The nature of "partiality"

In following the problem of conflicts, suffering and human dysfunctionality (or "evil" if you prefer), I often track such phenomena back to that principle of Ultimate Reality or Timelessness I refer to as "Partiality" or "Polarity" ("+" and "-" inherent in reality, necessary for motion). People following Timeless Education might be most familiar with this concept through the idea of partial or polarized human types in Bias psychology. However, partiality as a root cause of human conflicts and problems involves a lot more than a difference in various human types clashing with each other.

A huge part of human partiality or bias is also that reality I refer to as "Masked Man" (or Cultural/Hypnotized Man) that involves rigid habits and unquestioned assumptions conditioned by the environment or by a subculture. Thus partiality entails both a conflict between different types and a conflict between different cultures or conditionings, as well as the conflict between a type expressing more of his or her nature and a person mostly expressing or embodying the habits of a culture or idea. Another aspect of partiality is that which involves different, conflicting states of consciousness. There are some traits that tend to be universal to lower consciousness, regardless of psychological type or environment, such as being drawn to mockery and the surface of things when engaged in conflict, as well as giving up reason, fairness and personal responsibility in order to retain social order, safety and familiarity.

These are the partiality of the external analyzed in conflict or problems. There is also the internal partiality or polarizations within the individual going on at the same time. The confusion whether one is primarily a mind or primarily a body, and a partiality towards the one or the other without a proper unity, constitutes one such polarity. Whether one is partial towards one's own internal preferences or towards the expectations of the external environment is another factor. A third kind of polarity exists between 3 different energies or psychosis-hylomorphisms in one's energy-configuration, along with a polarity within each energy individually where the auxiliary energies may be partial and assist in the expression of a particular side of this energy.

Finally, there is one more polarization to consider, which is that of consciousness and unconsciousness; of attentive discernment or lazy mental habits. To say that one can be partial towards either consciousness or unconsciousness is only partly accurate, however, since a lot of the time people are kept unconscious through circumstance by no fault of their own, and don't know the taste of true conscious experience. But there still remains an element of consciousness that people should be able to have more of a choice in, even without the right teaching, when a person encounters the friction between different systems of belief and can, almost every day, witness the clash of cultures and ideologies. When such friction is present, especially in young people, one would expect a desire for discernment and truth to arise in their consciousness (in order to solve problems). This is, after all, the "alarm clock" of reality.

However, it seems that this is where personal preference (such as expectations, sense of loyalty or identity, psychological "type" or socio-economic circumstance) kicks in and partializes the desire for discernment and truth into a disingenuous or deceptive focus of attention and manipulation. Because of this it is important to remember that the problem or issue of "partiality" involves a somewhat complex interplay of circumstance, history, conditioning, cultural temptations, physical health, psychosis-hylomorphism (psychological type), and level of consciousness. This is why I have categorized self-knowledge (or the complete range of the essential understanding of partiality) into the following categories (excluding the "impartial" Timeless Man) : "Unfree Man," "Masked Man," "Biological Man," "Polarized Man" (a.k.a. "Natural Man") and "Temporary Man."

Partiality, in its expression, not only desires to fight against an "opposite" but more generally to simply convert others to itself. A big part of partiality involves the projected belief that everyone (or at least the majority) would enjoy or benefit from its preferences and in fact does not really believe that people or circumstances make up a big difference. This is where partiality disguised as "good intentions" come into the picture. And whenever supposed differences are pointed out they tend to be mostly directed towards something like biological or social determinism rather than level of consciousness.

Forcing people into one or another kind of partiality tends to be people's idea of unity, utopia and development. But it is a false unity ultimately enforced through repression, propaganda, ridicule, threats, superficiality, self-abandonment, and limiting the dissemination of information and freedom of expression to maintain a minimal amount of questioning. In other words, maintaining a low level of awareness or pushing it down. This is how we know that partiality is an aspect of lower consciousness, and that the stronger the partiality or bias the lower the consciousness. Furthermore, partiality (because it was not consciously chosen) cannot be said to have true agency or creativity.

If follows then that the more impartiality (or Non-Attachment) a person cultivates, the higher the possibility of consciousness (and "Omni-Appreciation") as well as agency and creativity. Therefore the development we are aiming for with Timeless Education must not be confused with just one more form of the usual blind partiality, even though it can be thought of as a higher form of partiality properly organized in relation to the whole. It is the study of how things function in connection, how to prevent dysfunctionality, and make the beneficial case for conscious impartiality – including the surprising rewards, self-discovery and satisfaction this results in and which the partial mind is futilely seeking and striving for in specific, limiting and temporal conditions.

But we must not forget to retain a certain appreciation for the natural partiality our bioenergetic dimension possesses, otherwise we are still not truly impartial and objective. Partiality in nature fulfills a necessary and functional role, especially when it goes along with consciousness. But conditioned, provoked or unconscious partiality in complex life-forms such as human beings leads to dysfunctionality and suffering. With everything ultimately being partial (as a necessary component of the configuration of reality) the final polarity ends in consciousness and unconsciousness; or source and its effect. Do you want to understand the source and be closer to it in action, or just be another one of its accidental effects?

What is religion?

What is religion? Religion is near identical with culture, a philosophy of life and attitude pattern based on insights that derive from metaphysics. And since metaphysics was said to be the first philosophy according to Aristotle, and Greek philosophy was something like a reformulation of religion into a new term, we can say that religion, philosophy and metaphysics not only are connected, but that in many ways they are merely different terms for what originally was the same thing.

I say "originally" because all these terms or concepts have diverged from one another and deviated from their origin, and not in a good way. The more division that happens, the more you can expect the concepts to be taken and understood erroneously. That everything is connected and founded on recurrence, reflections and correspondences is a fundamental law, and the true meaning behind the expression "all is one" or "all is in one, and one is in all", etc.

The word "religion" originates in the Latin word religio, the origin of which has been speculated to be "reconnect" or "reconnecting," which has the implication of reconnecting to a particular source or origin.

Therefore we must distinguish what religion originates from – what it was in its essence – and what it later became in various cultures or in the psyche of the individual person. In other words, what is of interest here is what the term religion should refer to, not necessarily what it is considered to be among the masses. When different individuals and cultures use the same word but mean different things, then it becomes a problem. Thus it is often necessary to either clearly define words and terms before they are discussed, or invent a new word or term that is less likely to be misinterpreted.

In Timeless Education I attempt to do a bit of both. In part, I try to analyze, explain and clarify old terms in videos and texts such as this one. And partly, I invent and reformulate old terms into new ones as part of a new teaching. I could say that the term "timeless education" has the same meaning as the term "religion." But then people would just say, "Oh, so timeless education is just religion..." But no, it's not religion as people understand it because most people do not know what I mean by religion. You do not know what religion really is, or what it was meant to be. Almost nobody does. Timeless Education also has the same meaning as philosophy, psychoanalysis, science, education, politics, etc. And normally people do not get all this in a single package, properly developed. Timeless Education is universal religion free of all nonsense. It is "essential culture."

I could make it very easy for myself here and simply say: "Religion is not what you think it is. Real religion is the same as Timeless Education. So if you want to know what real religion is, go and read up on Timeless Education." And, obviously, I think you should do that. But I want to elaborate a bit more on religion and explain certain things, since people often want arguments and support for this kind of assertion.

It is often said that all religions are fundamentally the same, with the same message, and containing the same truths. But this is an incompetent way of expressing it, a lazy-minded repetition of something people have heard. And as a result, the counter arguments are often stronger. It is more precise to say that all religions derive from the same source, that they were originally meant to be the same, that they should be the same, but that they, through misinterpretations, human partiality and incompetence have over time deviated both from their original form and from each other. So, no, today's religions are not the same. And because of that, the majority of them can not be called real religions. They are empty shells and rituals that long ago died and have lost their essence.

Ancient enlightened people knew and accepted that all religions sooner or later must die, to be updated and give way to a new formulation of timeless wisdom that reconnected to the source. I brought this up in my text on Norse mythology and Ragnarok. That the gods fall during Ragnarok is partly a metaphor for the coming death of the old religious system. That is why antiquity had so many different religions with similar gods and systems.

Same thing with the monotheistic religions. Christianity and Islam were both reformulations of Judaism. Christianity attempted to clarify that the scriptures should not be taken literally by, among other things, raising the point that "the letter kills but the spirit gives life." Islam attempted to clarify that all religions originally had been valid by saying that all people have had their own prophet. But even these two religions died very early. In their true essence, they only lasted probably for about a 100 years, tops. So the lifespan of a religion is very short. Just because people still call themselves Muslims or Christians does not mean that the real religion, its essence, has not already died a long time ago.

People are very superficial. They think that a label and some routinized rituals mean something. People do not sense their own lack of substance, and that is why they can defend empty rituals and literal interpretations, even though the scriptures or myths often were formulated so that a literal interpretation becomes absurd. Only by sensing that the religion does not feel right and does not fulfill deeper needs can the individual genuinely begin to seek and perhaps find the right interpretation or the origin of his or her religion. Every prophet and originator of a new religion has experienced disappointment with the former religion and how it was practiced. Real spiritual and religious individuals are seekers, people who question.

But then what is this source from which true religion originates? The source consists, in its essence, of two things. The first thing is a self-insight that one's own true identity is an inner observing point or "knower," "observer," "emptiness," "witness" – no definition can quite describe it so this consciousness, veiled behind all thoughts and psychological processes, must be experienced. In the East, this is the original aim of meditation, and in Christian tradition it is called "mysticism." However, "mysticism" is a term that, like religion in general, has different interpretations. Some Christians believe that "mysticism" is to get in contact with God or Jesus as an external invisible gestalt, or a literal voice that speaks to them, and so on. But these are later misinterpretations and superstitutions that are often transmitted by quacks. It is very easy for charlatans to exploit the term "mysticism," and through this concept claim just about anything. So I avoid the term "mysticism" because I do not like the word and I don't know how people interpret it.

But this part of the source of religion refers to the inner source of yourself. What you are when you peel away everything that is temporary and changing and connects to what remains and is permanent – you as an inner observer. And it is this observer or knower who is universal man, who is in God's image, not the rest of you.

The second thing that is the source of religion is a kind of source code or formula that expresses the principles of ultimate reality or highest natural law. This source code is called various things such as "Logos," "Tetractys," "Religio vera," "The Word," "the cross to take up," "God's name," "Jod-He-Vau-He" (or "JeHoVaH"), "Yin-Yang," "Ishvara," "Trimurti," "Odin-Vili-Vé," and so on. Out of this formula or source code, all well-known religious concepts are derived; such as non-dualism, the Creator, Karma, Almighty guide, the light of the world, sacrifice (such as humility and acceptance in front of reality), arithmetics, numerology, astrology, inspired texts, etc.

The purpose of religion is to preserve this source code as sacred and transmit it so that this ultimate guiding principle never dies out. Because without it, only lies and falsity, conflict and disorder, arise, mainly in the form of dualistic thinking – "the devil." And for people, even extraordinary people and philosophers, it is virtually impossible to reach the right conclusion in terms of reality on their own since people are too partial. The second purpose is to heal people and make them more healthy and capable of taking responsibility by giving them proper education in self-knowledge, especially deeper self-knowledge of the inner observer, so that they may develop true free will and act in harmony with the nature of "the Creator" or Ultimate Reality.

So true religion is inner unity, especially with the inner witness; and hard metaphysics, e.g. philosophical principles, process logic, and the consequent meaning of this, such as communicating a worldview born from the answers through storytelling. This is "reconnection to the source." Everything else is more or less pseudo-religion and pseudo-spirituality.