Integrity. Part 1.

It feels the time has come for us to understand and embody integrity. Integrity which is catalysed through chaos, crystallised within and can manifest collectively as social integration and civilizational congruence.

We will present only the aspects which are tangible for humans in their daily lives, elements of biological and mental conditioning, functioning as common sense or historic sentiment, which continually influence social structures and our attitudes towards them. I will zoom into a point of transition between two densities 4 and 5D, especially for social and political experience and the relation between the two.

Since Christianity is the informer and sponsor of representative democracy, let’s have a look at few components of mind distortion it implemented for our disadvantage. In the archetype of origin we read that ‘a man was created’ – can you spot 3 misconceptions? Here we have an introduction of subjective gendered personality into the field of objective mind. Next we read that the man was split and from his rib a woman, his wife, emerged, created not directly from god, as an opposite to man. A gold star for those who find 8 misconceptions in this sentence. Someone nicely personalised the aspects of polarity, the electric and magnetic fields, to mean something they are not and assigned properties to those fields which are inconsistent with their formulations as functions in the Universe.

These two aspects are enough for us to explore here. We are working on a template where there is man and a woman, ‘created’ and therefore functioning in opposition, competition, and power struggle over position on a fractal ladder. Gendered fragmentation of the whole sits at the root of biological conditioning and perpetuates it through engagement of human life force, the tantra, with itself, horizontally. To what purpose have we had our mind looped into our genitals? When our archetype of origin is stuck in the root, the root’s function of anchoring is disabled. Think twice on this one. When contemplating the looping of mind (in spiritual terms binding of solar plexus to the root and sacrum, expressed in mind as thought) collectively, explore early history of male prostitutes in Ancient Greece. Think very carefully what had been legitimised and materialised by this practice.

The aspect described as emerging from the rib, introduces the process of externalisation of the essence. With externalised essence it is legitimate to create icons, teachers, preachers to be revered and celebrated. At the same time it gives permission to indulge in all levels of ignorance, from objectification, demonization, violence or spiritual, mental and physical cannibalism. Yet we are encouraged to respect those who rape us in this way. Easily done, since we are hollow, with essence elsewhere, we don’t feel anything. In 3 and 4D cruelty abounds, legitimised and sustained through structures of power. For if the highest form of love, as per unconditional love of Jesus, is to die for others/another, isn’t it ok to drive anyone and everyone around to destruction? Surely, we will be rewarded if we follow this instruction?

Consider the essence being the core, the heart of the universe, the realm which we perceive and experience as inner world and the external as the outer layer of the universe – this what we experience as the outside. Inner, vertical, the soft, spiritual, intellectual, focused. Outer, horizontal, the physical, the wide, the material. Can we see why the outer layer is slowly disintegrating? It never had any meaning while its essence was externalised. Crucifixion was a genius invention for the purpose of the inventor.

How then these aspects are expressed and manifested in our current socio – political understanding?

In feminist terms patriarchy – externalisation of essence and therefore responsibility – brought us inequality, oppression, violence, war etc. Women, (or rather that which they hold as the Universal essence, to which they are oblivious) having been externalised (see image oriented mind in previous posts), are fighting the mirror. What happens when you remember that human construct is what it is due to presence of both magnetic and electric fields, the ‘feminine’ and the ‘masculine’?  What happens when we understand that, psychologically, the templates of the feminine and the masculine, were imprinted onto our psyche/memory by the first role models. Go figure.

Socio-politically modern feminism is a kick back at this apparently patriarchal order. Women finding it hard to wiggle out of ‘sexualised’ projections of men (and their own) made the body a subject of political debate. It is wrong and it is backward. In this way they continue the exploitative practices and patterns of externalisation. If responsibility is externalised, then of course it is the other sex, the society, the government, which holds responsibility for my condition. To put it gently, it is immature and intellectually not viable. There, vagina in your face, like penis on the table, vanity fair in full bloom, let’s call it politics and see what happens. It is rather embarrassing to observe.

Even the university PPE coursework material, in its divagations about power, includes a chapter on female shaving and men’s sexual preferences. When did we get so low? What are we teaching our students? In Edinburgh of all places. Perhaps women, duly re-creating their fathers’ indoctrination, have some power issues still stuck in their groins. But to be dragging those into high education is damaging and abusive. Are we that arrogant to think we bring something of value to the table? Up until now there had not been much evidence to support this claim.

Feminism aspired to be an ideology but it lacks competitive argument to be even considered a candidate. As a thought indoctrination, claiming that personal is political, it contributed to more damage than progression in political sphere. Politics at the ‘lowest’, structural point is organisation, at the highest – a high Thought. Both these attributes are faculties of the Mind operating strictly through objectivity.  ‘A person’ or personal experience can perhaps successfully influence the designing of institutions, their structural layout, even architectural, material compositions, but not politics. Social will never be political, female insecurities and projection of their unrealised ambitions onto their environment just don’t justify this demand to create politically. Women will need to master their own potentials first and bring forth their high mind to be adequately qualified for politics.

Let me clarify here that what I see as the high Mind is of a different quality than even sciences dictate. The neuro-psychology is guilty of perpetuating the misconceptions of religious interpretations of duality. Regarding the hemispheres, it argues and insists on categorising its findings according to the left brain, the right brain. Right – intuitive, left- logical, right – creative, left – analytical as if logic was not intuitive and intuition not logical or as if creativity excluded analysis and analysis was contrary to creativity. It is a dualistic, non-integrated thinking. The brain is not the mind. It is only the integrated mind, the co-operation of its ‘masculine’ and the ‘feminine’ aspects that can be the correct environment for Intellect, which is neither masculine or feminine. The Intellect is an expression of non-duality.

Yet again, we won’t be able to perceive it let alone understand what we are experiencing through this mental overlay if we insist on building along the lines of opposition and dualism contained in our biological conditioning. Politically it is still valid that we operate through left, right, centre approach. We still operate through party opposition. We still think the society at large could be the opposition. We want to continue to build new content within the framework which had become obsolete.

Let us hold these considerations in mind whenever we argue for equality or 50 / 50 representation in parliament. What are we striving to be equal to? Is it a representation in favour of the biding biological conditioning? Have we not understood that in many, intricate ways, what we describe as females hold the essence of the masculine, and who we perceive as males are holders of the feminine? Will we be so quick then to ‘externalise’ each other (and ourselves), physically, mentally and emotionally?  What would we hold as the ‘object’ of attention?

I will encourage everyone to look objectively at themselves and anything they give attention to, what they engage with and what elements of their environment they validate, therefore make manifest, every day. Integrity cannot be mastered outside of or without objectivity.


Related posts: Hierarchy, 25 Jan 2015 Backward Societies, 30 Aug 2015 Beyond the Might of an Image, 9 Jan 2016 Third Field. Part 2. 22 may 2016