Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Ahrimanian Deception (Was Re: Huang Ti contd.,)

Expand Messages
  • Kim
    I have rewritten the two parts and made it available here
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 20, 2009
      I have rewritten the two parts and made it available here , and here:):
      HTML clipboa
      There is nothing magical about the Ahrimanic Deception, it's a fully natural development path, that we might see as inevitable, and unknowingly follow to become automatons, without free will or initiative, regressing to a kind of animal state, just living to satisfy base needs.

      Dualism sees everything in opposites,

      and this is one of the greatest dangers today: If you are not with me, you are against me. That is a widespread sickness, especially on the internet where you can hide under anonymity, but orthodoxy of any kind: religious, atheistic or political moves our future in a dangerous direction. What makes it so dangerous are that both sides believe that they fight on the side of good, but the reality is that they both fight for extremism, truth is always somewhere in between.

      The Deception is not to see the full picture, to Understand!

      The Challenge is to find the Golden Mean between the Extremes.

      The following paragraphs will look into different areas where Dualism endangers our society.


      Pervasive Politics

      You see Dualism in politics, especially in two party systems, where there is no space for other views. Politics dominates today everybody's life, in contrast to my youth, where we only talked politics every fourth year. Laws gave then rules for the relation between their citizens, today it's the relation between the state and citizens the law regulates.

      The invasion of politics in the private sphere destroys the natural equilibrium of the society. The economic system today is an example of this, the equilibrium of that system ends regularly in chaos as the system is made for the speculators, not for the companies, nor for the country and its citizens. Today the decisions are taken by regulative or laws on behalf of groups, where the decisions was taken by those who knew about the concrete cases. Wrong decisions had only small consequences then, but wrong decisions today have far heavier consequences as more people are dependent on these decisions.

      One of the biggest lies of today: We need more regulations as a result of the society's complexity. Wrong, it's more complex as a result of all those regulations. Computers takes the complexity out of the complex tasks, and prefabricates takes the complexity out of manual work, so what is complex today, except the laws?


      There is a tendency to split up in groups,

      in stead of seeing mankind as one; people split up after race, religion, language, land, locality, sex, or whatever. There are lots of hate in this, not least on the internet.


      Science is seen as the absolute truth

      against black superstition represented by religion. It's not seen as different and complementing views on the same reality. It has started the religion of Atheism, and you see them everywhere on the net, turning every discussion, independent of content, to an attack on Christianity, but they don't attack other religions, which is curious, as Atheism should be against religion as such. Darwin is their prime god, but most don't really understand what they are preaching.


      There is a tendency to read religious text's to narrowly,

      as Jehovah Witnesses, and other religious groups who take their holy books too literally. Durban Two, where the Islamic countries tries to prohibit any critic of  religion, is a typical example showing that discussions of religious content are unwanted. New religious movements like Scientology, the Moonies, and so on are also too rigid, but Anthroposophists and other esoteric groups can go into that trap too. Steiner stresses particularly that esoteric students are in danger of reading esoteric literature without conscious understanding.


      Abstract Thinking in contrast to real understanding.

      It's seen everywhere, and is also part of the previous areas. Man is seen as a thing not as a being. The reality is not abstract, and every decision based on abstract thinking is wrong, especially if living beings are involved.

      Statistics and Quantitative Thinking without understanding.

      Let's say a politician want to make a law, and it will make 0.123% of all families go bankrupt, but as the percent is low nobody sees it as a problem. Nobody understands that there are real people behind those figures. Quantitative thinking always works in abstractions.


      Big Mother.

      The development moves in a direction where we can be afraid that our 'I' is threatened. In the western world we are talking about freedom, that nobody shall tell us what to do, and we are fighting (Duality problem) against conspiracies, against CO2, against many many other things, but we don't define and work consistently for a world worth living in. At the same time our capabilities to decide our own destiny are diminishing, regulated by law, organizations, computers, and infrastructure. The result may be that everybody just follow the route with least resistance, which are build through directives, regulations, computer capabilities, ending in a situation where nobody thinks or makes decisions any more. And it's all made for the good of the citizens: Big Mother.

      Many of the restrictions and laws are made because of lacking parenting, children no longer learn to live in a community, they are each and all small kings and princesses, who don't understand that others don't see them as such. Their understanding of scientific, historic or creative endeavors is as small as it has ever been. The children learned more at the camp fire than the children of today.

      No revolution helps here, it's hard evolutionary work which is necessary, starting with your Consciousness and your kids upbringing.


      Complicated Structures.

      You can't make tax-systems as complicated as they are today without computers, and you can't control the many citizens or employees, as we can today, without computers; the amount of data are enormous. They make it possible to create structures which are difficult to manage without using computers, and computers don't know HR.

      I believe the computers can be a boon to mankind, but we have to control how and what they are used for, not letting their possibilities decide our future, as their strength can be used both for the good and the bad.


      Degrading Man.

      You can use computers to many many things, they can plan routes for transport to minimize energy consumption, and many other useful things. This sounds good, but if we don't take care, it could mean that it makes the knowledge and experience of man superfluous or even dangerous; man's role degraded to a machine. The need for knowledge is diminishing everywhere in the society, except within the computer world. Many jobs who needed educated Craftsmen can now be done by unskilled labor, as building materials don't need special skills any more, and the computer has taken over a lot of paper work and decision making. This makes everybody to secretaries except the secretaries, even executives writes their own letters and calculating sheets on their computers, instead of using secretaries for it, so they could do what they were hired and paid for: manage.


      Automated Decisions.

      Buying and selling on the stock market are for a great part based on automated decisions on computers, but as we have seen, it can go terrible wrong when some unanticipated events shows up.


      Decreasing Social Intercourse.

      Computers are exceptional for entertainment, you can live your life on the internet, without any direct social contact. You can play games, make your work through the net if necessary, discuss, hunt sex/books/programs/random data on the net (can be like drugs,) book your food from a local pizzeria, book escort girls, men, and boys, eventually finding mates on the net if you really want to live together with another being:). The film Matrix is a plausible destiny, not by force, but semi freely. It's not Big Brother, it's Big Mama.


      Less Social Skills.

      In the old days, children, teenagers, and adults learned by living in a community, and there was room for everybody, also the village idiot. These and other unusual persons were educated by their surrounding who were mostly normal. We are today living more and more on the internet, learning our social skills through social applications and computer games, the old community's influence are replaced by the influence of the internet comrades, and as like seeks likes, they can only increase their phobias or other disorders. Examples are numerous: pedophilia, school killings, terrorists, all kind of surrealistic interests, and so forth.


      Less Privacy.

      Children and teenagers can be reached by mobile and GPS always and everywhere, followed on the internet through Twitter or Facebook by their parents. No privacy. The same goes for the adults, no privacy, open for state officials, economic institutions, and employers. Password protection, pseudonyms, and like precautions is no hindrance, cyber investigators will find everything, relevant or not. You can not even go to the North Pole or to Himalaya in peace, they can always reach you, and you them.


      No Competent Leaders.

      What makes it so frustratingly absurd is that we are giving our independence to a system, a network of directives and conventions, without any persons being in charge. There is nowhere you can go saying that it's wrong and it should be otherwise, everybody will tell you, that's how it is and it has always been that way, and it can't be in any other way, as it's to costly to change the computers programming just because of you! Of cause, we have leaders in the top of the state or the corporate companies, but as the decision making moves up through the hierarchy (following automatic rules,) it becomes more and more difficult to manage the big organizations, as everything becomes dependent on one decision maker alone, and few know how to or can change the course. The organizations becomes automatons, and the companies go down in case of unanticipated events which craves structural changes.


      But what do we do?

      The frustrations has to go somewhere, and while there are no one responsible for our situation, and no one with enough insight, determination, and power to change the situation, we invent some god-like powerful conspirators who in all secrecy, with hundreds of employees, stands behind all the bad in this world. The truth is, that most leaders are so incompetent that it hurts. Just look at Iraq. The military invasion was well thought out, but the rest was incompetence par excellence. And that is not an exception, it's the rule. Of cause there are conspiracies and secret operations, but if more than one participant knowing about the conspiracy are alive a year later, it's just a question of time before the world know. Another reason to use few people are that really competent people are difficult to find, and the more people involved the bigger the risks for failure, and the bigger the consequences of a failure, the less interesting the project becomes. The best test way to check if a conspiracy theory is viable or not, isn't the technical evidence but the psychology and the necessary resources behind, how big is the risk, who gains, what's their gain, how many participate, and what expertise are necessary.


      What's the mechanism behind the development?


      Kim Graae Munch


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.