous powers) will never attain realisation until they let go of that egoic delusion. Even those mystics who can 'do' miracles at will would generally refuse to perform for the benefit of doubters. It all comes down to the riddle of the doer - when the ego does it is corrupt action - when the cosmos does it is in harmony and miracles just happen.

Everything is a miracle and everything is divine right here and now - there is no separate spiritual realm - we are in it right now. All the talk of getting there is a subtle delusion to hide the fact that you're already here. The shift is a paradigm shift - how we interpret each moment of awareness. In each moment we succumb to naive realism and we create a fantasy world that we believe is our current reality - but outside of our minds that world simply doesn't exist.

Realisation has little to do with belief - it is beliefs that conceal the reality and it is holistic reason and direct open minded experience that are the best guide back to reality - a little belief can help a little in the initial loosening of the grip of delusion but all beliefs must be sacrificed and only reality/truth accepted. To put belief before reality is delusion. The truth/reality is discerned via inner awareness or one's "inner sense" that is common to all - I.e. "common sense". The way to overcome the habitual delusions is through inner awareness or a keen inner sense of oneself. If you are aware enough to see where and how a thought arises in the mind you will clearly see naive realism in action. I'm not telling people to believe that it is there - I'm telling people to look and they will see it for themselves and they will come to understand how it results in a whole world of delusion that they believe that they live in. It is the modifications of their mind that they are confusing for reality - you don't need to believe me on this - look for yourself with you inner sense and it is quite clear and rational.

I didn't know of Laing's book "Society as Illness" (I guess I don't speak Swedish) but that phrase "Society as Illness" sums up quite well what I am talking about in many of these essays. Commonsense is one of the common symptoms of that illness and "naive realism" is one of the major causes of the illness. Metaphorically speaking "naive realism" gives us a very weak cognitive immune system and all kinds of malignant memes infest our minds and construct our experiential world for us then we assume that the experiential world is "the world" - we don't realise that it is just distortions in our minds that are stirred up by our subconscious beliefs and attitudes (that assumption is the essence of naive realism - naive realism is to confuse the modifications of the mind with reality).

When we just assume our delusions are reality we build delusion upon delusion in intricate and subtle layers until we lose sight of reality and become horribly confused - often to the point of submitting to slavery or succumbing to psychosis or fascism. The growth of unquestioned collective delusion is the bulk of what is called 'culture' and 'commonsense'. The way to overcome the illness is to understand the role of naive realism and to not just take the distorted cognitive impressions as being "the world" but instead to question them and to clarify them and to get back to "common sense".

I hope these riddles help clarify the other riddles : ) I'm not confusing on purpose - I'm doing my best to be clear - most mystics assume its impossible to get through to rationalists and they shamelessly confuse people with riddles - but I know that given the recent advances in our concepts (e.g. quantum physics and computational metaphysics) it is possible to rationally explain things but people must actually be rational and skeptical enough to challenge their deepest beliefs and posess enough self-awareness so that their ego doesn't derail the process.  



3 Jul 2007 @ 01:02 by a-d : Ahhhh, much better!.... : )
meaning , ahhhhh (+ the Light Bulb!, can't yah see it!?!...heheheh) THANKS friend. This does make it all clearer. Yet I wish I could just have you right here and have an interactive dialogue -instead of this (very, very passive) one!.... Frustration City!

I agree that there is "no miracles" yet there is -depending on how mature one's Understanding of the different "Events" that can take place in different VIBRATIONS ( the ONLY PLACES so to speak!.... yet those vibes even if right here, right now keep us from -literally-seeing ALL there is!.... hence when a Natural phenomenon, like walking on water etc is been brought down into this vibrations to be seen /witnessed by all here, those people would understand it as a "Miracle".
Yes, I do have a few really funny Stories about Lingo confusion!.... : )... just plain English to English -let alone when other Mother Tongues are at play - not to mention this intentional Double Talk Twisting of meanings!.... ahhhhh whatcanisayyyy! you're right! Thanks again!/Love/A-d
PS.... yeahhh, RD Laing was quite a guy, as was Ivan Illich and Ashley Montague ( AM being of my and Jerry Vest's Favorites! Had many nice chats with Jerry where we referred to AM "all the time").
One thing that strikes one when reading anything from these guys is how little ego they had/have to get bruised -when discussing objecting, questioning, asking (about) any of their view points! SOooooo refreshing: NO Social Position to protect, hold up as a shield etc, only the Logic of the/ir Material/Discussion/subject-line at hand!  



10 Jul 2007 @ 04:54 by anandavala : I'm glad we're friends again hehehe
Sorry I've been so slow to get back to you - I've been REeeally busy. I've taken a totally different tack and left sentences behind almost altogether - I've shifted to ontologies.

I'll still pop in here - I like the chats - but I no longer really expect to get through to anyone - I'll stop being serious about my words (if I can help it) - because I realise that it is futile to use a corrupt language to salvage a corrupt language - I might get through to a few people but on the whole, other tools are required.  



10 Jul 2007 @ 05:40 by a-d : Heyyy, Uuuuuu!.....
just because I get confused -or disagree, doesn't mean I don't remain friends!... Of course I do -unless 'you' are mean, and demeaning and condesending and such... then I just walk away from 'you'. ANY person who I can clearly see has the Heart in the right place and can remain on Equal keel, sticking to the subject matter discussing IT instead of detereorating into ad hominem (there's a few here)I don't mind! There's bound to be differencies in Understanding, since we all are in different vibrations with our own issues; some we have a good grip of. Some we only think we have a grip of and they will change all of a sudden!... This is also one of the MAJOR reasons to our own misuse of Lingo -let alone when trying to convey to someone else!... Not always with results we expected!... : )heheh...

Ontologies... Soooo..., now I have to get into THAT : ) to make sure I understand as good as possible!.... : )

Ahhh....

Grea Things are happening all the time! LOTS of people waking up to Life, and not ALL will ever be "converted"... Only the MEAK; the selfless Co-operation and synergy/symbiosis/Team work minded ones will inherit the Earth!  



Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
Subject:       
Comment:
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:


Other entries in
10 Apr 2008 @ 01:20: Be Peace: A Call to Awareness
2 Jan 2008 @ 14:24: Map of Lakotah Territory
30 Oct 2007 @ 05:54: Collapse of USA
27 Jul 2007 @ 21:32: New Civilizations Visions
18 Jun 2007 @ 20:37: What would Jane Eyre do?
20 Jun 2006 @ 11:12: American ???
27 Nov 2005 @ 10:48: Prejudice
8 Jun 2005 @ 19:17: The Liberal Bias
14 Mar 2005 @ 10:59: U.S. Human Rights Report ... by China
21 Jul 2004 @ 23:48: FORD THEATER AND ME: Smithsonian Part 1


[< Back] [New Civilization News] [PermaLink]?