Freedom of speech

In my book Tidlös utbildning: en introduktion (2016), I defended freedom of speech as one of the best signs of a healthy society and that "the more restrictions that are introduced the more the society deviates from wisdom" (page 140). Since then, however, I have come across two arguments against total freedom of speech that made me want to reflect on whether I may have formulated a flawed argument for the freedom of speech.

The first counter-argument or flaw in the freedom of speech is that not everyone has the same prerequisites for reaching out with their message, need, or opinion. Social groups that are in the majority and people with the largest technological platforms will persuade and mesmerize others; not through the best arguments but mainly by "screaming the loudest" and being the most visible. Thus the belief that the "marketplace of ideas" will let the best arguments win through their own merit has forgotten to take this into account.

The other counter-argument is that freedom of expression also leads to a lack of restriction or filter being placed on advertising, gossip, spam, frivolity, scams, rumors, and poorly informed opinions that in many cases run the risk of drowning out more useful, healthy and essential information.

Since I agree with these flaws in freedom of speech, I felt compelled to go back and read what I wrote in my own assessment of freedom of speech in the book. I was wondering if I might have reached an erroneous conclusion or not used the timeless parameters correctly.

Fortunately, what I wrote is something I still largely stand behind. My main point in the evaluation was that freedom of speech does not work without Timeless Education with its practice of non-identification and development. I could definitely have gone into more detail on the subject, but the text is not at all as flawed as I feared it would be. On the contrary, I do not defend freedom of speech as much as I point out that it needs a complement in the form of the right education and a wisdom-compass, otherwise people cannot handle such an ideal. Translated quote from the book:

"Freedom of speech also involves a responsibility to be able to take counter-reactions, otherwise there is always the choice to keep quiet. No one can expect [there to be] accepting people who can take responsibility for either freedom of speech or anything else until they have done the work required to develop themselves."

One question that is still relevant, however, is how the right teaching and information, whether we talk about Timeless Education or something similar, can reach people if it is not conveyed by the largest platforms or if it drowns in a sea of trivial, banal and misleading information? In a way, the whole book is about this problem, especially the first two chapters, so there was no need to repeat this. That too much information and opinions are a problem for wisdom is definitely not something I forgot to pay attention to or ponder. That people with the most influence have more power in terms of information is also related to this, and pretty obvious, even though I did not mention this directly.

It was for this very reason that I chose to express a warning in the text, where I stated that crimes against the understanding of timeless truth through prohibition, neglect or distortion of Timeless Education will not be forgiven (by reality). Nothing works without it. Not politics, not religion, not school, not rule of law, not revolution, and not freedom of speech. And to make sure that Timeless Education gets the space it needs for a healthier world with healthier people, I would actually prioritize it over total freedom of speech. This does not pose that much of a risk for what is most essential in freedom of speech, since freedom of speech is largely included in Timeless Education. But the necessary respect needed for the principles of Ultimate Reality in a healthy society may require a limiting or questioning of freedom of speech in its current form. But if we are to apply any kind of restriction and punishment, it must be constructive and reasonable. Banning calls for violence is already a reasonable limitation.

How to reach people with wisdom has always been a challenge. If you come on too strongly, wisdom easily becomes fanatical religion with oppression of opinions, and if you create a mystique around wisdom to make it attractive by hiding it in monasteries or secret societies, it easily becomes elitist or crushed by other ideals that become totalitarian in its place.

True freedom of speech belongs to a higher state. The majority of people do not really want freedom of speech. Ordinary people are biased, passionate and prone to group pressure. And at the same time freedom of speech is something attractive that can support the demands and desires of individuals or groups until these are reached and then inevitably limits the same freedom of speech with precisely these demands and desires. Such is the result of freedom of speech without timeless wisdom.

But if we already consider freedom of speech to be an ideal in our Western culture, then the answer to how we should get people to notice Timeless Education lies precisely in pointing out that our current ideal of freedom of speech needs this kind of wisdom as a complement in order to function and be realistic. Saying that true freedom of speech needs Timeless Education, or wisdom, otherwise it is impossible, could provide us with an effective rhetoric that is easy to remember and at the same time can generate interest in Timeless Education.

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.

Rígsþula - Norse spiritual castes

In this text I will analyze some more concepts from Norse spirituality, by looking at the Lay of Ríg, or Rígsþula, an Eddic poem describing the origin of different castes. The concept of castes is a very misunderstood part of ancient spirituality, and here I intend to use the Old Norse one as an example. But the principles also apply to other ancient religions.

If you look at various commentaries on Rígsþula it is often described as a "strongly aristocratic song" that describes the emergence of different social classes. But the real meaning has nothing to do with actual social classes. This is, as I have pointed out before, metaphors and symbols for psychological processes and spiritual development within one psyche, or everyone's psyches, as psychological laws and as potentials.

Rígsþula tells or describes how the god Heimdall, in the guise of the wandering man Rígr, visits different homes on earth and shares bed with the couples he meets. The first couple is Ái and Edda which means "great-grandfather" and "great-grandmother." The second couple is Afi and Amma, meaning "grandfather" and "grandmother." And the third couple are simply named Father and Mother. After Rígr's visit to each couple, the woman gives birth to a child nine months later. Great-grandmother gives birth to the son Þræll (Thrall) who is dark-haired and whose kind become ugly but strong slaves. Grandmother gives birth to the son Karl (Churl) who is red-haired and whose kind become free people and farmers. Mother gives birth to the son Jarl (Earl) who is blonde-haired and whose kind become the highest: warriors, kings, and scholars.

I don't think I need to go through again why this should not be taken literally, because it becomes pretty absurd if it is taken literally: everything from the names of the couples Rígr visits, to the fact that he is allowed to sleep with the couples and impregnate the woman, and the origin of the castes in this particular order. How can there be slaves before there are kings, elites or other classes to enslave them?

This very imaginative and unlikely description is deliberate, as a safety measure, so that if the culture begins to take the stories literally, people will become more and more skeptical of the truth of the stories and question them. Ancient religious stories focused a lot on the supernatural and abstraction, not because the people of antiquity were more superstitious than us, but precisely to convey that it should not be taken literally.

So what, then, is the true meaning of this story? To understand, we must first translate the characters and events into principles and psychological processes. Men and women in spiritual writings do not refer to real people. Men and women are aspects within yourself. But which aspects? Based on my study of ancient systems and religions, I have come to the conclusion that the man is a symbol of our inner I, our identity or will. The man is related to our inner observer, the Self, but I think the man more represents the shape the Self assumes based on spiritual health or maturity, etc. Even if you are biologically a woman, the man still represents the center of gravity of your inner Self in your psyche.

So what then is the woman or women in spiritual texts? My conclusion is that our inner woman is our memory, and that women are the form our inner memory assumes. Different aspects of our memory, again based on spiritual health or maturity. Our memory is very closely related to knowledge. It is in our memory that everything we learn is gathered.
That's why the woman is a good symbol for our memory, since the memory is like a container that receives fertilizing knowledge from the outside, like how the woman's uterus receives seed. And the woman's psyche in general is more susceptible to external influences. And this is also a detail that explains why homosexuality between men was often considered bad in antiquity, while they were indifferent to homosexuality among women. Our inner men, different identities or temporary centers of gravity of the Self, cannot produce knowledge on their own. I think it should be interpreted as pure imitation of someone else without reflection or attempt to learn. And pure imitation without reflection is of course destructive both for yourself and others. So in religious texts, even in the Bible, homosexuality has this psychological meaning, and only this psychological meaning.

Same thing with marriage and intercourse. Marriage and intercourse has only a psychological meaning. Intercourse is our inner Self's encounter with knowledge, and what we choose to fill our memory or storage of knowledge with. It is thought process and reflection, which produces a progeny in the form of a new idea or world view. This new idea or concept is represented in spiritual texts by children; by sons and daughters. And again we should consider whether sons and daughters represent different psychological concepts. The son will, after all, grow up and become a new man in the psyche. And the daughter a new woman. So is the son a new identity? A new incarnation or shape for our "I"? Is the daughter a new form of knowledge or world view we retain in our memory?

I think this is on the right track, but we should also consider if the authors of this symbolism were perhaps even more sophisticated than that. In Rígsþula, it is told that the son Thrall married a slave girl and had twelve sons and nine daughters. Also Karl and Jarl got twelve sons each. The ancient number 12 is related to the Zodiac, and the Zodiac is a map of our inner Self's psychological wandering that is repeated. So we have a very complex system here where each cast has its own psychological shape with its own psychological cycle. Obviously, the three different castes represent different degrees of spiritual development or psychological maturity.

"Great-grandfather" and "great-grandmother" were, of course, early forms of our inner Self and memory that did not have enough development or maturity to be able to produce a rich and healthy psychological life. The fact that our psyche is filled with thralls and slaves means that we enslave ourselves through our choice of knowledge or lack of capacity for wisdom. "Grandfather" and "grandmother" are more developed forms of our inner Self and memory that can produce something better. But when we reach a stage of "Mother" and "Father" we have the best possibilities for developing a rich inner psychological life and liberation or spiritual self-realization.

But it is important to understand that our inner self and memory are not alone capable of this. Without the god Heimdall, who comes to visit, is welcomed, and gets to sleep between our inner self and memory, we cannot produce complete spiritual maturity or a rich inner life. Heimdall, like the other gods, is a guiding principle. But what does this principle represent?

In my text about the Edda I analyzed how Heimdall expresses the level of transformation, which happens in the encounter with higher knowledge. This means that Heimdall has about the same function as Holy Spirit in Christianity, since the second baptism is Holy Spirit and is done through education, which also represents consciousness level 2. Holy Spirit means higher knowledge – right knowledge – based on the principles of Ultimate Reality. Same thing with Heimdall.

Both Holy Spirit and the god Heimdall help to fertilize the woman to produce special offspring. Your inner self, the shape of the man you are psychologically, cannot fertilize your inner partner – your memory – with truth, unless it comes from a higher source. And this higher source must be welcomed into your psyche, very important, just like every couple in this story welcomes Heimdall even though they can only identify him as a wanderer. Same thing with knowledge. We cannot know that higher knowledge or truth is truth until later, after it has produced fruit. The concept of welcoming a guest, no matter who it is, symbolizes being open minded and receptive, because we can never find higher knowledge if we become prejudiced, narrow-minded and unwelcoming to new knowledge.

But even if Heimdall, or the right knowledge, visits us, it does not mean that we will understand it or take it in correctly.
If our maturity has not reached beyond Ái and Edda, or Afi and Amma, then we will inevitably distort it and misunderstand a little, and thus not reach full development. Even meeting truth, or the right knowledge, and welcoming it, as Ái and Edda do, does not produce much more than Thrall in the psyche if we are not fully ready or mature enough to take it in. But even Thrall is at least a product of having been open to higher knowledge. This means that people who are not even welcoming to new knowledge are probably at an even lower spiritual level than even Thrall. Their psyches probably still consists of Ymir, or of giants and hrimthurs. Their inner light may even have been swallowed by the Fenrir wolf.

Regarding sons I said that they symbolized new shapes and identities or attitudes in the psychological cycle. But what about the daughters? Thrall got nine daughters, and Karl got ten. It is not said that Jarl got any daughters, but since the whole poem has not been preserved it is possible that his daughters would've been described later on. The ancient number nine has to do with knowledge, since it was the basis of arithmetic or numbers. So, if sons symbolize new shapes and identities, daughters probably represent new systems of knowledge and ways of viewing the world. Women are often interchangeable (analogically) with cities in spiritual texts. And cities also often represent systems of knowledge, culture, and world views. And since the daughters are a product of encountering higher knowledge, it is logical that it happens to be nine in particular as in the base-9 number system.

But why did Karl get ten? If it is not a mistake or addition over time, it is possible that 10 is a representation that includes the zero and thus makes it higher. If Jarl did not get any daughters at all, it may symbolize that the highest development gets rid of systems altogether, and instead relies entirely on experience. Systems, even higher systems, can become unnecessary dogma that gets in the way of true openness and receptiveness. Systems can be very useful as a support in the beginning of learning and essential development, but when we reach complete liberation we should no longer limit ourselves to any systems at all.

The fact that the higher psychological kind is both warriors, royals and scholars, means that the main form of both warrior and king is precisely the educated whose sword is the truth and whose nobility is one's own authentic nature. In other words, this symbolism should not be confused with literal warriors or literal kings and nobles. And it is unfortunate that this symbolism came to be misinterpreted in such a literal way. But what came first, spiritual castes or social castes? Perhaps it was historical social classes that inspired spiritual castes with its symbolical analogy. But in any case it is not difficult to see how this symbolism is problematic, and also obsolete. And that is a pity since spiritual castes have a certain legitimacy, unlike social classes where noblemen, the military and elites rarely are wise or developed.

The symbolism of the Edda and Ragnarok

What is Ragnarok, and how should our ancient norse spiritual tradition be interpreted?

I have mentioned that spirituality can be translated as "essentialness" or "ancient psychology." All spirituality and religion, in which I also include Greek philosophy and 19th century psychoanalysis, derive from the same source – namely ancient metaphysics. It is important to understand that everything is connected, and that the division of all this into artificial categories and dogmas involves a lack of knowledge and competence. Nothing originates in a vacuum, and the only thing that is of essential interest is what is potential improvement or deterioration in truths or timeless wisdom.

In order to understand ancient religions and spiritual teachings, it is necessary to first understand ancient metaphysics. The biggest mistake is to take ancient metaphysics literally and thus believe that religion arose out of superstition. Superstition was something that came later, once people ceased to understand that no spiritual texts should be taken literally.

Before man's language had developed into the complex languages ​​we have today, prehistoric people seem to have used symbols – analogy – to communicate ideas. That's why parables such as light and dark, anthropomorphic creatures, the classical elements, etc., are common in man's early metaphysics that aimed to explain the invisible inner life and the psyche. People used the few words they had for things in the world along the most appropriate analogy or parable. If they had no word for "understanding," they used the term "light", and "ignorance" became "darkness" – since no one sees clearly at night which increases imaginary shapes and fears while daylight exposes what exists in nature and creates more peace and relaxation in the psyche. The use of these metaphors was an ingenious feature of their wisdom tradition, then. Especially since they often had no possibility of preserving insights other than in oral tradition. But over time it became more of a confusion than an effective language.

Psychology is a modern term for what originally was and belonged to spirituality. Psychology is and means the science of the mind or the soul. The word "spirit" is an ancient term that originally stood for thoughts and the intellect. The "spiritual world" is not some supernatural or parallel reality that exists somewhere out there. The spiritual world was and is the inner world of the mind; an invisible world of knowledge, principles, ideas, dreams and psychological states.

The characters in spiritual writings represent these ideas and psychological states which, with the lack of proper teaching from those who were the originators of the texts, are misinterpreted as merely historical individuals or gods which are then prayed to in an imitative and superstitious manner. Spiritual stories were ancient psychology which only used historical and worldly symbols (or people) as analogy to inner mental states and attitudes. A spiritual book that tells about the visible world is in fact not a spiritual book at all. Otherwise all books about history and about religion would be spiritual books.

Arithmetic or mathematics, however, are intellectual and abstract concepts that belongs to the invisible world, and thus constituted an element of ancient metaphysics. Ancient metaphysics and spirituality were closely related to arithmetical operations (equations) and, moreover, the origin of mathematics. Thus science was also an element of ancient metaphysics, which made it hard metaphysics. Numbers are abstract forms that make it possible to achieve higher knowledge and insights into reality, which also makes it possible to act correctly. You cannot separate numbers from logic and thus wisdom.

If these texts and sagas were merely superstitions, why then insert a lot of precise numbers? For example, take the following verse from Grímnismál in the poetic Edda:

   'Five hundred doors
   and forty more
   I think that Valhalla has;
   eight hundred Einherjar
   in width can walk through each door,
   when off to battle the Wolf they go.

I don't know exactly what meaning the numbers 540 and 800 have in terms of symbolism, just that numbers are usually related to geometric structures, astronomical processes, and arithmetics. It is also not certain that the numbers have been preserved correctly. But that eight hundred men can walk through a door at the same time reveals that the original writer did not expect it to be taken literally.

Another example revealing that the writings have a psychological meaning, and not a literal or superstitious one, is the names of Odin's ravens Hugin and Munin, which are usually translated as "thought" and "memory." I have also seen them translated as "reason" and "will." Technically, both names are variants on the word "thought." I'm guessing they are related to the activities of the two halves of the brain and that it should be reason and intuition, where with "intuition" I refer to inner images as in dreams. But to me it doesn't matter exactly what psychological attributes they refer to as long as people understand that they represent precisely psychological attributes. However, it is important to understand that it is not only the ravens or bird creatures that have a psychological meaning. Everything mentioned in ancient mythology and spiritual writings, including the world itself, is a psychological metaphor!

There are, however, two exceptions to this rule. One is a symbolic analogy with historical events where the psychological meaning is still primary. The other is geometric structures and astronomical processes where the latter also often has a historical analogy. For example, 540 x 800 will be 432,000, which is the number of astronomical years people are said to have lived in wisdom before going under in a flood according to an ancient Babylonian priest (Berossos). For 432,000 years foolishness and disorder could be kept at bay before wisdom fell completely, so every year could be likened to a soldier who maintain a fight against madness represented by a beast. And since ancient people saw the world as cyclical processes, it is likely that they also expected that both psychological and historical events would recur.

The Edda is a mixture of religion, history and culture in general. A blend made to preserve knowledge and tradition more economically, especially in oral tradition. Folklore always become a concoction of spiritual concepts, misinterpretations, contradictory elements, exaggerations and historical anecdotes. What we have left of the Nordic ancient spirituality is what remained at the end, when also influences from Christianity had found its way into the material.

Snorri's Edda
I will briefly go through Gylfaginning, ending with the description of Ragnarök, and analyze its psychological (i.e. "spiritual") meaning.

King Gylfi, who visits the Æsir and calls himself Gangleri, is Odin, since he says in the Grímnismál that he has called himself Gangleri and Third. The chieftains he meets are called High, Just-As-High and Third – which means that these too are Odin. Again, we are reminded that this is an abstract metaphor, nothing literal or superstitious. Odin could be said to be reality or existence itself as he is also called "Allfather", and within reality or existence (or a psyche) its different parts interact with each other.

The three chieftains – High, Just-As-High, and Third – are the three timeless principles of antiquity that express divinity. They can be expressed in different forms, but what they essentially express is process logic. Ancient process logic focuses on the basic principle of all movement in nature until it can no longer be reduced. Movement arises from the oscillation, relation or harmony of opposites through equilibrium. Hence the name "Just-As-High" for the second chief or principle. The third principle is the most difficult one to perceive, the actual relationship or movement between polarities, which explains why it is mysteriously called here simply the "Third."

Allfather or Odin is thus not only reality, but also the ancient yin-yang principle or triad that we find in all authentic religions or timeless philosophy. It is found in Hinduism in the form of Trimurti – Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. It is a part of philosopher Heraclitus' principle of reason or "Logos." I have also included this principle in my own timeless education in the form of A X Ω.

In other words, the three chieftains, who are Odin, represent the cause behind all motion and contrasts: the principles of ultimate reality; the Creator; causality; the highest natural law. It is said, among other things, in Gylfaginning that: "Allfather took Night and her son Day, gave them two horses and two carts, and placed them in heaven that they should go around the earth every day." The name Odin has its root in movement, penetration, and even rage, which are expressions of the unstoppable force of reality or nature. But we are also Odin, since we are part of nature and reality. In particular, Odin represents our higher Self or pure consciousness, what is called our inner observer.

The reference to "the old Asgard" probably refers to an even older religion or teaching than the gods in the Edda. The reason I suspect this is because the concept Asgard refers to a scheme or system (which I will go into), and there Allfather had twelve names but none of these were "Odin."

The number twelve, especially related to gods and the like, expresses particular psychological shapes on the way to wisdom. Gods are aspects of reality that represent different ways to finally reach the same overall reality. The worship or sacrifice to a deity is to choose an accessible starting point that fits the circumstances and psychology of the individual (i.e. human type) and by focusing on this part of reality (together with endurance) ultimately be able to realize oneself and understand everything that's essential. Some of these ways or starting points are, for example, love (through which we can reach wisdom); knowledge (through which we can reach love); art and self-expression (through which we can reach self-knowledge); physical activity, family and household, or adventure (through which we can reach educational experiences), etc.

More specifically, gods have their origin in twelve shapes as counselor gestalts to study, depending on the analogy with one's own psychological state or temporary attitude in life. The gods therefore represent different degrees of health.

That Allfather "lives through all ages" means that he is timeless: the movement or process that remains in a world of ceaseless change. That "he has mastered all his kingdom and prevails over everything, both in large and small," also means that he has self-control, i.e. our higher Self's control over the lower energies of the psyche (provided we have manifested our higher Self through the understanding of the principle and self-knowledge).

That he "created heaven, earth, the air and all that is in them" means that this higher principle creates how the psyche is shaped in our mental landscape. That "he created man and gave her a spirit that will remain and never perish, even if the body turns into soil or is burned to ashes" means that this principle leads to awareness of the inner observer or higher Self which was considered immortal. The "body" here does not necessarily refer to the physical body. That is too literal, and the principle here is to not take anything literally. "All the righteous ones" who shall live and stay with him are those psychological aspects that are grounded in reality and consistent with eternal or timeless principles. "Evil people" who goes to Hel and Niflheim are those psychological aspects that increase delusion and ignorance.

The nine worlds are sections of the psyche's or soul's various parts. They are also related to numbers. Before heaven and earth were created, Odin was with the hrimthurs (frost giants), which are the subconscious drives of the psyche. Giants and hrimthurs are symbols of desires and uncontrolled (and often unconscious) drives. That is to say, before a person has formed or "created" order in his/her psyche, "created heaven and earth," the higher Self remains hidden in the mental chaos. This chaos or non-formed psyche is also called Ginnungagap. The frosty Niflheim is related to these unconscious drives. Darkness, cold, sea, storm, chaos and fog are metaphors of ignorance, delusions and subconscious drives. The warm Muspell or Muspelheim is the intellect or a previously enlightened mind, which may refer to childhood wisdom or to influence from an external source. Light and fire are as a rule metaphors for clarity, knowledge and understanding.

The giant Ymir and other creatures are early psychological manifestations born at the beginning of knowledge or wisdom, from the "sparks" and fire from Muspell. These, however, we must later eliminate to form a yet more sane and harmonious psyche. But the psychological aspects we later possess derive from these early giants and creatures, like evolution. But since these early psychological aspects and attitudes were less wise, they are called "evil" – that is, undesirable in the long run. Cows and similar animals are often symbols of ancient spiritual writings and teachings. The cow Auðumbla, who fed the giant Ymir with her milk streams, probably was some old inadequate doctrine. That the cow lived by licking "the frost-coated stones" suggests that the wisdom was not the highest. Stones, mountains and rocks are often metaphors for literal and rigid interpretations of spiritual teachings. But whatever it is, it still helps to shape some better psychological aspects. In the end human beings arise and also Odin, Vili and Vé who are probably the same as Third, High and Just-As-High. They form order in the psyche by killing the giant Ymir.

There we also have an analogy with prehistoric history when a disaster occurred about 11,500 years ago. The latest science indicates that a meteorite struck into the ice sheet that covered most of North America, so that it quickly melted and formed a kind of flood. The generation of hrimthurs – the giants – who drowned from the blood when Ymir is killed, refers not only to immature aspects of the psyche, but also to immature and foolish people at the end of the last Ice Age. But the giant Bergelmir rescued himself with his wife and household by using a boat. He is called the "knowledgeable" giant, indicating that he was a wiser giant and thus used as a symbol of a wiser psychological aspect that is not lost in the internal mental cleansing. It is likely that the boat they saved themselves by is also related to some kind of wisdom cult or similar; old knowledge that was preserved and survived since prehistoric times. That is also a recurring theme in most other religions associated with flood stories. It is through these clues and the analogy that we know that all true religions derive from the same source.

And Odin, Vili and Vé – who create the world out of the former mess, such as Ymir's body – is finally the enlightened mind and higher knowledge. It is the beginning of wisdom and psychological health.

Heaven is the intellect; and the sun, the moon and the stars in the sky are symbols of higher principles that guide.

The earth is what is called the astral body and the center of the formed psyche. It is not dead matter since life and plants grow. Earth is the result that arises from the rest.

The air is the higher emotions, but is not the same as the sky/heaven.

The sea is the lower emotions, the subconscious with all the primitive drives and instincts.

In other words, this is the same symbolism and psychological meaning as the four classical elements. Fire is the sky (heaven) since the sun, the moon and the stars shine like fire. Air is what mediates between heaven and earth, i.e. between fire and earth. The fact that the earth is round like an island in the Great Ocean of the world indicates that the earth is a smaller part of the psyche, probably closely linked with the intellect since it is created by wisdom. Atlantis is a metaphor for an enlightened and healthy psyche that was lost in a stormy mind. It was not just a historical analogy. Historically, Atlantis refers to America and the disaster I mentioned earlier when the ice melted from a meteorite impact. But Atlantis is another subject.

Midgard is a castle in the middle of the earth that defends itself against attacking giants, i.e. intrusive desires. It is when a person has gotten his psyche in order this far that he/she can be called a human being, before that she has metaphorical animal nature or hrimthurs nature. The first humans, Ask and Embla, represent this – healthy psychological aspects. The fact that the first humans are made of trees is related to the world tree that plays a central role in higher knowledge. Asgard, the dwelling of gods, is the memorization or construction of a wisdom system in the mind. It is a kind of model or map or measure that supports wisdom. The gods and their generations are figurative principles that belong in this wisdom construction or system. It is time to take a look at the gods and parts of this system:

Here they are – the twelve gods and their abodes. The Zodiac. However, it is necessary to understand that the Zodiac on the starry sky is just another analogical symbol derived from the visible world to represent the inner psychological one. It is the starry sky within our psyche that is essential, not the one in the night sky. The Zodiac was placed at the center of the culture's consciousness by using its geometry for counting time (calendar). But counting time was its secondary purpose. Like religions, astrology too has been misunderstood through literal interpretations. It is not the planets out there in the solar system that affect our psychology, it is the planets inside our psyche!

Like the Zodiac, the seven classical planets are also merely analogical symbols taken from the visible world to represent the psychological. The seven classical planets are metaphors for levels of consciousness. Each sign of the Zodiac or god, every house or abode in the Zodiac, is associated with a planet – i.e. with a level of consciousness representing the amount of understanding and spiritual health. Planet means "wandering star" and referred to those lights that did not stand still in the night sky. Both the sun and the moon were counted among the seven planets or wandering stars. Sometimes these were called the seven stars, the seven heavens, and the like. But regardless of name, as a rule they refer to levels of consciousness. However, I find nothing written down about seven planets or the like in the Edda, so it does not seem like this concept has been preserved among what has been left to posterity.

The Zodiac is a large part of Asgard, and perhaps Asgard was the actual Nordic name for the Zodiac. Among other things, it is represented by the temple with twelve seats for the gods. Glaðsheimr is another name.

The twelve divine Æsirs are the twelve psychological shapes or attitudes a person assumes on their way to wisdom. Odin, the highest god, is symbolized in the center of the Zodiac. That Odin "sits in the high seat and looks over all the world and understands everything" is yet another metaphor of him being the internal witness or pure consciousness in the psyche that is aware of and knows about all other lower psychological aspects in the mind. Identifying exactly which god belongs to which house in the Zodiac is a bit difficult, and in order to make an accurate guess we must know certain fundamental principles and how the Zodiac works as a psychological system. The most important thing to understand is that each house or sign is connected with a psychological attitude, and this attitude is in turn linked to a planet – that is, with a level of consciousness. In the Zodiac, as we know it, two signs are associated with the two highest levels of consciousness, represented by the Sun and Moon, namely Leo and Cancer. The two highest gods after Odin should therefore belong to these houses on the map. The rest of the houses are arranged like a cycle that goes downward and then up again in terms of level of consciousness beginning at Virgo (next to Leo) and ends at Gemini (next to Cancer).

Thor is said to be the most noble of the gods, and the symbolism with the hammer that breaks the head of giants is analogous to Leo – the shape of the master – who steps on the serpent in the Dendera Zodiac. His residence in the Zodiac is called Þrúðvangr.

Heimdallr is called the white Æsir, great and holy, and has a high position that fits the level of transformation. I call Cancer the level of transformation (level 2) since Cancer was originally represented by the Egyptian beetle that symbolized transformation.

Balder probably belong to Virgo's place since the third level is associated with the original childhood state and innocence. And that Balder represents innocence is obvious in the Edda.

Forseti probably has the place of Libra since he is the god and judge of justice, and the scale is an ancient symbol of justice. So Forseti is on the fourth level of consciousness.

Scorpio is the dangerous, risky or sneaky sign – the sting that risks killing off wisdom by tempting us to think in opposites. This is clearly represented by Loki, the slanderer of the gods and the origin of all falsehood. And the origin of all falsehood is to not see the harmony of opposites, i.e. to think dualistically and to bring suspicion and accusations towards various aspects of reality.

Accusations and mistrust leads to a conflict with the opposite and disturbs the harmony. This is probably represented by the god Ullr who is said to be war-like in all his being. This is consciousness level 6. In the Zodiac, this is represented by Sagittarius, and Ullr is said to be a good archer.

This leads us to the lowest level or rock bottom, and what god can represent this if not a blind god? Höðr, who happen to kill Balder (although Loki manipulates him) is called blind but strong, and it is said that the gods would probably wish they did not have to remember him. He is also called Hel's companion.

At the sign of Aquarius, which symbolizes new hope in the dark, we probably find the god Víðarr who is said to be quiet. But also Váli is a possibility since he is called Höðr's enemy and slayer.

Pisces, representing the sleeping masses at level 6, are likely represented by the whale-fish god Njörðr.

It is the gods Bragi, Týr, Víðarr, and Váli, which I have the most difficulty placing. They belong to the remaining signs in the Zodiac. There are articles written by individuals who have realized that the gods are associated with the Zodiac, but those I have seen have placed the gods at the wrong signs since they do not understand how the system was meant to work. I have not found anyone who understands that the planets are essential and that they represent levels of consciousness. So do not trust other lists you may find out there. People are lazy and ignorant, even people with academic education. The wives and children of the gods and the like probably belong to the decans of the Zodiac.

Wolves are related to the giants and represents ignorance, madness and things forgotten. Sköll, who chases the sun, and Hati who chases the moon, are psychological forces that can stifle knowledge and insights. Same thing with the Fenrir wolf. One thing that is a bit annoying with ancient spiritual jargon is that the same concept is often repeated with different names and shapes and stories. For example, it is obvious that the wolf Sköll is the Fenrir wolf, since they both swallow the sun. Same thing with all the different names and shapes Odin has. My guess is that people enjoyed telling different variations based on the same ideas, a bit like how today's entertainment industry often goes through trends where they draw inspiration from each other. Then the most popular stuff was preserved and mixed together into a concoction, which people later held on to out of reverence instead of sorting out what was the most important and simplifying it. It is just like all the entertainment, literature and culture that exist today. Nobody wants to throw anything away or sort out what really is of value.

By the time the Edda was written down by Snorri there were also not many who practiced this religion anymore, and if they did chances are that it had deteriorated and was being taken literally.

The dwarves, who have human shapes, appear to be less important principles in the system, which is suggested by the fact that some of them have the names North, South, East and West. The elves are probably principles or ideas of greater importance than the dwarves.

The ash tree Yggdrasil is another part of the system, or more precisely the origin of spiritual systems: namely ancient arithmetic and mathematical operations – which is the source of the 9-base numerical system and mathematics. The tree, i.e. the arithmetic, is "the most holy place of the gods." Like mathematical logic, its branches spread all over the world and reach over the intellect, what is called "heaven" in ancient spiritual writings. It can be illustrated in this way:

The worlds here are distinct classes of phenomena divided into planes or levels that summarizes every complete being or thing, similar to what we today call fractals. The whole process can be likened to a tree where every new branch and also the nerve structure of every new leaf repeats and reflects the basic pattern of the tree. Hence why ancient systems called the numeral system the "world tree." All diversity can be dissolved into the basic laws that governs it and expresses itself in the numbers 1 to 10 in the above manner. Every thing in the universe contains in one of its constituent parts a fully reflected world.

Thus we find three dimensions of polarities in each complete phenomenon: the polarity of a sphere as well as polarities between spheres. And this is a miniature picture of the universe expressed in numbers. As you can imagine, this ancient teaching about numbers is quite difficult to understand, making the symbolic metaphor of trees and worlds very abstract. Therefore I usually stick to the worlds expressed in the psyche, which tends to be the essential.

At first I thought that the three roots that upholds the tree were the three columns of this ancient arithmetic. But after reading more in the Edda, I suspect that the three roots are the three spheres of the psyche or soul. The first root is the upper sphere associated with the Æsir. The second root is the mediating sphere between intellect and vitality and seems to be associated with the giants. The third root is the lower sphere, the vital one or sensory-motor. The fact that each root has a life-giving well for the tree means that no world, not even Hel, can be rejected. There is wisdom in every natural system that is inherent in the energies of an organism, but this self-knowledge of one's own biological nature and function is often lacking.

That Odin hung on the world tree pierced by a spear symbolizes self-sacrifice and process of meditation in search of self-knowledge – which is real wisdom. He puts himself to death, that is, his own ideas and assumptions, and learns how to learn from nature. Runes are hidden or secret knowledge. The goal of a heroic adventure is to become a non-hero, someone who does not try to be something they are not.

The Edda or poetic poems such as Völuspá are symbolized by the goat Heiðrún; the tree it eats off is the world tree which is knowledge and arithmetic operations; the milk or the mead she spills is the fine nectar of the sagas. Thus Heiðrún produces more nourishment than the cow Auðumbla, who did not feed on equal knowledge.

Other text or poem is represented by the hart Eikthyrnir; the branches it feeds on are also the world tree; the droplets from its horns are the wisdom; Hvergelmir (the primordial well) in Niflheim is the unconscious in the mind; "the elves who all from there originates" are likely higher feelings such as those that produce poetry and expressions of art. Here, however, I have to question whether they really mentioned the correct well for the origin of the elves.

The fact that the ash tree is exposed to various other animals might symbolize that the concept is easily damaged by misinterpretations and the like. That the tree is related with secret and special knowledge is obvious. Birds are usually related to intellectual activity, like Hugin and Munin. Urðarbrunnr is probably related to a place in the Zodiac since it resides in heaven. Same with Alfheim, Breidablik, Glitnir, Himinbjörg, Valaskjálf, Gimlé, etc.

More than one heaven is mentioned. These are likely related to levels of consciousness as I mentioned earlier. The number of heavens, however, is not mentioned here. The fact that the myths do not claim to know everything and sometimes speculate reveals that they are incompletely preserved. Things are missing and have been lost, but we could already guess that.

The Midgard serpent symbolizes, like serpents in other mythologies, the vital life force. When it eats its own tail and circulates around the earth, it is a metaphor for harmony in the vital energy. Order in the world is a metaphor for order in one's own psyche and self-control.

The thin and soft fetter or band that binds the Fenrir wolf symbolizes the power of small things, and that often it does not require much to keep ignorance and folly at bay, if one has consciousness. Knowledge is generally the power of the small, and the key is usually a secret or knowledge instead of physical strength.

Valkyries represent some form of guiding principles or ideas that increase knowledge and wisdom, thus it is said that they carry drinks and mead. Drinks such as mead, wine, milk, etc., are symbols of wisdom. That is why Odin, the god of Wisdom, is said to only live on wine. That there are precisely 13 Valkyries being listed makes me suspect that they are also related to the Zodiac. The people they choose are those inner thoughts and attitudes that lie closest to the higher wisdom and are timeless.

There is, however, much that is difficult to interpret, and also quite futile, since it may well be things that are not preserved well or did not belong to the original ideas to begin with. So I will focus on the two stories that the Edda itself says are the most important: the death of Balder and Ragnarok.

The death of Balder
Balder symbolizes innocence or the original childhood state, and his death is not a physical death but a metaphorical spiritual or psychological death – that is, innocence is lost in the individual's psyche. The innocence is killed by Loki, that within us that wants to accuse, slander and criticize reality, people or our own nature. I.e. dualistic thinking. That's what the antagonistic god or force symbolizes in most religions. Balder, the innocence, can be restored if all psychological aspects of the individual want it. But in a person who has lost his or her innocence, there is always an aspect that is indifferent. This is represented by the giantess, Þökk, who refuses to cry for Balder and says Hel can keep him. This giant likely represents some form of resentment that feels that innocence is not of use or to any benefit in the individual. The point is that the individual who loses their innocence, their inner Balder, has something in themselves that does not think the innocent open childhood state led to anything good. A kind of inner wound they carry. It is also said that Þökk was probably Loki, and that is possible since internal wounds are related with accusations and hostility towards something.

Ragnarök
The fact that aspects such as Loki, the Fenrir wolf and other psychological forces also arise in an enlightened mind with a orderly world means that the whole thing is a cyclical process. The possibility of losing one's wisdom or purity is always there. And when this happens, the individual must again go through Ragnarok and renew the world, the inner psychological harmony and health. An analogy with the external cultural world also exists, of course, where wisdom is lost in cultures. Attempts are made to bind and suppress both the Wolf and Loki by the inner higher aspects, but for the process to succeed, these must be released and expressed. A necessary expression of pathology on the path to health, freedom and wisdom. Every enlightened man has undergone his own Ragnarok.

First, mental unhealth and darkness arise in the individual, which is symbolized by the Fimbulwinter. The number 3 stands for completion of something, beyond the two principles of dualism. Three winters in a row does not mean the usual temporary bad mood or the like, it is pathology that is undergone to a purifying degree. The psyche is about to be restored or reborn. All the old has to die so that something new can begin, a complete healing and inner transformation. War and disorder between people is another expression of this initial process. Our psyche is in disarray because our own inner aspects, thoughts, wills and ideas are not consistent or in tune with one another. We lack self-control and a stable psychological ground to stand on.

That the Wolf devours the sun means, as previously said, that folly and ignorance reaches its culmination; reason and clarity of vision are lost. All order in the psyche is lost in chaos, the mental inner world is collapsing. The Midgard serpent is probably uncontrolled passions, overdesiring, dualistic aggression, and the like. The boat Naglfar, made out of dead people's nails, is probably related to negative verbal expressions and curse words. In another place in the Edda it is implied that the mouth can be called a boat with the tongue as its rudder. And since Loki, the slanderer, is aboard Naglfar, it is likely that the boat symbolizes verbal accusations. Hel, the death kingdom, is psychological suffering – feelings of lack, confusion, self-deception, frustration, despair, etc. Hel is Loki's daughter, that is, the offspring of the dualistic thinking. The Midgard serpent and Fenrir wolf too are Loki's offspring.

The sons of Muspell who come riding with burning fire and a sword that "shines stronger than the sun" is the inner conflict that arises in the encounter with higher wisdom and truth. Ragnarok can not happen unless it is in a context where the individual has access to or is confronted by higher wisdom. Ragnarok is the conflict between own partial desires, false knowledge, inner wounds and higher wisdom or truth. That is why only a person on the road to enlightenment can complete Ragnarok and renew themselves. Odin, the shape of the higher Self, battles ignorance – the Wolf. Thor, the psychological force that attempts to control the lower energies, battles the out-of-control desires – the Midgard serpent. The old system and symbolism collapses as it is time for an update, the gods fall in front of both the mental chaos and the renewed wisdom that comes with Surtr and the sons of Muspell. That Víðarr does not fall may be because he is the silent god, ready to take in and listen to the new. Váli, the other god who survives, probably has similar virtues. Thus Víðarr puts an end to ignorance, the Wolf.

That Surtr is victorious and burns the whole world confirms that he represents renewing purifying wisdom. Fire is related to consciousness, since light is a symbol of clarity of vision, and burning the old system and renewing is also something like forming a new religion or wisdom teaching, though still based on the same timeless principles. Ignorance increases when the old system begins to be misunderstood, so the system or tradition must constantly be renewed. The new beautiful earth, however, primarily represents the new inner health and order inside the psyche of the self-perfected or enlightened individual. Balder, the innocence that is goodness, comes home from Hel, etc.

This is, in general and essential terms, the spiritual meaning of Ragnarok and the Edda. And of course we all know that the old gods have long since been replaced by new ones. But what nobody has done is to update the system and ancient wisdom in a competent manner. And that is what Timeless Education aims to do: an update of timeless wisdom adapted to our time.

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.