Writings

April 24 2006

 

Interlocutor: You say that Unitary Perception is freedom, peace, well being and love. Could you expand on this theme?

 

Rubén Feldman González: Jiddu Krishnamurti said to me that it is necessary to discover deep psychological freedom, which is a fact without name that embellishes daily life enormously . We were in agreement in calling this freedom and this profound love, about which both of us had written so much, “Unitary Perception”.

Krishnamurti called it “meditation” until in London in 1985 he said that the word “meditation” was a stupid word.

But there exists a very strong influence from authors like Plato, St. Augustine, Hume, Spinoza, Hegal and Sigmund Freud, who state that causality or determinism are powerful forces and that they exceed luck or free will.

St. Augustine said that the will of God (Providence) is the cause of all, including the cause of the movement of the heavenly bodies.

This does not leave room for free will. But thought creates the paradox that if God is the cause of everything, He is also the cause of sin and human error.

A conflictual paradox appears here, which un-hinges theology and philosophy. Sigmund Freud held that determinism is an essential postulate of science and even a fact that can be demonstrated scientifically. Freud tells us, “the deeply rooted belief in psychological freedom, is not scientific and ignores the determinism that governs all and even mental life.”

Freud continues speaking of the interconnections or neuronal cycles, “they will be determined by important mental attitudes that we are unaware of at the moment when they operate, like the tendencies that cause errors and random and unexpected actions.”

We would like to clarify that the unconscious continues to be part of Precinct C.

The known is both conscious and unconscious.

The word determinism has progressed as far as to imply that “intelligent predestination” of future natural, psychological, behavioral, or historical events does not exist. This means that there exist efficient predetermined causes whilst at the same time not predestined which of course lacks an intelligent purpose.

Medieval astrology, nevertheless, stated that individual and collective human life was already mapped-out by the cyclical movements of the planets long before humanity appeared.

Again the word cycle appears to determine the functional neuronal cycles.

The planetary orbits or cycles influence the neuronal cycles or circuits to determine thought or conduct, both correct and mistaken.

Providence determines the planetary cycles, which in their turn determine the neuronal cycles that govern the cyclical cycles like sleep, thirst and hunger. These cycles are inevitable or ne-cessary (non ceasing or notceasing).

Destiny has been defined as cycles of inevitable necessity.

Luck is a contingency of destiny, which alters the cycles temporarily.

Here we could use the words free will, anti-cyclical contingencies, or those plans or human predilections that work out well.

None of this is the freedom that Krishnamurti spoke to us about.

He spoke to us about Unitary Perception, which is to learn without accumulating learning, without the expectation to learn and without effort.

Unitary Perception is about being “here” COMPLETELY, incarnated in one's own body. To not be here completely is the equivalent of not being here psychologically. To be here completely makes us conscious that we living beings are all “condemned to die”.

This consciousness is the start of freedom from the human condition. Unitary Perception is freedom but not the freedom to do something or not do something.

It is freedom but not the freedom to free yourself of your wife or of work. Unitary Perception is freedom without origin or destiny, without beginning or direction.

It is something that can be read in the Christian New Testament, in chapter 3 of the Gospel of St. John, as “being born from air”.

 

I: Do you say that where there is individual habit or social custom, there is no freedom?

 

RFG: We have said that there are psychological precincts that must be studied because they have distinct laws.

Precinct B, which is Unitary Perception, appears to have an a-cyclical nature that is to say non-cyclical.

For this reason it is important to study and dialogue about these psychological precincts.

Habit is like a vest or tunic that we put on over our bodies. The body is our first nature. Habit is like a second nature added on.

It is necessary that we dialogue about what is cyclical in our minds and what is not.

The addictions, the habits, the multiple dependencies that we have in the life that we know, the instinctual impulses, the hypnosis that we exercise over one another and that shapes our thoughts, the customs that on the one hand prevent gross social chaos but which on the other hand impede the necessary changes, without doubt reduce and restrict our psychological freedom. But the continuity of the experience makes us believe that the effort to live is less.

There are subtleties in the way we learn that sometimes elude us, but that favour a lack of freedom.

We have nervous reflexes and instinctive impulses as well as innate atavistic forms (maybe archetypal?) to respond to stimuli.

All this combined with desires and basic necessities determine unconsciously the behaviour and imaginary thought.

Daily and mutual hypnosis in human society is a forgotten conditioning in order to act in a determined manner.

But when we learn something new we have incorporated a new way of responding to stimuli.

If we learn Unitary Perception in our lives we incorporate in our lives the way (not a way) to liberate ourselves from the known past (precinct C) in a facultative way whilst the known is no longer necessary to us.

The learning in Unitary Perception is not cumulative.

The learning in precinct C is cumulative, and deduction and demonstration with inductive inference complement one another in this.

 

I.: Learning necessitates neuronal cycles. What is the nature of these neuronal circuits or cycles?

 

R.F.G.: I say it in my Written Work: these cycles are psychosocial, molecular, energetic and quantum at the same time.

The matter-mind-energy of the Universe is in a cyclical movement, although David Bohm has shown that there also exists the movement from here to here in holokinesis. Contact with holokinesis is possible only in Unitary Perception.

Again we see, from another angle, that Unitary Perception allows us to get out of the cycles, even if it is only partially or transitorily.

We already saw that sleep, hunger and thirst are cyclical.

Obsessive thought is cyclical, as is autism, the passion for gambling, bulimia, flashbacks caused by severe post-traumatic stress disorder, sexual perversions, including homosexual thought, general fetishism, pornographic voyeurism, recurring panic, addiction to alcohol, to tobacco, to sugar and to other substances, stuttering, tics, including Tourettes Syndrome, hypochondriasis, pre-menstrual syndrome, narcolepsy, sleep apnea, nightmares, sleepwalking, paranoia, domestic nagging arguments, child abuse, grief, etc.

All of these are cyclical psychological phenomenon.

We could analyse the apparently obvious cycles of history and the obvious recurrence of war, slavery, genocide and misery.

Astrology relates the planetary cycles to human behaviour and to the cycles of history.

So we see that everything in precinct C of the mind is cyclical.

It's very simple. Is it not?

 

I.: Could we say that the cyclical is bad and the a-cyclical is good?

 

R.F.G.: For the moment we just say that psychological precinct C appears to be of a cyclical nature and that psychological precinct B appears to be of an a-cyclical nature.

The problem of the good and the bad began to be studied in theology and this language came from there. Soon it came to be studied by metaphysics, jurisprudence, ethics, psychology, logic and economics. None of these disciplines have been able to define the good and the bad.

The current language comes from economics, which calls the problem a problem of  “values”.

We no longer speak so much about the good and the bad as about “goods and services”.

When one speaks of “values” there arise the opposites of sincerity and lies, happiness and tragedy, egotism and altruism, goodness and sin, salvation and condemnation, freedom and slavery, peace and war, well-being and misery, etc.-

Karl Barth, the Swiss ecumenical theologian said, in the prison where the German nazis put him, that “the human being, as we know him, can only be condemned in the eyes of God”.

In a dialogue about values, there arise questions that do not obtain answers based on scientific investigation but on emotional opinions that are conditioned by the collective consciousness of the moment.

This is not a science of morality but only an interesting dialogue.

But we can establish conventions to measure the pain of a human being and reduce it as has been done with the unit of pain“duka”.-

The good of the individual and the good of humanity are not separate.

This is discovered whilst living in Unitary Perception.

 

I.: You insist also in using appropriate language, above all when intending to disseminate Unitary Perception.

 

R.F.G.: I estimate that by the year 2012, a Planetary Association of Holokinetic Psychology will have to be founded.

Amongst its functions will be to form “Holokinetologues” to teach the subject without any distortions or ambiguities.

The Holokinetologues will have to respect logic, rhetoric, orthography and grammar.

But they will also have to do something more subtle. They will have to reduce the speed, ambiguity and the incoherence in daily discourse in order to increase clarity and precision.

The language would have to lack egocentric and hypnotic components whilst teaching the most important thing in life: Unitary Perception.

The exploratory dialectical dialogue, which seeks meaning and the rhetorical pacific and fraternal dialogue that disseminates this meaning, must avoid the sophist controversies and debates, which prolong unnecessarily an agitated dialogue, which for being agitated is insignificant.

This subtle dialogue will have to clarify why William James was dogmatic when he said that thought presupposes two things; the knowing mind and the known thing.

What we are saying, in order to bring psychology up to date with quantum physics and holokinesis is:

“That which sees is all there is”.This is a very strong dish to digest.

It is not only that the mind also must be known.

It is also to understand that the mind has a precinct B that is beyond all the known.

That precinct B is Unitary Perception or conscious contact with holokinesis, which is a non-cyclical movement.

 

I.: Would it be necessary to legislate or regulate language so that it could be refined to the point of being able to transmit this?

 

R.F.G.: The same word law is used in various disciplines with different meanings, so there is no reconciliation (unity) of meaning.

Law means something different in politics, to in the natural sciences, or to what it means in art.

With jurisprudence, the law, can be obeyed or not.

In nature, the laws are inviolable.

The law of universal gravity cannot be disobeyed.

If there is an exception to the law of nature, it is simply that there the law does not apply.

But the fact that slavery is coming back, now internationally, brings part of the scorn of human beings for human law and the law of God.

The return of the most profound human inequality in history, arises from innumerable and varied transgressions of national and international law.

But the language which we must use in order to teach Unitary Perception, with neither distortions nor ambiguities,  will be refined spontaneously to the degree that

   1)  We are attempting to live in Unitary Perception.

   2)  We dialogue fraternally about the subject.

   3)  We study seriously, repeatedly and constantly the fact in the Written Work.

This means that each book that has been written about Unitary Perception has be read slowly and repeatedly.

Those who do it will see that it is not in vain.

 

I.: Returning to the theme of freedom, what you said is that the freedom of Unitary Perception is something new in humanity, something that goes beyond all that we know about freedom?

 

R.F.G.: That is so.

Numerous doctrines of freedom have been written.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel has said that reality cannot be understood if we do not see that it is undivided.

He said that nature, history and human life are not separate.

Readers of his work like David Strauss, author of “The life of Christ, critically examined” and Ludwig Fueurbach, author of ”The essence of Christianity”, both caused a revolution in theology.

In the twentieth century, we have rediscovered this lost brain function, Unitary Perception, which is freedom without origin or direction.

This goes beyond the freedom conceived as the end of certain undesirable restrictions and on action based on the desire to exercise certain privileges.

The freedom of Unitary Perception includes but also goes beyond all independence, the end of all dependence, and the start of self-sufficiency, which permits the realisation of personal purposes and predilections.

But Unitary Perception includes the acceptance of the inter-dependence of mammals and of human beings.

Without solidarity and communion, human life and dignity are in danger.

Complete independence between human beings and between nations is impossible.

Immanuel Kant said that a good sovereign is a savage with neither law nor government.

The original primitive human being was like the good sovereign of Kant, enjoying (or suffering) his absolute independence of laws and governments.

He had to adapt to the natural law of gravity, which prevented him from flying, but not to any human law.

In Unitary Perception the observer is free beyond the human law which he agrees to respect as a citizen of the law and of the law of gravity which prevents him from flying.

The freedom of Unitary Perception allows the development of human potential in a way never before imagined, accepting the necessity of the economic equality of all human beings.

 

I.: If I understand well the little that I have read about Unitary Perception, this forms a psychological precinct which differs from all the known although it can be defined in a precise manner.

 

R.F.G.: The word “logos” in ancient Greek meant “law of God”.

With the Christianity of St. John Bonaerges, it came to signify the “son” aspect of the Divine Trinity and also “Creation”.

In the first chapter of the Gospel of St. John, it reads that all comes from “logos” and goes to “logos”.

Here we have an important logical cycle in the Christian culture.

In some way the word logical means “the manner in which the mind moves in creation”.

The history of the word logic, however, demonstrates to us that it applies only to precinct C of the mind.

But it's not that easy either.

Aristotle wrote his “Organon” of the basis of logic but never used that word.

To make things even more complicated, the Stoics of Zenon of Citium, classified the sciences of that period into,

1) Physics

2) Ethics

3) Logic and dialectics

Then came Francis Bacon with his book “Novum Organum” and Renè Descartes with his book “Discourse on Method” denouncing fallacies in the “scholastic logic” of Aristotle and reducing the significance of logic to a doctrine of reasoning or of syllogism.

Bacon and Descartes looked on logic as a rhetorical instrument more than as a means of scientific discovery.

Logic was then seen as the essence of philosophy until Bertrand Russell affirmed that it was identified with mathematics.

Logic had become more mathematical and mathematics more logical.

Then the study of logic as the essence of science also began. But it's not that easy.

Logic appears to be a way of explaining the nature of rational thought, but more related to the Greek philosphy of Being.

To speak of being philosophically allows us to speak of the self without appearing egocentric.

If logic cannot be the essence of science, at least it has aspired to be the science of thought.

Aristotle began studying thought just as it is expressed in the language derived from Sanskrit.

Then thanks to thinkers like Bertrand Russell, logic abandoned the study of terms and syllogisms and dedicated itself to the study of concepts and even the science of reason.

Now logic studies the diverse forms of thought itself and not only the form in which thought is expressed in language.

In the 19th Century, there commenced the science of Axiology, or the science of values, and of axioms, which are notions or indemonstrable assumptions, but accepted by all of the collective conscience of mankind.

This did not lead to the enrichment of logic, which had not yet advanced to discover the principles of rational thought.

What I have seen of thought whilst in Unitary Perception has allowed for a reduction in the frequency of fear, anger and sadness in me.

On slowing down the cyclical movement of thought, (a thing which occurs in Unitary Perception), there is the flowering of peace, love, order and the well being of freedom with neither origin nor direction.

Logic helps us to see that scientific syllogism which demonstrates something real, has the same formal structure as dialectic syllogism, which only considers probabilities.

The way in which Kant dealt with knowledge has to be different to the logic of Aristotle,  which now forms part of a new comprehension of the mind and reality.

We see then that a single logic does not exist.

Francis Bacon and Descartes introduce a new method to incorporate knowledge, something which logic cannot do.

A German psychologist has written to me, who redefines Unitary Perception for me as “to move with the universal flux”.

She had read “The Great Leap of the Mind” my work in English.

It appears that one book is not sufficient to understand.

She returned to philosophy and its vagueness, ignoring the precise definition that we have made of Unitary Perception: “Perceive everything perceptible at the same time without any effort nor expectation.

 

I.: Do you identify Unitary Perception with love?

 

R.F.G.: Yes. That is so.

In Precinct C love is an exchange. I give to you and you give to me.

In precinct B love is to give and give without expecting to receive.

Krishnamurti said in Madras in 1950 that we look after our frontiers carefully, because without them we would feel lonely and lost.

Cecilia González presented a paper in the recent Fifth International Congress of Holokinetic Psychology, in Mexico DF, which stated that even human procreation takes place more out of egocentricism than out of love.

If you just open your eyes you can see that it is so.

For the love of our frontiers we are prepared to sacrifice our sons in the interminable and repeated wars that have occurred since the beginning of the written history of humanity, more than five thousand years ago.

The self is a product of thought, but love is not.

Where is love when we do not feel gratified?

Gratification is an objective of thought therefore it is not love.

The vulnerable love of Unitary Perception ends up being substituted by imaginative, contractual, commercial, possessive, jealous, dependent and habitual “love”. This is the love of precinct C.

In Unitary Perception we stop escaping from being completely here. In this peace of being incarnated completely here and now, arises the love, which does not escape through the search for gratification, imagination or predilections.

Can we stop thinking about love?

We have to discover if something exists beyond the known. Then we will discover love.