The psychology behind conformity

There is a lot of talk today about culturally narrow opinions and political correctness, that people are forced by social group pressure to fall in line with the right values. It has also been said that Sweden is, and has always been, a very strong consensus culture.

But consensus culture is not unique to Sweden. All populations and cultures have always had their own consensus culture, but it is easy to become home-blind so that the phenomenon is believed to be unique. Swedish culture also has a lot of individualistic traits where people value independence and autonomy.

The reason why people and cultures fall into consensus values with tendencies to adapt is due to the fact that the majority of people are "extraverts." Here I refer to the original meaning of the word where Carl Jung meant that "extraversion" was a tendency to adapt to the ideas and values of the external environment more than one's own. Introversion was the opposite: those people who prefer their own ideas and values and have difficulty or lack of interest in adapting to the environment or the prevailing norms.

It is always or usually introverted individuals who bring about change or "updates" the culture with new ideas and thoughts that are then implemented and becomes a new norm by the extraverted majority. So consensus culture is due to the majority of people being "extraverts" and prefer established systems over innovative creativity and questioning. Today, the terms "extraversion" and "introversion" are not used in this way, even though it is a much more useful and correct application of them. So in the absence of better terms, I think we should restore these terms to their original meaning.

However, cultures and consensus may sometimes change direction by other, external factors, if the culture becomes so impractical and divorced from reality that the pressure of circumstances forces it to change its system. Or if it is conquered by another culture.

To analyze people's psychological tendencies, I recommend that people use Timeless Education's "Bias Psychology." But before I get into more detail about that, let's first take a look at the well-known Five factor model's analysis.

First of all, Extraversion in the Big Five personality traits is associated with Enthusiasm and Assertiveness. It does not mention that Extraversion has to do with adaptation to external norms and ideas. Instead, the Five factor model associates this trait with Conscientiousness, while preference for idiosyncratic ideas and questioning is primarily associated with Openness, the most creative factor.

So the Big Five's explanation of conformity is roughly that Conscientious people prefer established systems and plans they can be effective in imitating, mastering and following. And this leads to conservative tendencies. Both Political Conservatives and Liberals have proved to be Conscientious (Industrious), which shows that this routine-based and adaptive tendency prevails regardless of the political scale. This hard-working but adaptive tendency leads to judgments towards themselves and others based on how well they fit in. Then they have found that certain other personality traits increase the likelihood of becoming Conservative or Liberal, Authoritarian or Equalitarian, etc, in particular.

But to be focused on routinely working hard, without going into their own psyche to contemplate, question, and invent new things, is a form of Extraversion. Action-oriented or "Rigid" Extraversion as I call it. An introvert is, as we know, usually more interested in unusual ideas and not as hard working physically. What is said of Openness – which is associated with intellect, unusual ideas, curiosity and innovative creativity – should therefore also be associated with Introversion.

In addition, the correlation between creativity and school grades is zero, or even negative, which explains why girls often get better school grades than boys – since more boys are introverted or rebellious than girls. Women often do well in school since the school rewards imitation and adaptation, i.e. Extraversion. This is also why women more often get anorexia and similar psychological disorders, where focus is on presentation and external social achievements. If you think you are introverted, but have or have had anorexia, then you are not introverted. It doen't matter how shy, silent or socially insecure you are. If you were introverted you would not have that disorder. So life is just as tough for extraverts as for introverts. But the problems are different.

The second thing associated with political correctness is Friendliness or Warmth (Agreeableness), a trait that is also said to be more common among women; an adaptation to avoid conflict and cooperate. Men often say that women do not get along, that they are fake with each other, gossip, compete for popular men or the latest fashion, etc. But this is merely a certain type of women, most common in big cities and cultures where women are brainwashed by hierarchy. Otherwise, women want to cooperate with each other, and they also want to cooperate with men, which is why they want to participate where men work, while men are usually not interested in the work women are doing. I think that is what makes women more focused on equality. The majority of women do not have as strong an individual identity as men, because of their Extraversion and people orientation, which drives them to want to merge with others to form a team or group identity.

[Addition: Some research, such as that done by Susan Murphy and Pat Heim, suggests that the main conflict among women happens when someone in the group begins to stand apart from the majority or is placed in a superior position, due to a female tendency to want everyone to be the same (equal). This would help explain both the female focus on warmth, equality, and cooperation as well as the gossip and indirect aggression also common among women in, for example, the workplace (whenever someone, especially other females, stands apart from the majority group).]

The trait Neuroticism is supposedly a kind of sadness over not having a social life, and Neuroticism is also more common among women. Thus, it can be said that Neuroticism is largely just another side of Extraversion, where adaptation and social success fail.

Introverted people, whom often are men, do not understand this extraverted tendency, and will therefore make up all sorts of hypotheses to explain it. For example, I read one speculating that conformity is due to low IQ, laziness or fear; that such people try to take an easier road to power and status by adapting to the system, instead of questioning, challenging and inventing something new. Even in such a hypothesis an introvert believes that all people think independently, but that they have hidden intentions or motives for why they do not challenge the norm.

In reality it is a matter of how people are wired by nature. We need people who adapt and maintains the systems when it actually works. Introverted people often have a high opinion of themselves in their capacity for independent thought and ideas, but they don't understand that, without people adapting, communities would be very impractical and unstable. Introverts are more socially and physically avoidant than those who adapt. Communities need outward-oriented types that can provide a stable routine in things like physical labor, agricultural work, stress-resistant medical profession, and social politicians who can speak and meet the people. And for such people to work, nature has sacrificed inwardness and strong personal values so that they can take action.

That's why it has been difficult to find a wise philosopher king, since philosophers have usually been introverts, not suited to actively and stressfully leading the people in their daily lives. What we need is better coordination between personality types, not placing all responsibility onto a small group of leaders. People must cease to regard social orders as necessary hierarchy, and instead begin to form social orders where its various parts and individuals are regarded as complementary. There is no Übermensch. Everyone is specialized, and have always been specialized, for a reason.

Let us now take a look at Bias Psychology and the mechanisms behind conformity.

We find the introverted traits, energies or types, in the upper sphere. Abstractum is the most introverted and thus least inclined to fall for conformity, psychologically speaking. But they are also least likely to enact politically or ideologically, so they also do not represent a strong or visible force to counteract conformity.

Magnitudinem is the second most introverted type, and is much more politically and ideologically inclined. Magnitudinem can be authoritarian and conservative, subject themselves to a strong leader who can execute social order, but they question more often and their political position is not always stable. They are a type of justice warrior that can contribute to the persecution of certain people through accusations, but they are also independent in thought and are more in line with similar-minded people and higher ideals than with the majority. I would say that authoritarian ideas and the pinpointing of scapegoats some of them can inspire is more the problem with Magnitudinem than conformity to prevailing norms. One could say that they want the masses to submit to an elite, rather than they themselves adapting. Only if the elite is ideal as dictated by their own opinions would they want to adapt.

Fiduciam is the most balanced type in terms of introversion and extraversion, but since they also think independently and questions, I count them more as introverted. They are also the most individualistic, so conformity is not their tendency. They are very anti-fascist and wants to resist anything that threatens freedom of thought. But precisely this pressure they place on people, to be good, helpful, open and permitting, may have inspired the currently prevailing consensus elite in Sweden. Especially since it is a common type in Sweden. Independent thinking Fiduciam individuals, such as Olof Palme, "updated" the Swedish culture, then the extraverts have taken over and executes it today in their own inflexible and rigid ways.

Misericordia is another blend of extraversion and introversion. But unlike Fiduciam I count them more as extraverts since their Neuroticism is social by nature. The Gratum-sphere is extravert – oriented towards people, social status (keeping up with norms) and cultural trends – and can be said to be "Malleable" Extraversion that enthusiastically adapts to new fashions and role models. They gaze at others, want to merge with others, and imagine themselves in other people's shoes. It is the feminine sphere that is high in Empathy, Politeness, Enthusiasm, Kindness, Warmth and Neuroticism. The female traits of the Five factor model. But their social nature also makes them prone to conformity and consensus culture. And because they are often enthusiastic and assertive around social trends, they constitute the largest mob mentality. The #metoo movement is a contemporary example of this, and also the feminists in the 90's.

But that today's mob mentality happens to be feminist is merely a historical coincidence. Historically, women have contributed to the mob when it comes to everything from witch burning and religious assertiveness, to other types of moral panic and mass psychosis such as the 80's SRA hysteria.

Libidinem, in particular, is very easily hypnotized and passionate about what captures their attention. And they become assertive and determined despite lacking a strong logical basis. Usually it is probably a triggering event, or a conspiratory Magnitudinem or similar type that inspires the idea, then it is the extraverts, often women, who acts on it.

Urbanum is more careful, polite and professional in how they adapt, less neurotic, but they find it most difficult to rebel and are extremely people-oriented. Lack of rebelliousness is good if society is healthy, but bad if society is sick. They become very efficient at supporting prevailing norms and social ideals, even coaching others on how to fit in well, and making these norms appear more attractive than they really are. Negativity is avoided completely, and thus also healthy criticism. A strong investment and identification with the trendiest in culture, which then makes them want to wash away all criticisms against it since it is perceived as a criticism of themselves and their achievements in life or social value.

Finally we come to the lower sphere, which is not as enthusiastic and can appear to be socially introverted. But they are more traditional than questioning and inventive, so their introversion is an illusion. They are also susceptible to mob mentality and are less empathetic than the Gratum-types. This is hard working, Rigid Extraversion, that I mentioned earlier.

Meritum is socially aware and adapts like Urbanum, but is more hardworking and judgmental than social and friendly. Instead of abandoning themselves in favor of the group, they use cultural norms as tools of power. An elite mentality similar to Magnitudinem, but will base ideals more on established norms than independent thinking. Meritum is often individuals who reach high positions in society and then begins to establish a ban on what the mob is upset over to have order in society. So Meritum represents how mob mentality becomes a long-standing institution with new, suffocating laws and rules.

Corpus resembles Meritum in many ways, very hardworking, but is not interested in power or status. They regard themselves more as ordinary and simple, with the most kindness of the Morem-types. How they participate in mobs is hard to say since they are not particularly passionate or aggressive. But they are as prejudiced as Meritum and can jest with what is unusual or snort at it in silence. Besides that, one could say that Corpus constitutes an adaptation to people like Urbanum, but in a more rigid way. Adapting to the family or the local group tradition is often more important than adapting to the dominant culture.

Finally, we have Exitium whom does not adapt as easily, and it makes them similar to the unsocial introverts. Together with Abstractum and Magnitudinem they also have the least warmth or friendliness (Agreeableness) and is also a type that is more common among men. But Exitium is not an intellectual energy and rarely has any interest in metaphysics. It is a type that is insensitive and often violent, who rebels to the extent society is against their interests. But Exitium merely replaces the larger society with smaller clans and the like to have more influence themselves. In their own group, they are very insistent that others adapt and may become tyrannical towards family or the population. Fathers who kill their daughters in honor cultures are probably mainly Exitium-types, and afterwards they also want other fathers to do the same to their daughters so that everyone is on the same side. So they are very assertive like Libidinem.

Terrorist organizations and clan mentality are forms of anti-social mob violence, that neither conforms to the majority nor is original and innovative. A mixture of social rebellion with adaptation to "family or clan tradition." But I'm quite sure that Exitium-men often constitute small mob groups who attack certain designated individuals like a Mafia. The four men who killed an Afghan woman who was falsely accused of Quran burning were probably Exitium-types. So even though men form smaller mob groups than women, and more rarely, they are more dangerous when it happens.

This is my analysis at the moment. I will continue to observe people to figure out what the mechanisms are. However, the types should be regarded with a spirit of curiosity and research, not with too prejudicial conclusions. So do not take what I say too dogmatically, it is a simplification, and people form prejudices because they simplify. But at the same time we need simplification in order for ideas and truths to take root among the public.

I also think it is important to point out that consensus culture, political correctness, and mob mentality are not always the same thing. Circumstances where people are upset because they believe that a crime or injustice has been committed and forms a mob, differ from other circumstances where individuals passively adapt to the social order, or those in power censures and silences people who hold uncomfortable opinions, etc.

A mob usually occurs among the most emotional and aggressive types, while the cultural development is shaped by the middle class through education, and Conscientious people executes, governs and maintains the established social order. Hence the hope for renewal and improvement often lies within the intellectual middle class.

Lack of knowledge and exposure to propaganda will also increase the one-sidedness of people, similar to conformity, regardless of type. But the introverts still have an advantage in that they are more researching and seek out what is hidden. Unfortunately, education today is mainly used to promote conformity, not to increase independent thinking. That is why we need a new kind of education, as I have suggested.


[This text is a transcription and adaptation of the English subtitles from the Youtube video Psykologin bakom konformitet (The psychology behind conformity) from March 2018 that can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/ZiVnQBZw9II]

Creational causality

In Timeless Education I will often use the term "Creational causality," a term that is associated with both "the timeless cause" and accidents (i.e. the lack of free will).

I use this term instead of "determinism" because I want to get away from erroneous assumptions. Most critics of determinism focus on attacking the idea of predestination, that everything is already settled. But not even most determinists think everything is predetermined. They use the word determinism but they mean that everything is in the hands of accidents, not that it is predetermined.

Since I share that view, I think it's a good idea to simply get rid of the term determinism and instead use something that refers to causality – cause and effect. But I also have another reason to discard the term determinism, and that's because it is often used materialistically without taking into account a more complex consciousness. Causality also includes people's "programmed" inner nature in addition to determinism's focus on external influence and environmental nurturing.

Besides, Timeless Education leaves room for some free will in the form of free choices of attitude towards what happens to us, which in turn may, at right times, change the direction of causality. Only Timeless man can overcome cause-creating causality and bring about change or make deliberate constructive work – become a "causal source" of their own – to the extent possible. But this freedom is an exception that requires the right education, endurance, courage and discipline. It is not the norm in people.

"Orsaksmässig kausalitet" (roughly "cause-creating causality") is also called "Skapande kausalitet" ("Creational causality"), which is both easier to translate into English while at the same time connecting the concept with the term "Creator." Causality is more or less the true nature of the Creator in all religions: reality, truth, Tao, karma, Logos, the highest natural law, etc.

The symbols of this highest natural law are the numbers 3 and 4: The Creator and its process of creation without beginning or end. This triad and tetrad are in my system formulated through the essentialness-key A-Ω-X-Ω, and I have called it the timeless configuration of reality that regulates things beyond what people can influence, and thus should understand and accept.

So not only materialistic science emphasizes the limits of free will. It has always been an essential element in ancient wisdom and religion. The success of modern humanistic society is also the result of this insight, that circumstances determine actions more than free choices.

Real insight into and the keeping in memory of creational causality (the lack of free will) leads to less blaming, less hubris, more humility, more forgiveness (including self-forgiveness), and more wisdom with better connection to reality and an opportunity to actually begin acting properly. Even the adoption of victim role decreases. Only someone who still believes that others have free will can assume the role of a victim.

This insight should rather encourage curiosity regarding "what's going to happen" – focus on experience, on surprise – instead of striving in an impossible direction, which is a reduction of life and of experiences. Real freedom is a change in attitude. Real "doing," real actions, are inner actions – attitude, controlled intention. The confluence with truth; with the timeless cause; with the right valuation, is the most beneficial and peaceful. The more people develop, the more they experience themselves as part of a whole in constant exchange of energy and reciprocal maintenance, whether they try or not. Free will is better expressed by the word self-control, especially control over one's attitude. The will people have in their basic state is not free.

Creational causality assumes that people work with things and ideas they come into contact with and mediate these along their own individual nature and experience rather than give rise to something new or truly original. Originality is rather the result of unique events and circumstances.

The goal of development is to understand what is happening to us and how we are participating in an abundance, so that we fully agree with reality. A person who claims to believe in or trust in God, but does not fully agree with reality, can not be said to believe in God. I have never ever met a person who believed in or trusted in God in the true sense. Without a correct definition of "God" and "the Creator," the terms will just become imaginations. God's image in us is the internal witness, which can also do through the right attitude, but people have fallen from this deeper dimension or soul so that they are no longer in the image of the Creator. They are Temporary man instead of Timeless man.

Man and her psychological wiring with programmed instincts is within the powers of chance. People are not causal sources that can achieve without the right internal and external influences or circumstances. Achievements are circumstances and accidents, random genes and preprogrammed drives, but creates the delusion that we can achieve anything with unreasonable demands placed on ourselves and others. Praise and self-praise regarding what we have achieved in life is self-deception and a form of lying. Same thing with self-criticism and blame. People are mediums through which things are done by everything but themselves. And yet they take the credit for it. Wise men give credit to creational causality – to reality, to karma, to the Creator, or whatever they choose to call it.

And even if you believe in free will, which I too can believe in to some extent, this possibility of choice or "possible free will" is still so small and limited that focus on it just becomes a distraction. It is more practical and strengthens the awareness of the laws of reality more if we talk about how much people lack freedom and free will in comparison.


[This text is a transcription of the English subtitles from the Youtube video Orsaksmässig kausalitet (Creational causality) from November 2017 that can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/7kgFQ3I3-Yc]

Do we have free will?

[The following text is a transcription of the English subtitles from the Youtube video Har vi fri vilja? (Do we have free will?) from November 2016 that can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/i0cuiBriT-A]

A question that often shows up in philosophical and ethical discussions is whether or not people have free will or are governed by so-called "determinism," i.e. predestination. And the truth is that people do not have free will. But, and this is the thing: people can develop a free will. But this requires the right knowledge and effort.

So, one can say that both free will and predestination exists and is a matter of degree, more freedom or less freedom. But the first thing people need to learn is that people do not act along free will. That this is only a possibility which among the majority of people is incredibly rare.

The majority of people do not have free will. They do not choose their preferences or their mood or their thoughts or feelings. Their preferences "happens" to them; their thoughts and feelings "happens" to them; their friends and enemies "happens" to them; and their quarrels and infatuations "happens" to them – just like the color of their eyes or the fact that they are sentient beings "happens" to them. Like their birth and death "happens" to them. Like their kids "happens" to them. They do not love, do not hate, do not long...all this happens.

Everything is connected. Independence does not exist, everything is involved in a constant exchange of energy. How is it possible to assume that in an organism some cells will move in accordance with their own choice and will? Do we choose to fill our lungs with oxygen, or does it happen? Did we chose that the book we are inspired by was to be written or did it happen? Did we chose that the author who wrote it was to be born or did it happen?

This is very close to determinism, but the difference is that determinism is also implying that there is no inherent consciousness. Determinism is closely related to materialistic ideologies such as Communism and ideas that we start like blank papers and all that we are depends on the environment and external influences. This is only the lower degree of cause and effect, while causality in fact can be divided into four different degrees as in my timeless education:

   1. Own capacity to impartiality (free will)
   2. Fate (nature)
   3. Indoctrination (culture)
   4. Accidents (surprise)

At the bottom here, we have predestination in the form of so-called Accidents or chance. Chance is something no one has control over, all depend on coincidences. If we could control coincidences and random things, everything would be predictable. It is cause and effect we can never escape, but which is necessary for real experience. At first glance, 'cause and effect' appears as something that can be predicted, but the processes that cause them are so countless that it is quite impossible to predict them all. Everything happens according to law – cause and effect – or consciousness. There is no real randomness. The term "random" is merely an expression related to obscure causes that we can not see. Accidents are managed through the right attitude, such as not taking them personally, but instead viewing them as necessary for life experiences.

Indoctrination depends on culture and can be difficult to free oneself from. It is, however, cause and effect we can most easily escape from with the right knowledge. But usually, when a person feels that they've avoided the brainwashing of the prevailing culture, it's solely due to the fact that their individual nature has been attracted to an alternative culture that they've been brainwashed by instead – not that they are synchronized with their natural life energy or deeper existence.

It is these two levels that determinists are concerned with, and which they think is the cause of everything. But there are two higher degrees of causality arising from consciousness: our inherent nature or "internal" influences, as well as something that finally can be called "free will."

Nature, or "fate," is cause and effect that is even harder to free oneself from than culture. Nature is an individual's inherent and characteristic features or energetic pattern. It is their personal instincts, tastes and urges. Their partiality (bias). It is the hidden cause behind culture and that which is attracted by the culture that often is most similar to one's own nature. It is also our genetic aspects and things like congenital diseases or disabilities. Fate or nature is also our particular, but often hidden, talent: our "function" or "purpose" in the organism of humanity.

Freedom and real capacity depends on strong will and is hardest of all to attain. Our urges are usually what we call our will, but it is not true will. The situation, the culture, or the inherent nature chooses man's "I want" for him. In another situation, his "I want" would be different. Behaviors are elicited, not emitted. True will is the capacity to resist one's elicited "will," that is, one's nature, one's culture, and the influence of circumstances occurring. True will is to be capable of being passive, to observe and take in experiences without identifying with what happens.

In order to be able to call ourselves free, we have to break one of the laws of reality. But is there any law of nature we can break? Circumstances and accidents we can do nothing about. Physical needs such as oxygen, liquid, food, sleep, and so on, we can do nothing about. But the law of subjectivity, that is, our partiality, and cultural hypnosis, can be broken. Man can never be completely free, since even free will can only be accomplished through someone or something that makes you realize this, so it is a question of degree.

Ayn Rand is often brought up as an example of someone whose philosophy denies determinism, but examples I've found have not been convincing. The biggest criticism against determinism seems to almost entirely revolve around morality and ethics. Ayn Rand says:

"Dictatorship and determinism are reciprocally reinforcing corollaries: if one seeks to enslave men, one has to destroy their reliance on the validity of their own judgments and choices--if one believes that reason and volition are impotent, one has to accept the rule of force."

The flaw in this reasoning is that anyone who uses coercion to enslave people still believe that they are acting on the basis of their free will and that they can achieve something. True determinism should lead to acceptance and less persistence, which can only enhance people's well-being and health, while the belief in free will leads to self-assertion and vain attempts to accomplish all kinds of things that just makes life worse. Dictatorship – the belief that it is possible to manage and control – can not be separated from the belief in free will and something's performance capability.

It is in fact the belief in free will that is unethical and leads to evil, since it is false. But ironically, the acceptance of determinism, which is very difficult, is something that actually leads to the seemingly impossible: freedom, morality and free will. It is precisely man's lack of free will that is closer to evil than freedom of choice. We need an ethos based on being able to liberate people, and the only thing that can make people free to the extent it is possible, is right knowledge. But to assert or claim that we already have free will goes against proper knowledge and is thus immoral, to the extent something that only happens can be said to be immoral.

One of the biggest resistances against the development of "free will" is that it first requires that determinism be admitted as reality. Here I also mean higher determinism, not only the material thinking that people associate with the concept of determinism. Desires, urges, character, preferences, and so on, are programmed by nature. Cultural indoctrination is man's attempt to reprogram what nature has programmed. But both aspects lack proper self-control and "will." We do not choose our feelings or even our thoughts. Have you ever tried to stop your own thoughts? It's not possible, because it is not you who chooses them. Your thoughts happens to you. Your feelings happens to you. Even your physical actions happens to you as a result of those thoughts and feelings that happens to you. Everything is under the law of cause and effect. Even if you manage to stop your thoughts, for example by Buddhist meditation practice, then also this practice is just another influence you've fallen under and thus mimics.

So in other words, "free will" is something people can have, in terms of choosing a different attitude, but which most people in practice do not have and cannot have as long as they believe in free will. Determinism and free will is thus the same thing in different degrees. Free will can only begin from the realization that everything happens according to cause and effect, and that free will is more a matter of resisting one's will than to follow it, since our will is determined by the situation, the culture or one's own nature. Free will is, in other words, to cease with will, which is extremely difficult and requires effort, attention and self-control.

A person's capacity to do, depends entirely on the individual's ability to not do. When a person has been training their ability to resist the temptation to act along what emotions dictate, then that person can choose their actions. When a person has trained their ability to resist the tendency to be touched emotionally along what their thoughts and ideas dictate, then that person can choose their emotions. When a person has trained their ability to resist the tendency to have preferences, then that person can choose his thoughts. And the one who can choose their thoughts also choose their emotions, which are influenced by thoughts; as well as their actions, which are influenced by emotions. We are doing nothing until we attain an impartial inner attitude, when we are that which is observing and experiencing and nothing else. Until then things are done through us, but not by us. Until then everything is something that happens.

We can not begin by "doing," we can only begin by choosing better or worse among the thoughts and ideas that happen to us. Therefore doing begins with the right knowledge. But all partial forces are fighting against this knowledge, both within the individuals themselves and in society at large. The big struggle is not between "good and evil," but between objective clear vision and bias; between non-preference and the imaginary but tempting knowledge of good and evil; between those few who have achieved free will and the masses who are trapped in determinism. And the masses are trapped in determinism because they are willing and proud slaves to their bias and cultural patterns.

People think they are independent, think they have free will, and this causes our problems to continue. Let me show you two examples; a christian apologetic and a secular humanist; Stefan Gustavsson and Christer Sturmark [excerpts from various lectures and debates on Youtube]:

Gustavsson: "From the christian view of human life, this is connected: we have freedom and responsibility and therefore one can blame [...] because one has responsibility, one has freedom, and one is not a victim just because of coincidences. One is a higher kind of being."

Sturmark: "I think it is obvious based on how people function and can intellectually reason on moral and ethical questions, and such, from this follows, I think, based on observation, that we act as if we have a free will, so to speak. Everything speaks for there existing something which we can call free will. And from that follows, then, also a moral responsibility: we can make choices all the time..."

Gustavsson: "How does an atheist look upon existence? If God does not exist, if one understands everything naturalistically? And in order to help the reader he gives a short introduction which reads as follows: asks a bunch of questions and answers them, then uses the book to detail this... [...] 'Is there free will? Not a chance.' [...]"

Gustavsson: "If man should only be understood from his body...and our consciousness should only be understood from our brain, then we of course arrive at a problem, since that seems to go in a deterministic direction. And that's one of those reasons that I am not a naturalist, because that turns man into a machine. And here one must then take a position: Did you ask this question in freedom or were you forced to ask it? Do I give my answer in freedom because I reflect, choose arguments, think it through, or am I forced to say what I say?"

Rationality in human actions are nothing more than illusions and self-deception. Rationalization is as a rule always based on one's own preferences and wishes. The biggest preference man is slave to is the desire to change the external. Freedom is to accept the external and change the internal in one's own psyche. People waste energy on striving in an impossible direction.

Gustavsson: "If one chooses the deterministic road then one must be aware that, all attempts to hold anyone responsible has been undermined..."

Exactly. People are not responsible. They are dangerous, but they are not responsible until they have done the work it takes to develop free will.

Gustavsson: "All that is called love we have undermined..."

Love is beyond normal human ability. That's why the world looks the way it does. Love is entirely dependent on impartiality, and this people need to be guided to by those few who have attained free will.

Gustavsson: "And the discussion itself, if we are determined or free, have then lost its meaning because even that is in such case determined..."

Discussions like this is something that happens, nothing here have been out of free will. Responsibility and free will can, however, as I said, be achieved either by accident, through instruction from someone who is free, or from friction between nature, culture and accidents. Both the christian apologetic and the secular humanist claims that man has free will, when it is precisely this assumption and assertion that is wrong and therefore immoral. And the funny thing is that both the christian apologetic and the secular humanist should have arrived at the conclusion that man has no free will. In the Bible, God himself says that:

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.
- Isaiah 45:7

Does the clay say to the potter, 'What are you making?' Does your work say, 'The potter has no hands'?
- Isaiah 45:9

This is what the Lord says--the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker: Concerning things to come, do you question me about my children, or give me orders about the work of my hands?
- Isaiah 45:11

See now that I myself am he! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand.
- Deuteronomy 32:39

The Christian position should be that God is the only one who acts. Even Augustine was on the track that the Fall of Man put an end to man's free will, and left him morally incapable. And secular philosophers like Bertrand Russell and scientists like Albert Einstein have often reached the conclusion that everything happens along the law of cause and effect.

Gustavsson: "He [Bertrand Russell] writes like this: 'When a man acts in ways that annoy us we wish to think him wicked, and we refuse to face the fact that his annoying behavior is the result of antecedent causes which, if you follow them long enough, will take you beyond the moment of his birth, and therefore to events for which he cannot be held responsible by any stretch of imagination ...' So why was he [Bertrand Russell] against the war in Vietnam? That's the question, because the ones who started that are not responsible for their actions. So, here again, Bertrand Russell becomes irrational, that on the one hand he sees the consequences of his worldview – that people do not have freedom and therefore does not have responsibility. On the other hand he's a deeply moral person, at least in certain areas, so that he fights evil and oppression. But how does those two things fit together?"

The right knowledge is essential in order to attain free will. The ones who think they have free will are the ones who lack it the most. You do not want modern secular humanism, or modern Christian apologetics. You want Timeless Education.

Summary of Concepts

[The following text is a transcription of the Youtube video Introduction and summary of Timeless Education from March 2018 that can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/TyTqPypi8EQ]

For people who are not familiar with Timeless Education and want a quick introduction of the essentials, I figured [in this text] I'd summarize the most important bits and how things in it are connected, for my English speaking audience.

The opening argument is that questions concerning things like quality of life, development, health, success, ethics, etc., have no meaning without a standard or yardstick to relate to, like a compass. And often people talk about these things, throwing out phrases like "self-realization," "acting morally," "taking responsibility," and "achieving success in life" without first defining what is meant by this. What are the parameters of self-realization, morality, responsibility, success, etc., and are they objective? Who makes the judgement? And who knows what morality, responsibility, success, and so on, really is?

We have seen how destructive and immoral so-called "moral" religions have acted. We have seen how destructive and irresponsible hardworking leaders and politicians have acted. Lazy people at least have the virtue of not doing anything, instead of risking unintentional destructiveness. Similar things can be said about people with so-called success, which is often imaginary. We often underestimate how rich our own lives really have been, and could have been if we did not pursue vain success to look good in front of others. We could have been more moral if we did not try to force morality, more responsible if we did not try to control, manage, or interfere with natural development, and so on.

So the proposal is a new standard; an objective and sane yardstick to orient ourselves around, what I call a Wisdom or Evaluation Compass. This is the core of Timeless Education, and why it can also be called 'Essential Education'.

When it comes to attaining a higher impartial logic or sensible compass, we must admit that knowledge is essential, and that knowledge should be based in reality – be true. So how do we gain understanding or knowledge (facts, truth) about something at all? First, we need to seek something that can be known, reach a common basic assumption that everyone can stand behind. What can we all know with certainty? Only that which repeats itself is possible for everyone to know with certainty. Without recurrence in phenomena, no objective or useful knowledge can be established. All precise knowledge, all measurements, are only possible through observation of recurring things and processes.

This also applies to what people call single events. In order to have knowledge of single events, for example, that a car accident has occurred on a road after hitting a moose, you must first have knowledge of both cars, moose, and roads. All of this in turn requires recurrence, that is to say, experience. Had you never witnessed any of this before and seen this combination of phenomena for the first time, you would have no idea of what it is.

We should first accept movement (change, time) as a basis for knowledge; then mathematical units (numbers). Besides this, we only know that a world in which we live exists and that our consciousness within ourselves exists. This is fact, reality, even if it can not be proven or disproven. Everything else is worthless as a foundation. Everything else is merely unknown quantities and phenomena such as "nature," "matter," "life," "death," "energy," "light," "darkness," and so on. None of these quantities or phenomena can work as a starting point.

Thus we have begun to formulate a starting point for essential philosophical principles, principles that can be called "timeless" and lasting (permanent). In other words, knowledge begins with experience and philosophy. Not with science or information. Because even if you're reading a book on facts or someone's statistical survey, you still can't tell if the information you're reading is true or competently executed.

The next step is to seek the cause behind phenomena and behind our consciousness that experiences. So we reduce phenomena till their basic elements can no longer be reduced, to see how they are constructed. We observe the world as primarily movement, and that the fundamental movement that recur is circular in terms of, for example, days and nights, and seasons. Thus nothing is permanent except for the movement itself. This can be called a "configuration" the world is based on. An "ultimate" reality. Everything else is being put together and then broken down, but movement (time) consists.

But how does movement work? What is its causal mechanism?

In order for movement to work, an oscillation is required; a polarity; two connected things that simultaneously repel each other. A single thing can not produce motion or phenomena. Neither can two things unless they constitute opposites of comparable strength or permanence.

We therefore conclude that existence is dependent on at least three aspects in order to produce more phenomena and form a world like the one we exist in. Thus, we can formulate this fundamental and permanent cause behind phenomena in the following mathematical symbols:

   +  (force)
   -  (counterforce)
   ∞  (connection, oscillating or mediating force, equilibrium and punctuated equilibrium)

This is the closest we come to a configuration or timeless cause behind the movement, phenomena and effects of reality – since phenomena can not be reduced or divided into smaller elements of a compound. In the absence of a better symbol, we can also use this triad as a symbol of the basic element or basic principles of our consciousness. This timeless cause that regulates the essence of things thus becomes the foundation of our knowledge, and is consequently the most worthy as a guide.

Real impartial knowledge requires the discovery of the categories for the configuration of reality, that is, the timeless natural laws, and a deepening of the appreciation of their significance. These principles convey what we should already find in our experience. They are primarily a formula for retaining in our memory the elements of experience that are timeless. They are never wishful thinking.

So what conclusions can we draw and how can we apply this fundamental knowledge in regards to quality of life, development, health, success, ethics, responsibility, and so forth?

It is obvious that circular motion or a permanent background (cause) can not have any direction or improvement. It is also obvious that attempting to make something else permanent is to challenge or struggle against this fundamental configuration, which can only lead to frustration and disappointment. Therefore it also becomes clear that nothing can have an end goal or climacteric purpose in a permanent or recurring (cyclic) eternity. In fact, there can be no climactic purpose even if existence were to be temporary.

If end goals and climacteric purposes can not exist, then they can not be the right direction to seek our answers. If we are looking for a permanent state, then is it not more sane and realistic to look for an already existing permanent state: ceaseless change that gives us experiences and surprises and prevents us from becoming bored? The only sane direction in terms of development, then, will be: not an end goal but a goal of presence, of appreciating and living in the moment. This does not mean a cessation of planning or trivialization of the future, but rather planning should support continued presence and appreciation of each coming moment with receptivity, openness and interest. Besides, the higher the life-form, the less repetition and more variation is necessary for health and satisfaction.

In terms of purpose, then, we no longer seek it in the future in the form of ideals to achieve, but instead we seek the purpose of what we are right now. That is, to be and to manifest what we are. Instead of asking ourselves if we have an objective to achieve in the future, we should ask whether we don't already, with the particular nature we've received, serve a function in a world of interconnected processes; a "function" similar to how different microorganisms support higher species, and how species support a larger ecosystem, and so forth.

Our valuation thus becomes the knowledge of reality we've established; direction becomes the moment; and improvement (development) becomes synchronization or flowing with the configuration of reality or timeless cause, which is beyond time and polarities (opposites). Quality of life, health, success, ethics, responsibility, and so on, is also connected with this. That is, with presence, with the right knowledge, with natural function, and so forth. For example, responsibility must primarily involve teaching about this.

   Valuation: truth, the principles of ultimate reality
   Direction: the moment, become more what we are
   Improvement: flowing with the laws of reality

What is to be regarded as wrong valuation is thus knowledge that deludes us that we must or should achieve goals or permanence in the future; which is wrong, unrealistic and meaningless (vain) direction; and leads to a worse condition with the struggle against reality. That which increases delusions and thinking in opposites and makes us strive in an impossible direction, wasting our energies and distracting us from both presence and what we already are, is thus the opposite of development or improvement.

   Wrong valuation: delusion and erroneous knowledge
   Wrong direction: focus on goals in the future, become different
   Wrong development: fighting against reality

So we have arrived at the conclusion that the most logical direction is to manifest or be what we already are, pursue our "function" in relation to our natural environment, which should lead to a deeper satisfaction with a true sense of freedom and meaning. Wrong direction is focus on becoming what we are not (by setting up goals in the future) which risks upsetting the function of what we are, while at the same time working against satisfaction and a sense of freedom or meaning by "invalidating" our natural energies and attempting to replace, control, or change them with invented ideas, fantasies or goals beyond the present which are not the right "nourishment."

This in turn leads to the conclusion that we need to know and become familiar with "what we are" as the primary goal, what we really want and need, and so forth, and this is where the importance of self-knowledge comes into the picture... In order to even be able to move or choose the right direction for health, development, quality of life, and so on, we need to find a way to deal with the inner and outer reality we as human beings find ourselves in. Thus we can divide Timeless Education into the following concepts to get the general overview:

   A-Ω-X-Ω
   Freeless man
   Masked man
   Biological man
   Natural man
   Temporary man
   Timeless man

The culture must first of all provide us with the right knowledge before anything else is possible, and that, for example, is the purpose of Timeless Education and [this text]. So it starts there. Understanding must become part of our nature, instead of ignorance, lies and delusions. That's the first step. Thus development, paradoxically, begins not from our own nature, which is too biased and ignorant, but from external factors in order to then reach our inner, authentic factors.

The formula A-Ω-X-Ω is what represents the foundation for secure knowledge or truth. A and Ω represent the reality of contrasts, and X stands for the relationship between them and the movement of them. The second Ω is what makes it possible to expand this tool and also explain the world's diversity. So the tool A-Ω-X-Ω stands for knowledge of the principles of ultimate reality, while the rest of the system is more centered around psychology and self-knowledge.

A-Ω-X-Ω is connected primarily with universal knowledge, analogical method, timeless now-centeredness, organizational numbers, and to counteract what I call "eternity blindness" – which is deceptive ideas about climactic purposes in eternity.

"Freeless man" is connected with creational causality, which is also represented by A-Ω-X-Ω. The basis of self-knowledge should be built around the fact that circumstances have primarily determined our choices. People do not have as much freedom as we tend to attribute them. The concept of "Freeless man" permeates all aspects of self-knowledge and should be established as early as possible.

"Masked man" is connected with cultural acquisition, upbringing, and cultural hypnosis. Like Freeless man, this is an aspect of the fact that we do not exist separately from others or our surroundings. Every human being will, and must inevitably, begin to imitate the surroundings in order to communicate and survive in the environment. This happens with or without conscious attempts at education from the surroundings. "Acquisition" (culture, knowledge) can therefore not be separated from our nature. It is also here that the egoism is predominantly inhabited, since the super-ego connects to prevailing values and suppresses our own nature rather than asserts it. "Masked man" contains a lot of false garbage that we have to clean ourselves from. However, some things we have adopted from the culture can be helpful and useful, for example, providing us with a common language that enables us to communicate more effectively.

"Biological man" is our physical body with its organs and functions, and is connected with physical health. Knowledge of this aspect of ourselves is important for maintaining physical health by eating sensibly, not stressing, knowing how much sun we can tolerate, what diseases we can protect ourselves from, and so forth. This is an important part of self-knowledge, but it is also the part that already gets the most attention in our culture. There is already a lot of information and advice on how we best keep our bodies healthy, so that's why I don't prioritize it in Timeless Education.

"Natural man" is our individual energy patterns and preferences – instincts. This aspect of self-knowledge is connected with the individual's "purpose" and "function," as well as concepts such as exchange of energy, reciprocal maintenance, and so forth, that support a sense of meaning and satisfaction. It is this part of ourselves that needs attention and self-expression to experience the feeling of freedom and substance. Tools belonging to Natural man are Bias Psychology, where certain characteristics of people can be categorized and analyzed, so-called "human types" or "personality traits." A lot of new terms are used here, but should not take too much time to learn, and they are most useful for providing words to character phenomena there often are no good words for. Also political ideas regarding, for example, "Triarchy" are connected with Natural man and its needs.

Another thing that is connected with Natural man is Eternal metamorphosis pattern, i.e. evolution. You can not talk about Natural man without also talking about evolution, and a sensible theory of evolution must be compatible with types, which the current theory of evolution barely is. It is, for example, important to understand that special qualities can not be inherited in humans as in animals. I would therefore like to offer an alternative or updated theory of evolution.

Criticism of our current science, such as the prevailing theory of evolution, is perhaps not necessary to maintain our so far established parameters for the evaluation of quality of life, health, responsibility, and development. But if our current theories have shortcomings, then it can not hurt to establish a more sane or probable theory, even if only as a placeholder. Understanding and truth is, after all, our highest valuation in these parameters.

"Temporary man" can refer to all other aspects of ourselves except for "Timeless man" (i.e. the previous aspects I have already talked about), but primarily it refers to our temporary attitudes and ways of relating to the world. This often indicates how developed we are and where we find ourselves in relation to "Timeless man."

"Timeless man" is the most internal and permanent that we are. It is our true and final identity that is experienced as an observing self-awareness or pure consciousness that is difficult to describe or define through symbols and language. Often we are not even aware of this inner aspect of ourselves because we identify with one of the aforementioned aspects and invent ideas of what we are or want to be. However, many people in every era have always been reminded of this deeper or "higher" Self through, for example, spirituality or religions, and it can be said that the concept constitutes the basis of all religion (where some religions have deviated from this foundation over time). It has also been a part of philosophy. Today, the concept sometimes also appears in psychotherapeutic contexts, even if it's perhaps not so common. Carl Jung attempted to represent it through the idea of the "collective unconscious", but it is difficult to determine if he really understood the sources he got his inspiration from.

Timeless man is closely connected with the evaluation compass. Since it constitutes a spiritual dimension, it's also related to discussions of things like reincarnation, metensomatosis, higher energy structures, dark quanta, and regions of complex numbers beyond our observable physical space-time world. How important these elements are for Timeless Education can be debated, but every reasonable education must deal in one way or another with religion and spirituality. Especially since consciousness is still difficult to comprehend.

What makes Timeless man important is that it is the only aspect of self-knowledge that can deal with circumstances beyond our control through a change of attitude. We could say that Timeless man, or the inner witness, is the only aspect of ourselves that can act freely through a choice of attitude and intent. And since morality is dependent on freedom and free will, only Timeless man can act morally, as well as define what is moral, namely a shift in attitude and to increase one's understanding of reality.

So that's the concepts in Timeless Education in general. For more detailed information regarding what you want to know, see [Youtube videos] or articles on the blog regarding the specific subject. And remember that educational videos in Swedish have English subtitles.