BIN LADEN STORY SHAPE SHIFTS

 

BIN LADEN STORY SHAPE SHIFTS

MAY 7, 2011. On May 2, the White House held a press briefing. Counter-terrorism chief, John Brennan, took the following question:

“Was it—was there a visual, or was it just radio reports or phone reports you were getting [during the raid]?”

Brennan: “We [in the situation room] were able to monitor the situation in real time and were able to have regular updates to ensure that we had real-time visibility into the progress of the operation. I’m not going to go into detail about what type of visuals we had or what type of feeds that were there, but it was—it gave us the ability to actually track it [the raid] on an ongoing basis.”

Then the world was presented with the photo of Obama, H. Clinton, and others intently watching the raid in the situation room.

This cemented in the notion that top US officials were, in fact, watching the raid take place in real time.

But on May 5, CIA Director, Leon Panetta, told PBS: “Once those teams went into the compound I can tell you there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes where we really didn’t know just exactly what was going on. And there were some very tense moments as we were waiting for information. We had some observation of the approach there, but we did not have direct flow of information as to the actual conduct of the operation itself as they were going through the compound.”

So the implication was: we saw everything.

Then the claim was: we saw nothing of importance.

Brennan managed to suggest, without actually spelling it out, that the team in the situation room saw everything that was vital…and then his story collapsed.

Can’t these people keep their scenario straight?

There are several possible reasons for the abrupt change. Perhaps the most interesting is: the team in the White House situation room wants deniability, in case something untoward eventually surfaces about what actually went on inside the compound. Shooting unarmed women and children, for example. Or the man who was killed wasn’t public-enemy number one.

“We didn’t see that. We didn’t see anything.”

At this point, you can make up your own version of events, and you’ll probably be as close to the truth as what we’re getting from official sources.

Briefly, a report surfaced about a doctor in the compound being arrested. Where is he? What does he have to say about bin Laden’s physical condition for the last five years? Where is the kidney dialysis equipment that was needed to keep him alive? If it were there, you’d think US officials would have released that information, as part of their “verification” procedure indicating that the man who was shot and killed was, in fact, bin Laden. If, indeed, he had been suffering from very serious kidney disease since 2001 and needed dialysis—where are those machines?

“Oh, of course we found them. We dumped them in the sea with the corpse.”

Then there are the gruesome death photos that were going to be released, but weren’t. What happened there? Where are the photos now? Who has them?

DNA experts have already weighed in and said the original DNA sample from a bin Laden family member may be insufficient to provide a convincing match, given the complex structure of the family tree.

Imagine you had hired an architect to build a skyscraper. He comes to your office with a few sketches and partial blueprints. You examine them.

“Here, where these pillars are located? I don’t quite see how they support this slab. Then the girders. Where are the connections to the upper floors? And the roof. I don’t see how it’s fastened in place.”

“Look, the building will stand. I assure you. I’m the architect. Accept that. Why would I present you with a dud?”

Make up your own mind. Examine the evidence, the lack of evidence.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

Visit the site, sign up for the email list and receive free articles, and order a copy of my e-book, THE OWNERSHIP OF ALL LIFE, in pdf or Kindle format.

BIN LADEN AND POLITICAL HAY

 

BIN LADEN AND MAKING POLITICAL HAY

MAY 2, 2011. 11:30 AM, Pacific Time. This is an update on the article, BIN LADEN QUESTIONS, that I wrote earlier this morning.

For those who didn’t read the first piece, I’ve included it below.

It’s important to understand that, in one stroke, the image of President Obama has changed.

The effects may not be noticed for a little while. But his stature vis-a-vis the coming election…this is a new ballgame.

And therefore, IF the reported death of Bin Laden is a fraud, some major political op has been waged.

Up to this point in his first term, Obama has failed to fulfill one of the basic requirements of a president in many voters’ eyes. His health plan didn’t do it. His bailout of Wall Street didn’t do it. His handling of the recent Middle East crisis didn’t do it. His military foray into Libya didn’t cut it. His jobs program certainly didn’t rate high.

And his continuation of the war in Afghanistan was an indifferent bog.

For many, including some independent voters, Obama hasn’t presented himself as a distinctly AMERICAN PRESIDENT.

That was always his weak point. Bush may have stumbled across his lines in speeches, he may have launched a crazy war in Iraq, but he was a cowboy. He was cozily American.

But Obama? No dice.

However, now, “at his direction,” as commander-in-chief, Obama has run a military/CIA/seal attack that killed public enemy number one.

This wasn’t policy wonking. It wasn’t trying to broker peace. It wasn’t hope and change. It wasn’t high-IQ stuff. It wasn’t “every American deserves health care.” It wasn’t snippy little remarks aimed at Republicans. It wasn’t “hang in there, I know it’s tough but we’ll get the economy rolling again.”

It was search, attack, and destroy. It was: you want tough guy? Thisis tough guy.

His stature just went from 1 to 9. All of a sudden, he’s presidential, not just a politician. And presidential is hard to beat in a race for a second term. Subconsciously and instantaneously, many, many Americans already know a defeat for Obama in 2012 would amount to a rejection of the man who killed bin Laden. And to them, that doesn’t feel right. That doesn’t sit right. That seems like a slur. A slap in the face to a personage who did what America has been aching to do since 9/11. A slap in the face of America itself.

“The man who killed Osama bin Laden has just been defeated in his attempt for a second term as president of the United States.”

Get it? That doesn’t sit well. That doesn’t compute. How could that happen?

Then there is this. All the criticisms of Obama, the man, and his presidency—and there have been many—can’t have quite the same impact and sting they had before yesterday. They are now balanced out by the fact that he killed bin Laden. The weights on the scales have changed.

“Mr. Trump, you want to know whether this guy has a valid birth certificate and he just took out bin Laden?”

It takes time for people to realize these tectonic shifts in the subconscious have occurred. But this one just happened.

Okay. Here is my earlier article from today–

MAY 2, 2011. 9:15 am, Pacific Time. Everything could change minute by minute, but right now there are serious questions…

The face photo of a dead bin Laden that has been circulating on British media online sites is a fake. That has been confirmed by TheGuardian site. It’s a composite of an old bin Laden photo and an unknown dead man whose face was mashed up. The Guardian has the photos on its site, and you can see the fake was put together from two others.

GEO TV, a Pakistani media outlet, had apparently been reporting that Pakistani forces just killed bin Laden. That story: a Pakistani military helicopter was doing a search mission and was shot down by unknown persons. Pakistani troops then engaged in a fire fight with the shooters, and in that clash bin Laden was killed.

Now, however, on the GEO site, the story is changed. The new version is the official one. A US operation killed bin Laden.

Of possible relevance: In all the press reports I watched last night (Sunday), I heard no reference to the exact time of the attack on the house in Abbottabad. It’s elementary journalism to nail a fact like that down. What happened?

What about the DNA test on bin Laden? Last night (Sunday), US news outlets were reporting that a DNA test match had already been made between the man US Seals killed and bin Laden. So apparently, they already had a genuine DNA sample from bin Laden. But DNA testing takes time. How was the match arrived at so quickly?

Now, US news outlets are changing their tune. The DNA testing is underway. It wasn’t used to confirm bin Laden’s death. Instead, “facial recognition” was employed. This is not described. Does it mean eyeballing the corpse? Was facial-recognition software used to ID a photo of the dead bin Laden?

It appears, from press reports, that about a month ago, the White House was significantly leaning in the direction of believing bin Laden was living in the walled compound in Abbottabad. So since then, what measures were taken to assure he didn’t leave? Nearby ground surveillance? That could arouse suspicion. Satellite viewing? If so, and if bin Laden had fled, could he have been tracked and killed before disappearing?

For a long time, reports have circulated claiming bin Laden was already dead. The Pakistan Observer reported he died in December of 2001.

So far, since yesterday, neither US or Pakistani officials have released a photo of the corpse of bin Laden. The White House is now, it’s reported, debating about whether to release a “gruesome” picture.

We are told bin Laden was living in a large house in Abbotabad, which is a town where the Pakistani version of West Point is situated—a mile or two away from bin Laden’s hideout. Also, many retired Pakistani military officers live in the town. Two accused terrorists, CNN reports, Umar Patek and Tahir Shehzad, were arrested in Abbottabad in the past year, in house raids staged by Pakistani troops. Why would bin Laden set up shop there? Why would he stay after the raids? Although there appears to be evidence Pakistani officials have shielded bin Laden over the years, one can’t rely on all the military people in the town to follow suit.

And then there is the fact that this compound stuck out like a sore thumb in the area. It was far bigger than any other house in the area, had been built at a cost of $1 million, it had walls and security wire, the residents burned all their trash, and the women in the house spoke Arabic. Was bin Laden, the terrorist genius, announcing his presence?

President Obama claimed, last night, that bin Laden’s burial would be handled in accordance with Islamic custom. So the press is now reporting his body has been dropped at sea. At least one Muslim cleric claims this is not Islamic custom, the body must be buried in the ground—and if officials are worried the site could become a rallying point for terrorists, the secret grave could remain unmarked. The body is gone. No photo of it has been released. We have no details about how “facial recognition” was achieved. We have conflicting stories about who staged the attack. A phony death photo of bin Laden’s face has been discredited. The DNA-test story initially released has now been withdrawn.

On August 15, 2010, General Petraeus stated that capturing bin Laden was still high on the US agenda. So now, two-and-a-half months before the date American troops are supposed to come home from Afghanistan, there is a “mission-accomplished” public relations tune that can be played…and a partial drawdown of troops, plus a repeated hailing of the killing of bin Laden can be used to assuage bitter feelings about the war…as the next presidential election season approaches.

A few days before the 2004 election, a bin Laden video surfaced. Its authenticity was questioned. Some speculated it helped George Bush win a second term in office.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

BIN LADEN QUESTIONS

 

QUESTIONS ABOUT BIN LADEN

MAY 2, 2011. 9:15 am, Pacific Time. Everything could change minute by minute, but right now there are serious questions…

The face photo of a dead bin Laden that has been circulating on British media online sites is a fake. That has been confirmed by TheGuardian site. It’s a composite of an old bin Laden photo and an unknown dead man whose face was mashed up. The Guardian has the photos on its site, and you can see the fake was put together from two others.

GEO TV, a Pakistani media outlet, had apparently been reporting that Pakistani forces just killed bin Laden. That story: a Pakistani military helicopter was doing a search mission and was shot down by unknown persons. Pakistani troops then engaged in a fire fight with the shooters, and in that clash bin Laden was killed.

Now, however, on the GEO site, the story is changed. The new version is the official one. A US operation killed bin Laden.

Of possible relevance: In all the press reports I watched last night (Sunday), I heard no reference to the exact time of the attack on the house in Abbottabad. It’s elementary journalism to nail a fact like that down. What happened?

What about the DNA test on bin Laden? Last night (Sunday), US news outlets were reporting that a DNA test match had already been made between the man US Seals killed and bin Laden. So apparently, they already had a genuine DNA sample from bin Laden. But DNA testing takes time. How was the match arrived at so quickly?

Now, US news outlets are changing their tune. The DNA testing is underway. It wasn’t used to confirm bin Laden’s death. Instead, “facial recognition” was employed. This is not described. Does it mean eyeballing the corpse? Was facial-recognition software used to ID a photo of the dead bin Laden?

It appears, from press reports, that about a month ago, the White House was significantly leaning in the direction of believing bin Laden was living in the walled compound in Abbottabad. So since then, what measures were taken to assure he didn’t leave? Nearby ground surveillance? That could arouse suspicion. Satellite viewing? If so, and if bin Laden had fled, could he have been tracked and killed before disappearing?

For a long time, reports have circulated claiming bin Laden was already dead. The Pakistan Observer reported he died in December of 2001.

So far, since yesterday, neither US or Pakistani officials have released a photo of the corpse of bin Laden. The White House is now, it’s reported, debating about whether to release a “gruesome” picture.

We are told bin Laden was living in a large house in Abbotabad, which is a town where the Pakistani version of West Point is situated—a mile or two away from bin Laden’s hideout. Also, many retired Pakistani military officers live in the town. Two accused terrorists, CNN reports, Umar Patek and Tahir Shehzad, were arrested in Abbottabad in the past year, in house raids staged by Pakistani troops. Why would bin Laden set up shop there? Why would he stay after the raids? Although there appears to be evidence Pakistani officials have shielded bin Laden over the years, one can’t rely on all the military people in the town to follow suit.

And then there is the fact that this compound stuck out like a sore thumb in the area. It was far bigger than any other house in the area, had been built at a cost of $1 million, it had walls and security wire, the residents burned all their trash, and the women in the house spoke Arabic. Was bin Laden, the terrorist genius, announcing his presence?

President Obama claimed, last night, that bin Laden’s burial would be handled in accordance with Islamic custom. So the press is now reporting his body has been dropped at sea. At least one Muslim cleric claims this is not Islamic custom, the body must be buried in the ground—and if officials are worried the site could become a rallying point for terrorists, the secret grave could remain unmarked. The body is gone. No photo of it has been released. We have no details about how “facial recognition” was achieved. We have conflicting stories about who staged the attack. A phony death photo of bin Laden’s face has been discredited. The DNA-test story initially released has now been withdrawn.

On August 15, 2010, General Petraeus stated that capturing bin Laden was still high on the US agenda. So now, two-and-a-half months before the date American troops are supposed to come home from Afghanistan, there is a “mission-accomplished” public relations tune that can be played…and a partial drawdown of troops, plus a repeated hailing of the killing of bin Laden can be used to assuage bitter feelings about the war…as the next presidential election season approaches.

A few days before the 2004 election, a bin Laden video surfaced. Its authenticity was questioned. Some speculated it helped George Bush win a second term in office.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

THE NON-DUALITY GAME

 

THE NON-DUALITY GAME

APRIL 29, 2011. Of all the spiritual concepts imported from Asian philosophies, non-duality may be the most persistent and best loved.

It basically states, as Western thinkers interpret it, that consciousness is one universal sea, and each of us is a “droplet” in that ocean.

In this way, we are all connected, always were, and always will be.

It’s easy to see how smaller versions of this idea hook up to the main premise. For example, the so-called biological web of life, which has become so popular, and is used as a warning sign to humanity that, by allowing or causing extinction of species, the whole chain of existence on planet Earth is endangered.

I think shooting non-man-eating tigers or putting wild animals in cages is something done by execrable assholes, but I also think cutting off water to farms in California because a tiny fish may run into trouble is insane. Seems to me that huge numbers of species have gone away since the dawn of life here, and without any human intervention…and yet, here we are now. We exist, the planet exists. But hey, what do I know? I do know this. If human beings wipe themselves out and pollute the world into a much worse condition than it is now, in the process, the planet will survive. It will live on. Things will grow.

To put this another way…I’d rather boycott the eight biggest chemical companies in the world (I started such a boycott 15 years ago) than to pray or publish at the altar of “the web of collective life.”

Anyway, non-duality is a wonderful platform for all sorts of “advanced thinkers.” Some of them even assume the Big Bang created the “universal sea of consciousness.” I fail to see how an explosion of matter and energy can do that…but again, I’m sure the Wise Ones can explain it to us.

“Yes, ahem, well, you see, if you blow up stuff hard enough, you get this thing called awareness, because electrons and quarks and wavicles turn inside out and then they wonder where they are and what the hell happened, and boom, you have the first glint of Universal Mind…”

But the most annoying thing about non-duality is the ocean-and-droplet concept itself. I know it’s not popular to point this out, but when you control a society by claiming that everyone intrinsically has his place (giving rise to a caste system), it helps to have a basic way of diminishing the importance of the individual.

As in, “Hi, droplet, I’m another droplet. How u DOin’?”

This would be followed up with, “You see, by the roll of the dice of Karma, I happen to be a droplet at the front of a wave, while you are riding at the back…so for the meantime, you stay behind me, get it?”

Then, finally, “From your hovel made out of cardboard on the wrong side of the tracks, where nobody’s got anything, you can connect with the Sea of All Consciousness, just as I can from my estate on the hill with the gold gates…so, in that sense, we are the same.”

But there is something more fundamentally wrong with non-duality. Go back to the wisdom of Tibet to find it, before the Tibetans messed it all up by clogging their own system with ritual after ritual and a rigid priest class. It was fairly simple: YOU CAN BE ONE WITH ANYTHING YOU WANT TO BE ONE WITH, AND YOU CAN ALSO NOT DO THAT.

They had exercises in which a person would sit by a tree and become one with it for a while…and then the person would stand up, shrug it off, and walk away.

In other words, being a droplet in the great ocean was NOT a fundamental and enduring fact. It was a thing you could do on a summer afternoon.

It was, if you will, a piece of magic.

Anybody can do it. Try it sometime. A fly is buzzing around your head? Become one with it. Nice and easy. You might find the fly stops buzzing and swooping, slows down, and lands on the table.

Now, experiments have been done that show random-number generators will significantly alter their usual randomness before a momentous event occurs. An event like an earthquake, for example. The explanation is: all of us preview, somehow, or pre-cog this event and the result of the group-consciousness has this visible effect on the number generators, which are pieces of matter. Therefore, consciousness can affect matter.

Okay. Great. Accepting this explanation, however, doesn’t show that we are, inevitably, one great big glob of consciousness. It could show, for example, that each one of us, separately, is pre-cogging the coming earthquake. Or it could show that, for a few minutes, we all subconsciously come together. But is that tantamount to saying we are always connected, or that if we are, we are connected at the most profound level of being? I think not.

Suppose you and a close friend finish each other’s sentences and sometimes think the same thought at the same moment? I know, it feels good, it feels weird, it feels whatever it feels. But does that mean you are fundamentally the same consciousness? Does it mean you are the same consciousness all the time? Does it mean there is no higher goal to aspire to than being the same consciousness all the time?

Back to the Tibetans. You can be One with your friend or not be One with your friend.

There are some passionate spiritual story tellers who will, in line with the droplet-and-ocean theory, tell you how you really aren’t you at all, that what you think is you is just ego talking, and we are really all molecules in the Great Sea—but that’s just a story. It’s a story that radically contrasts with modern culture in the West, and as such, it really has a great zing to it, and it feels good to turn everything you know on its head and dance with that for a few minutes. Sure. Why not? But as a description of the way it really is all the time and always was and always will be, forever? Ultimately?

Which means your only choice is to go along with that flow or live “a lesser life?” Come on.

No, there is choice. You can be the tree or not be the tree. It’s simple. You’re still you. Which may come as a disappointment, but hey, don’t blame me.

I wouldn’t bother to discuss any of this, except for the fact that droplet-and-ocean tends to cast an enormous fog over the basic dynamic force of the individual: imagination and creation.

Because people who believe in droplet-and-ocean USE THAT to remain in a more or less passive state. They also tend to follow leaders. They think “it doesn’t matter” because somewhere, sometime, they’ll get back the consciousness, on a conscious level, that they are a drop in the ocean. It’ll happen. Yawn.

Along with this ocean-of-one-consciousness idea, we have, in physics, the so-called Indeterminacy Principle. It’s usually stated as: the observer changes what is observed. And this gives rise to non-duality as well, in many people’s minds. In other words, consciousness (observation) changes matter, and therefore, All is really Consciousness. The logical leap escapes me, but there it is.

The observer and the observed are not really separate, since the observer is automatically changing the observed—and therefore, the duality between observer and observed is erased. Therefore, no duality, no separation, non-duality is the law, and we are all drops in the ocean. Again, one or two formidable (ludicrous) leaps of thinking there.

My admittedly crass and amateur knowledge of the Indeterminacy Principle goes like this: if you shine a light on a tiny particle, like an electron, you can’t precisely state both its position in space and its momentum at the same time. The flash of light might illuminate its position, but the force of the photons of light alters its momentum.

Well, I don’t see how that adds up to: we’re all droplets in the sea of consciousness. I’m sure an expert will fill in the gaps.

In our world, it seems that many people will try anything they can to rule out imagination and creative power of the individual. They’ll figure out something to derail that. Non-duality is just another attempt.

Non-duality is also used, in various forms, to promote collectivism. Since we are all One, we have to abandon any idea or motive that seeks to create reality, on an individual level, apart from the mass, the glob.

I don’t want to ruin the party, but the people who promote the collective, whether on a material or spiritual basis, have been promoted into becoming leaders, while the rest of us should become followers—and I would say this even violates their own philosophy of drops-in-the-ocean. Again, some drops are better and more privileged than others.

Universal-one-joyous-goo-of consciousness-forever…as ultimate, final, authoritative Reality…doesn’t exist. It doesn’t already exist. Rather, realities are created. New realities. They are imagined and they are created. By the individual.

And if that sounds like duality, well, it is. It’s duality and tri-ality, and quad-ality and quint-ality, and so on. It’s all the alities.

And if there is, among everything that exists, a sea of consciousness, it’s another interesting phenomenon. Like a star system or a galaxy or a dance craze. If you like it, plug in. If you get bored, go somewhere else.

I stand on the metaphor I’ve been using for a long time: the universe is waiting for imagination to revolutionize it down to its core.

I’m on the side of the artists.

And of course, I mean that in the nicest possible way, because I don’t want to create a ripple on the vast all-one sea and wake up the spiritual collectivists.

It wouldn’t surprise me if, 60 years ago, some shmuck from a prominent Northeastern University, working as an analyst for a think-tank, sat in a small room and wrote, “To bring the whole planet under the control of a single management system, we need a broad attractive concept that will rope in future generations. A universal “sea of consciousness” could do the trick. We import it, promote it, and hose down the young with it. Most of them don’t want to be individuals anyway. It’s too daunting. Unless we can find a gene for creativity and delete it from the human genome, I favor this ‘sea’ idea. It can go the distance.”

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

Visit the site, sign up for the email list and receive free articles, and order a copy of my e-book, THE OWNERSHIP OF ALL LIFE, in pdf or Kindle format.

WHEN IMAGINATION SWALLOWS BELIEF

 

WHEN IMAGINATION SWALLOWS BELIEF

APRIL 23, 2011. Imagination and belief are not completely clean categories. There are fuzzy places and obscure corners and overlaps. But essentially, a belief is hardened imagination. It is imagination that slowed down at some point in space and coalesced into a sense that THIS IS THE WAY THINGS ARE or THIS IS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE or THIS IS WHAT I MUST DO.

Cultures are based on beliefs. Most of the time, the beliefs are thought of as facts.

“The big spirit in the ground talked to us.”

This “fact” started out as a belief, which in turn was originally a piece of imagination projected by an artist.

As the civilization of Rome came crashing down, there were competing religious cults and groups who had all sorts of beliefs about gods…and these had started out as imaginative ideas flung out by poets. But now they were beliefs warring for supremacy as facts.

So in the chaos that was the fall of Rome, Constantine made his moves. He willed into being the new Roman Church and its doctrines, and that Church spread its influence far and wide. It eventually reached a point where its honchos ordered inquisitions, torture, confession, and death for those who dissented.

You can chart the course of a number of civilizations and find similar patterns.

There is one progression that hasn’t yet taken hold on planet Earth. The move from belief to imagination. In order for this to happen, people have to have as firm a hold on the consequences of imagination as they presently have on the consequences of belief. They need to see imagination as something quite powerful, not as a flimsy vaporous diversion from “reality.” No one is going to replace the rock of belief with what appears to him as an insubstantial haze.

Belief may be hardened imagination, but most people don’t see it that way.

If you’re driving a wagon drawn by three horses, and you’ve handled that vehicle for a long time and know it gets you from one place to another, you’re not going to leave it by the side of the road for a bright red Ferrari—if you don’t know what an ignition key is or what an engine is or what a steering wheel is. You’re going to have to become confident in your ability to drive the car and maneuver it. Then you’ll free the horses and get rid of the wagon.

In my series, TAKING IT TO ANOTHER LEVEL, I explained the obsession with What Exists. Well, belief is the underpinning for that obsession. Belief forms a map of What Exists.

Imagination, on the other hand, is a bird that leads you to new worlds. Actually, you imagine the bird and create the worlds. So this isn’t a minor shift. It isn’t a walk in the park.

For a century or more, science has been guiding the perceptual shift from matter to energy. Matter has been analyzed into particles and waves and space.

In similar fashion, we need a revolution that tracks solid belief into the lair where it came from—imagination.

The great thing about imagination is that it doesn’t carry the baggage of doctrine. It doesn’t require consent of others. It doesn’t demand followers who are ready to march into foreign lands and kill people who think along divergent lines.

It doesn’t depend on gene structure or any structure. It’s non-material, but it doesn’t found a church.

With imagination, you replace beliefs with the perception of what you’ve created. That perception becomes more thrilling and suggestive as time passes. In fact, it becomes the basis for a new set of beliefs…but you don’t have to make those beliefs into hard rocks of militaristic faith. Imagination, creation, new beliefs—they form a dynamic and shifting skyscape of power.

And WHAT EXISTS, whether on a physical or metaphysical level, becomes unimportant next to what you are imagining and creating. Priorities are re-arranged.

Finally, in order to employ your imagination, you don’t need to assume there is some “higher reality” outside yourself, from which you derive the power or permission or mandate to live through and by imagination. That is unnecessary. That is irrelevant. That, it turns out, is a form of postponement. A postponement of action.

If you see this clearly, you can then look around you and view the landscape of people and groups who are bound by their beliefs, which they take to be hardened facts. You can see the limits they have imposed on themselves, the conditions they have attached to their own existence, the systems in which they have become embedded, the circumscribed boundaries they have drawn around their own lives and their own potential.

The joke of that situation hits home.

You can call it a hilarious joke or a tragic joke or a sick joke or a crazy joke…but joke it is…and you don’t need to be a cog in its gears.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

Visit the site, sign up for the email list and receive free articles, and order a copy of my e-book, THE OWNERSHIP OF ALL LIFE, in pdf or Kindle format.

IMAGINING HIDDEN TREASURE

 

IMAGINING A HIDDEN TREASURE

APRIL 22, 2011. Let me start with this.

A belief is something you imagine when you really need to, when you’re desperate.

If you’re not desperate, what you imagine is art.

Okay?

From that point of view, it doesn’t matter whether what you’re imagining is real or made up. It serves you. It gets you through a tough period.

Or how about this? An artist says, “All my inspiration to paint comes from three entities who exist in a secret dome on Mars. They feed me ideas…”

In that case, a person is imagining things that help him to imagine things.

Here is another one. A person with a serious disease is told there is a blue cloud a thousand miles above Earth. The cloud emits healing rays. He is further told to feel and experience these rays coming all the way through his body and down into the ground.

He does this every day. What does he do? He imagines the cloud, the rays, and the rays coming down through his body healing him.

But he doesn’t see this as imagining. He believes the cloud is there. He believes the rays are there and that they heal. He believes the rays are entering his body.

And lo and behold, after a few months, his symptoms go away.

What is this all about?

Believing is a form of imagining.

It’s not the only form.

Here are some words that denote various forms or levels of imagining/creating:

Pretend, believe, invent, assume, consider, wish for, improvise, hope, worship, pray, wonder, envision…

However, life as we ordinarily accept it on planet Earth makes distinctions between these concepts. And there are differences. But there is also the common thread and major feature called imagining.

Let’s do a thought experiment. I’ll describe several situations in which imagining/creating results in a phenomenon. You decide to what degree people will accept the result as real. Grade these situations along that guideline.

One: over a period of six months, a patient diagnosed with a serious heart condition, who takes no medication, imagines (believes) that an angel is healing that condition. After six months, all tests indicate the person’s heart is now completely healthy.

Two: a flying saucer lands on the lawn of the White House. A figure steps out and extends his hand. His hand is empty. Suddenly, a vertical pile of 40 gold bricks appears resting on his hand.

Three: in the Gobi desert, there is a metal ball lying on the sand. All over the world, a chosen group of a million people simultaneously imagine the ball is levitating. The ball rises from the ground to a height of six feet and hovers there for an hour.

Four: A man walks into Times Square. He is holding a small black box. His hair, which is brown, turns black. Then it turns red. Then it turns blond. Then it turns gray. Then it turns white.

Five: A boy stands in the middle of a busy street in Chicago. He points at a parked car. It levitates to a height of 16 feet, hovers there for a minute, then gently lowers back down to the ground. The boy does this with eight cars.

I won’t try to give a definitive grading scale to this experiment. I do think the healing of the heart condition, though, would be the easiest for most people to accept.

In other words, through cultural “preparation,” people can be convinced to accept certain paranormal phenomena without too much trouble.

I also think the ball-in-the-Gobi-desert idea has received sufficient prep to allow a large number of onlookers to accept it as real, and accept the notion that a collection of people thinking the same thought can cause extraordinary things to happen.

I’ll dare to suggest something else. Maybe all of these events would be easier to accept—by certain groups of people—than the proposition that God is an imaginary construct.

For most people on planet Earth, when you present them with IMAGINING versus BELIEVING, there is no contest. They will say that belief is so much stronger than imagining. For them, imagining is just an idle toy for children.

If you stuck them with exchanging BELIEVING for IMAGINING, they would feel deprived, shortchanged, naked, at a great disadvantage.

But what would happen, in the playing out of Earth culture, if, somehow, IMAGINING rose and rose in status far beyond the status of BELIEVING?

If that flip occurred, you might hear a person proudly say, “I had this very serious disease. Terminal. So I imagined there was a crazy pink lizard floating inside a castle in the clouds who could change into a dancing jaguar, and the jaguar could inject me with an energy that scoured my body and got rid of all the immune insufficiencies…and boom, my disease was gone!”

And everyone would understand and feel pretty good about the imagining.

Someone would write, “Back in the old days, we had quite a system. Belief was the most important thing. Can you imagine it? That’s a joke. Anyway, we were sold on believing. Then we gradually woke up and realized believing was a form of imagining. Wow. What a day that was. It was a relief, let me tell you. From that moment on, we could imagine without limit. And we started producing some amazing effects. We still do, of course. It’s quite a world now, wouldn’t you say?”

Yes. Remember, back in the old days, when one person would say to another, “You’re not imagining the same thing I’m imagining, so I’m going to have to kill you.” Well, he didn’t say it that way exactly, but we know what he meant.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

Visit the site, sign up for the email list and receive free articles, and order a copy of my e-book, THE OWNERSHIP OF ALL LIFE, in pdf or Kindle format.

The Genetic Metaphor

 by Jon Rappoport

April 21, 2011

(To join our email list, click here.)

In the grab-bag field of research involving human genes, some biologists have speculated that the 20,000 components of the genome are not enough to explain human function and behavior.

They have gone to another level—there must be additional programming or other elements that direct the genes to carry out multiple tasks.

This is all about cause and effect. In this case, the effect is everything a human does or thinks or feels. The cause would be genetic activity.

The goal, of course, is to understand the cause so well it can be manipulated to produce new effects.

When rare critics point out that explaining human life is different from explaining, say, a consecutive series of billiard balls striking each other on a felt table, researchers shrug it off and claim the human problem is simply more complex.

One biologist I interviewed several years ago told me, “This is the way science works. We start with a simple model of causation, and then, over time, we adjust that model so it can account for a wider range of effects.”

I said, “But suppose you eventually run up against the idea that an individual has free will? He can unilaterally decide to take an action, without any prior genetic determination.”

“That’s impossible,” he said. “There is always a cause. We just have to find it. What we used to call free will is really the result of invisible influences acting on a person.”

“How can you be so sure?”

For that, he had no answer.

Genetic theory is just the latest in a long line of ideas proposed to lock the human being into a structure. The will of the gods, the divine right of kings, demons, early childhood sexual trauma, group allegiance, etc.

Every era and age has its preferred method of PR, to make its hypothesis about causation seem brilliant.

And each of these explanations for human behavior is aimed at submerging the individual into an overall context that is far more important than he is.

Historically, the fly in the ointment has been art.

Because the artist seems to be FREE.

Actually, if viewed from the correct angle, the artist is exactly what every human being IS. But elevating the imagination to that level doesn’t make political hay in the marketplace of government. Or science.

And “scientists” tend to believe that imagination is merely a little flip and trick and switch in the gene structure.

Now, in the first flush of widespread computer use, many people have concluded that “the human species” is basically a design group. We build machines that think and solve and collate and organize. Soon, those machines will themselves design other devices. And so on and so forth, with every such entity aimed at carrying out particular defined functions.

So once more the artist is left out in the cold, because he isn’t, first and foremost, striving to invent robots.

What IS he doing?

Nothing much. Only creating worlds.

And there is the rub because, you see, everyone else is fixated on this world.

Of what possible use is another realm?

Even those who believe that other universes exist—the notion that an artist would create a universe that never existed before he made it seems superfluous and somewhat annoying.

“Why can’t he make himself useful the way everybody else does?”

This is where the rubber meets the road:

BE USEFUL.

If you can’t adopt that as your standard, you have a screw loose—or a gene pointing in the wrong direction.

So let me state it plainly. The artist shows paths to other realities in which we could all potentially exist. Realities that weren’t there until he invented them.

That is the side effect of his work.

The language we speak, our interactions, what we do every day, our chronic emotions, our preoccupations, our circumscribed lives, our so-called highest thoughts…all this could change radically in innumerable ways. And not through careful design, but through liberation from specified function. Through our own creation.

What would such a future look like?

It would not be one future.

Maybe that sounds like a koan.

If so, chew on it, and keep chewing.

Every morning, people wake up and salute this world, as it is.

The artist wakes up and creates worlds that aren’t and never were. If it’s true that, at bottom, we are all artists, then we would like to do that, too. Whether consciously or subconsciously, that’s what we want to do. The Policy of the world is to ignore that desire and pretend it doesn’t exist.

A strange thing.

“Let’s all pretend we aren’t what we are.”

Let’s pretend that every thought and operation of consciousness is the playing out of some mathematical truth, some biological and chemical truth, some truth of physics.

Let’s pretend that freedom is just another illusion, and the individual isn’t the First Cause of anything.

Let’s pretend that imagination is just another outmoded idea. The new notion of imagination involves a highly complex series of chemical reactions in the brain—and we are just passengers along for the ride strapped in the back seat.

Let’s pretend that, as prisoners, our only role is to discover those forces that enslave us, so we can manipulate them, in order to form a slightly different condition of slavery for ourselves.

If you follow this line of reasoning far enough, you will come to the place where human beings are pictured as machines whose only possible function—without a shred of free choice—is to re-design themselves…to become Machine B instead of Machine A.

Then the absurdity is complete.

Then you reject the whole line of reasoning.

Then you re-assert that freedom, imagination, and creative power are stark irreducible facts and realities.

Infinite realities.

You’re an artist.

I’m an artist.

Everyone is an artist.

That’s the truth everyone is searching for.

It just happens not to be a scientific truth.

Each one of us is free to create worlds without end.

If you don’t like that, you can find any number of umbrellas to sit under that will confine you to a smaller role and a smaller view.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

MAGIC REVISITED

 

MAGIC REVISITED

APRIL 19, 2011. Magic is a funny word. People have all sorts of ideas about it. The first is: it isn’t real. It’s a delusion. Or it’s something novelists write about and producers bankroll into movies.

Magic is, for blithe enthusiasts, angels riding on rainbows and Nature spirits coming out of trees.

Or magic is Gaia, the mother of Earth who cannot continue to exist in her current state, unless we clean up the rivers and the oceans (I find this one particularly odd, since the planet can recover much better from environmental insults than we can.).

Or magic is cults and ceremonies and brainwashing and arcane symbols and deranged sadists on parade.

What is actual magic?

Let’s start here. We live in a society of instruction manuals. You buy a piece of furniture, you take it home in a box, you read the guide and figure out how to put it together. If you’re lucky.

It’s a how-to world. Learn the system. Manage the structure. Become acquainted with the rules.

The scale has tipped away from subjective impressions, away from how things seem to YOU.

“I’m looking for a job that will pay me to explain how things seem to me.”

I’m not aware of any head hunters who can work that out for you.

When it comes to the subject of magic, once you clear away all the obvious nonsense, the mumbo-jumbo and the rituals and masks, you are left with your own impressions, however vague they may be. You are left with your own sense of how magic might feel to you, how it might operate, what you might be able to do and how that would excite or thrill you.

This is where most people stop, because they have no experience operating from that starting point. They want a compass, a GPS, a map.

What is a subjective impression? What does that mean?

It means a person has a fistful of feelings and thoughts and glimpses of something that can’t be cashed in at the bank. Nevertheless, that cluster is powerful. It can, at the very least, motivate and change a life.

For the majority of the population, subjective impressions are scrubbed from their minds by the age of 20. They’re gone. They are replaced by practical knowledge.

The “how-to” takes over.

What has been lost? The intoxication of smells of spring, the encompassing joy while doing nothing more than sitting under an old tree, the mixture of awe and ecstasy in the presence of a clearing in a forest, the intimation of grandeur looking up from the street at skyscrapers, the unnameable feelings that pass through the mind while reading a novel…

And these subjective experiences provoke a child to wonder about what he can create on his own.

Magic has to do with the ability to harness those subjective impressions and pole-vault with them into the sphere of imagination, where you actually INVENT impressions.

You invent perception.

That may seem like an odd statement.

Some people prefer to believe that magic (paranormal abilities, for example) will come about when scientists figure out how to deploy all the junk DNA hanging around doing nothing in the human genome.

A twist here, an adjustment there, an inserted DNA sequence over there, and poof, a person will suddenly discover he can fly.

I’m betting against it.

Furthermore, even if it could be achieved, who knows what the overall effect might be? The genetically manipulated person might experience something like what happens to a home wiring system when a huge generator is plugged into it: frazzle and burnout of circuits.

I wouldn’t volunteer for the experiment.

Magic, as I say, has to do with the ability to invent perception. We actually do it all the time. Sit in a movie theater. Watch the screen. You’re injecting motion and action and life and energy and a general kinesthetic sense into those flickering images, from start to finish. You’re projecting emotions into those characters.

You’re paying twice for the movie; once at the box office, and once inside the theater, when you insert life into the film.

If you want to get technical about it, the government is taking its cut, too. You wouldn’t cough up the ticket price unless you could walk into the dark, sit down, and make your own magic with the film. So your tax on the price of admission is what you pay the government for your opportunity to invent perception.

We get a clue about magic when we consider the mysterious operations of the old alchemists. The best of them considered that transmutation, the key aspect of their work, was really about transforming consciousness and taking it to another level.

One of their chief symbols was the cross. Two lengths of wood joined together. The four end-points of the cross represented, for them, the elements of nature: earth, air, fire, and water.

Contrary to modern bowing and scraping at the feet of a benevolent Mother Nature, the alchemists believed these elements were in constant conflict with one another. The conflict could only be resolved by what lay at the heart of the cross—at precisely the place where the two lengths of wood met, at the center.

This spot they called Quintessence. There have been many debates about what Quintessence means. It has been used in association with other alchemical terms like philosopher’s stone and elixir of life.

Paracelsus, one of the most famous alchemists, connected Quintessence with imagination.

This was a startling notion, to say the least.

But there is more to be understood. Quintessence has the sense of being a Place, a platform apart from the rest of the world.

As Archimedes, the ancient Greek mathematician, once said, apparently thinking about levers, “Give me a place to stand on, and I will move the earth.”

Well, here the idea is, to put it bluntly: “Let me create a separate world vivid enough, and from there I will cause things to happen in this world that are paranormal.”

In other words, if a person can invent a whole world consisting ofalternative perceptions, a separate world, if he can inhabit that world, then from that place he can do magic.

If a person can invent a separate world made up of his own INVENTED perceptions, he can move into that world…and from there, he can exert great power on this physical reality.

That, I believe, was the hidden message of alchemy and the ultimate meaning of Quintessence.

For a rough idea of what “alternative world” means, think of a fantasy novel. The author invents all sorts of sights and sounds and smells of a place that doesn’t exist, except by and through his own imagination.

The ancient Tibetans had their own version of “alternative invented world.” For them, it involved the adept creating a very detailed “personage”–and they believed that, if the adept achieved this invention vividly and completely enough, he would realize that the universe was a product of mind…and then he could make pieces of the universe disappear and reappear…and he could also insert, instantly, new elements into the universe.

However, in general, there is a tremendous limiter at work, when it comes to inventing a whole world composed of imagined alternative perceptions.

Confronted with the ongoing distractions of the physical world and the people in it, all that buzz and all that activity and chaos, someone who tried to invent an entirely parallel and sustainable world of alternate perception would be up against it. He would be trying to move a ten-ton rock up a hundred-mile mountain.

It’s a very impractical project, to say the least.

Yes, theoretically, if you could create an alternative world of perception and keep it with you at all times, the chances are you would be able to make some stunning magic. “Special effects.”

In theory, this is what magic is all about. A separate world, in which you can exist and operate, from a platform of power.

Archimedes, again: “Give me a place to stand on, and I will move the Earth.”

In practice, this doesn’t work out. All manner of difficulties arise, and the practitioner falls back into this world, sometimes with disturbing effects.

However, there is another path. It doesn’t demand the wholesale and frontal invention of a parallel world.

It is…art. Carried out with sufficient intensity and commitment, new perception arises as a side effect, and in a most natural way. A sense of dislocation doesn’t have to be part of it at all.

But the artist does need to realize he is creating. He has to have some understanding of a “philosophy of imagination.”

And he needs to be beyond demanding instantaneous fireworks. In other words, he has to have a deep fascination for creating art, quite apart from what magic abilities might fall into his lap as a result of the process.

Making art is, in fact, a way of inventing new perception. But that invention is part and parcel of a wider creative action. Again, the arising of new perception is a side effect.

So, you say, why haven’t we seen artists who can actually make paranormal magic in the world?

First of all, having talked with many artists, I believe some of them have made magic. They just don’t parade it in front of others—mainly because they don’t feel the need to. Also because they’re not looking forward to what the reaction would be.

Second, many artists don’t have a “magic perspective” on what they’re doing. They just don’t see it in front of their own noses, or they are busy with a kind of art which is, for lack of a better term, descriptive. They feel a deep connection between their work and the state of the world. They are trying to excavate down into human emotions and unearth realities there behind masks.

Third, we only see a snapshot of the artist during his life. It’s my contention that many artists are doing their work along a huge road of time, encompassing many incarnations. The length of these periods is enormous…and at some point the magical effects will appear as natural offshoots. Forty, 50, 60 years of making art is nothing. It’s just warming up the motor…

When I say art, do I only mean those branches we are used to calling drama, film, dance, poetry, painting and the like? No. I mean any sustained powerful creating in a direction.

And where does such creating start? It starts with subjective impressions and emotions that light sparks in the middle of night. You get up from your bed and go to the window and look outside at the world and sense space and time laid out like a carpet. You will invent something large and powerful that wasn’t there before. You will put it there…

In which case, you’re on the path. Of magic.

I don’t mean that metaphorically.

Imagination and creation are actually the philosopher’s stone that alchemists debated about for centuries.

Imagination overcomes all obstacles, especially those that appear to be final and immovable. It accomplishes this through sheer transcendence and also through the utilization of those obstacles in a transformative way.

Is this not what art does?

William Bake: “Imagination is the real and eternal world of which this vegetable universe is a shadow.”

The mistake (or difficulty) some ascetics have dealt with is trying to move lock, stock, and barrel out of this world into another one. That so-called spiritual path tries, in effect, to blot out the physical world. Why bother? Why try to move the ten-ten rock up the hundred-mile mountain?

Imagination is an infinite force that moves out from the center of the Quintessence.

More than a thing or a talent, magic is what happens along the long road of imagination, of art.

If you look at all the bizarre versions of magic that have been launched or promoted, the cults and groups and semi-spiritual forms, you find that coercion or hypnosis or propaganda are building blocks.

Art, however, operates from the basis of freedom. And in the long run, that is where true power starts.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

IT’S NOT IN OUR GENES

 

IT’S NOT IN OUR GENES

PART 2, THE IMAGINATION MACHINE

APRIL 14, 2011. I once had a geneticist tell me, “You know, we’re going to discover the genes for promiscuity, for anti-social behavior, for compassion, for obesity, hair-loss, anger, and fear. We’re going to discover the genes for everything.”

He said this with the kind of authority only a scientist can muster…based on no proof at all. Zero proof. It’s a talent, to be able to impart blather and make it sound like experimental evidence.

As a reporter for 30 years, I’ve spent much time exposing how medical, political, economic, and social realities are imposed on populations.

To a surprising extent, these realities are IMAGINED and then dropped down on the heads of the unsuspecting masses.

But for readers who have the wherewithal to understand it, there are other levels of profound brainwashing.

Let’s start here:

Most people are secret agents.

Their mission is to disguise—first and foremost, from themselves—the fact that they have enormous imagination and creative ability.

Achieving this concealment is on the order of blocking out the sun.

It is a complex task of deception. The pretense is multi-layered. One line of defense goes like this: I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT. ME? I’M JUST AN ORDINARY PERSON.

Yes, an ordinary person cast in a role in a stage play.

“Okay, I’m the director. Now I want you to assume all the characteristics of an average guy. You understand? I don’t want any leaks or cracks. You character has to be bulletproof. You grasp what is ordinary, and you are totally ignorant when it comes to what is extraordinary. Got it? MOST OF ALL, YOUR CHARACTER MUST BE DEVOID OF IMAGINATION. Do you think you can handle that?”

People do handle it all the time, and they do it beautifully. Brilliantly.

They have their lines down cold. No matter what you throw at them, they can fend it off and leave the impression, for you and for themselves, that they don’t know anything about imagination.

For them, imagination is a car in a garage under a thousand tons of concrete and steel. They will never drive it.

They pretend to be androids. They can move, they can accomplish tasks, they can be entertained, they can have fun, they can even think and solve problems, but they can’t create anything. That’s their gig.

If psychiatrists really wanted to look at the nature of so-called schizophrenia, this is where they would go—but psychiatrists are suffering from the same condition, so how could they proceed?

Now, because people are addicted to systems and methods and precise protocols, when they begin to wake up they think they should examine the walls erected between androidism and imagination. They think there should be a precise way to dismantle the wall, brick by brick.

Not true. The catch is this: they built the wall. The wall is not just a structure. It’s the materialization of a desire, a wish, a project, a deliberate case of amnesia. It’s a riddle wrapped in a gigantic hoax.

They’re still in the stage play. They’re carrying out the role of average human. And from that position, they can’t dislodge a single brick or see what’s on the other side.

They have to resign from the cast of the play. They have to quit.

Otherwise, they remain embedded in the contradiction: “I’m an average Joe and I want to get my imagination back. I lost it somewhere and I want it back.” You know, like a lost wallet.

They’re still faking.

They want to maintain the protective disguise of “average human” while gaining superhuman powers, so to speak. Not even Clark Kent was able to do that forever. Eventually, his cover was blown.

As a person said to me once, “Gaining my imagination again wasn’t through remembering I once had it. I had to decide I had it now. I had to see myself as the person who would have it now.”

He had to resign his role as ORDINARY HUMAN in the stage play.

You know, there are a whole lot of people who believe ordinary humans are ordinary because it’s in their genes; some people are dealt good genes and some aren’t. This is completely false. It’s not a question of genes.

Genes are part of a story that’s told to keep everyone in the dark.

The real and true story is about imagination. When you think about it, the ability to cast one’s self in the role of “ordinary human” is a fantastic act of imagination. It’s strange, because, essentially, a human being is using his imagination TO DENY HE HAS ANY IMAGINATION. He’s creating the role. He’s imagining that role and fitting himself into it.

Why in the world would he do that?

Well, there are lots of answers to that question, but the real proof comes when a person you would never think had any imagination whatsoever emerges from the swamp and becomes intensely creative. I’ve seen that many times, and it’s extraordinary.

He was playing the role of Ordinary Person in the stage play…and then he was gone from that play and that role…and he was quite, quite different.

And from that point on, his life was never the same.

What people call reality is the combination of the physical and social world and their own invented role in that world. And people appear to accept that situation. They may not like it, but by and large they accept it. But then, if they toss away their invented role and wake up to the fact that they have powerful imaginations…the world itself takes on a different quality for them. Reality changes. It isn’t an immovable object anymore.

I’ll add this note: I’ve been painting for 50 years now. I’ve had some interesting experiences with people who look at my work. The work isn’t realistic at all. My paintings are what people like to call abstract. I’m not sure what that means, except the paintings don’t look like what you see on the street or in your living room.

Once, a man gazed at some paintings of mine in my studio and said, “I have no idea what this is. It doesn’t make any sense to me at all.”

He was an intelligent fellow, but he was completely put off by the pictures. For some reason, I suddenly felt I could get him to understand.

So I said, “I’m going to try a little experiment with you, okay? Will you play along for a minute?”

He smiled and shrugged, and said, “Sure.”

So I said, “Imagine you do understand the paintings.”

It was a moment, and everything happened to be poised in the right way.

He turned away from me and looked at the paintings again.

He started perspiring. Within a few seconds, his face was covered in sweat. I could feel the heat, as if a missile were passing through the room.

His eyes glistened. He grinned and started laughing.

He turned back to me.

“How did you know?” he said.

I just shook my head.

Essentially, he was asking me how I knew he could offload his act as ordinary person and plug into his imagination all of a sudden.

This moment had nothing to do with my work. It had everything to do with him dropping his hold on the fictional role in which his comprehension was narrowly set in stone.

He had just imagined his way out of that role. He imagined he could understand something entirely foreign to him…and so he could.

This man was a chemist. For 40-some-odd years he had pretended he could only navigate within a range of potential information…and all of a sudden he pretended he could step outside that range. And it worked like a charm.

A bubble of enclosed reality burst.

That day, I gained another insight into the stage play. It isn’t just that people enter the play by inventing roles in which they have no imagination. No, the PLAY ITSELF has this central theme. The play is all about life without imagination. The whole drama moves forward on that basis.

When that cover story is blown, and all the secret agents emerge out of their cocoons, well, then we will really have something. We will

have, among other things, an endless proliferation of realities, and freedom will then have true meaning.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

Visit the site, sign up for the email list, receive free articles, and order a copy of my e-book, THE OWNERSHIP OF ALL LIFE, in pdf or Kindle format.

THE IMAGINATION MACHINE

 

THE IMAGINATION MACHINE

APRIL 13, 2011. The title of this piece is a joke because, of course, imagination isn’t an apparatus.

Not only that, you have to realize people are taken up with assessing the PRODUCTS of imagination. This one is good, that one isn’t. This one is acceptable, that one is not.

As always, people keep themselves from understanding the root of the tree. All they can see is the leaves. Now they’re green, now they’re gold and red, now they’re gone, now they’re green again. It’s almost a trance.

Well, it’s understandable, because physical reality is the screen on which is played the entrancing movie created by imagination, by many imaginations.

Teachers and schools are afraid to go near this situation. It’s incendiary. Tell children they have imagination? Encourage them to use it? Allow them to give it full rein? Who knows what might happen?

A spell might be broken. Students might suddenly look around and realize there is an infinite realm called creation—and this realm is not being imposed on them. No, they are the ones who flesh it out and invent it. Where would we be then? What might truly liberated children eventually do?

We adults, who have been raised in a prison, would be forced to look at what they do, far beyond our walls. Are we prepared for it?

Suppose we end up looking at things we can’t comprehend? Suppose reality begins to take on shapes that make no sense to us? Suppose our careful categories of perception are destroyed?

Life in any society you would care to examine resembles a funnel, with the large end in childhood and the narrow opening in adulthood. This is considered good and proper. “Common sense” eventually rules the day.

Have you ever had a dream in which people were speaking a language you didn’t understand? It’s an interesting experience, in part because you do feel you’re grasping the words and phrases at some level—even though you’re not supposed to.

Or consider this situation. You’re looking at a copy of an ancient manuscript from a dead culture. Pages of characters. It’s intriguing. Then, you read the translation offered by modern scholars. It’s a let-down. Imagination deflated. “That’s all it was?”

Every culture has multiple myths that describe how the world or universe was created. These are essentially Postponement Myths, because eventually we discover that we have the power to create without limit.

When this day arrives is, of course, up to us.

We are taught, or train ourselves to learn, that every idea has content. That is what an idea is: content. It’s all very simple. To qualify as an actual idea, the meaning must be specific. It’s hardly worth mentioning this, because everyone instinctively understands it. But suppose we encounter an idea that is ambiguous? Even worse, suppose the ambiguity is an essential part of the heart of the idea? Is that possible? For example, we read a poem, and then we break it down, line by line, phrase by phrase, and squeeze all the literal meanings from those words, and assemble them, like a puzzle, in order to arrive at a sum—the total message of the poem. And then suppose, after we have extracted the last drop, we find that what is left over, what resists our aggressive pressure, is what enchants us about the poem, even thought we can’t explain it.

Consider that this is a metaphor for imagination itself. You can erect frameworks and bring in machines and drill down into imagination to analyze its components, and every tool you employ will go dull, and still you won’t have begun to unearth the essence.

People generally find this kind of result distasteful. It rankles. It produces an aversion. “Let’s abandon the search. It was fruitless to begin with, because there was nothing there. We were fooled.”

Even as we say this, we know, in another part of our minds, that every single thing in this world came into being through and by imagination.

Search for a resolution to this paradox in all the works of philosophy and science authored in the history of the planet—and you won’t find it.

How strange! The very force by which all the things of society came to exist is the very force we want to deny, postpone, ignore, avoid.

Can we introduce a course-correction into civilization?

The individual can, at the very least, begin to think about his own disguised ability to imagine and invent. He can ponder the possibility of stepping out into the open and discarding his pretense of ignorance.

Because that’s what it is, a pretense, artfully constructed to evade detection.

Coming: Part 2.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

Visit the site, sign up for the email list and receive free articles, and order a copy of my e-book, THE OWNERSHIP OF ALL LIFE, in pdf or Kindle format.