Surviving or coping within a hostile, loveless, and deceptive world is not easy for anyone. While its foundations remain unchallenged, the search is for ways to make it less intolerable, so as to normalize what is actually a state of alarm or dis-ease.

The purposes we hold dictate the uses to which we put tools and indeed the kind of tools we develop. The purpose of reintegration of our consciousness is the natural movement of life and yet runs counter to the defence mechanism we call consciousness. So there are conflicting movements in our society and in our minds. “Medieval man may have appealed to magical means and “Rational” man may try to reduce and subordinate all things to human reason. But reason is truly a word for sanity and is as far beyond human rationality.

Lovelessness is an aspect of human consciousness that science cannot address, because love is the unified expression of life and science is a specialisation of ‘divide and rule’ – unless it is only practised in a true spirit of service to life – as discerned and not in conceptual substitutions for the Living.

The powers that I referred to have tended to cost us our ‘Soul’; that is our present capacity to feel and know life directly – as is upheld by the true religious or spiritual sense – as distinct from the wishful make-believe that so often passes muster.

I feel that humanity is at a coming of age – that is to say it is no longer possible or appropriate to be regressively dependent, or pretentiously independent. Lawlessness is firstly a matter of the heart.
To truly honour the life that we are – and share – calls for more than scientific materialism. But I feel we need to expand our perspective – and not reduce it. Not to throw out the baby with the bathwater!

I feel there are many who seek to bring science out of the dark ages. At root it is the search for truth, but has sought it ‘out there in the world’. Maybe there is another way of looking at this…

My question is – What does todays pscychiatrict pill do, that is different from the medieval-mind?

But I pause to include the one who has let their mind slip into such dogged delusion, because they are no less worthy of the appreciation and awareness of truth than anyone else – AND I have frequent opportunities to notice some form of this same behaviour in myself!

It is so very easy to drift a moment into a personal ‘satisfaction’ of indulging our own story. If we can generate a culture that can call this out in a desire to correct so that communication can flow clearly, rather than react as a sin to be vilified for in likewise reactions!

I agree wholeheartedly with your suggestions for discernment of such behaviour as unnacceptable and self-invalidating.

It is clear that the medieval mind resisted the expansion of awareness and communication, and the scientific mind followed a path of breaking out from false constraints, bringing an expanded perspective – and accessing new experience and yet eventually undermining the sense of cohesion and meaning with a set of mental constructs, that are witnessed to by powers to manipulate the world, and our bodies, hitherto unimaginable.

The religious mind can be seen for its modus of mind-control, for the mentality that seeks power to manipulate uses whatever is to hand, yet there is within the spiritual sense, an intuitive apprehension of discernment and wisdom – which is not within the range of the mind that would ‘lord it’ over life.

Science tries to be free of the personal bias, yet its exclusion is the loss of the evidence via which the process of discernment occurs.

I see all of the essential mind-control aspects associated with religion (in many scientists) alive and active through the scientific endeavour.

The study of Mind, is not realistically going to be undertaken by a virtual mind that thinks to separate itself out and then ‘observe and measure and deduce’. Yet I feel the study of Mind is the willingness to be guided in the uncovering of a greater perspective than any framework our own thinking can manufacture. For it is the transformative ‘undoing’ of the virtual self-sense that lies beneath the addictions and blindness of the programmed or conditioned mechanism we take as our self and our world (when we subscribe to a materialist definition of our experience of be-ing).

The personal identification with a modus of power or control is a coercive distortion upon a Universal Field of awareness and discernment.
Yet observed AS such, is like seeing a movie as a movie rather than engaging it within its drama.

Speaking to one who is dreaming may well be interpreted within the drama of their dream, or ignored or resisted by the desire to persist in dreaming. But there is no struggle except in the dreamer’s imagination. One is simply inviting awakening.

Cultural shifts can be recognized by the symptoms. But if the ground (of Consciousness) has changed, there is no basis to be what we once took to be reality. Though we can hold on to personal assertion in the face of invalidity for as long as we can tolerate pain of a pervasively conflicted joylessness.
Ingenuity can make such pain seem to be ‘out there’ and distract with wars against the ‘problem’ in order to protect the primary investment of an independent (loveless) personal identity – which justifies itself to itself because that is its ‘job description’.
Set mind free from self-serving justifications that imprison and deny us – by noticing them and not be seeking to define them out in absolute terms.
The deceiver is adept at the arts of protection from the fears it sows in our own heart. “Steal a kingdom”? – no steal the mind! “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws”.
This pattern can be uncovered in our own mentality. The world reflects back to us, the activity of mind of which its experience is actually constituted. Studying the world IS studying the Mind. The personal sense IS a vitally inherent aspect of evidence. The perspective that observes it is resisted or denied or defended against as a fundamental expression of survival. Yet can an illusory dramatic overlay be said to be ‘alive’?

Accordingly, I propose an additional screening criterion for evaluating future talks under the TED/TEDx banner. Reject talks that:

- Primarily consist of vilification of other persons, groups, or philosophies, and rely significantly upon ad hominem attacks, derisive, emotionally laden language, “snarky” attitude, and the use of the most extreme, absurd examples as a characterization of the whole group or movement.