Reflections on society, politics and nature XX

Continued from previous posts…. These posts are collections of brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include a few short personal notes as well.

A more formalized type of mirror. I am not much into astrology or tarot, although I recognize that it can be helpful. At their best, they combine archetypes, projections, and synchronicities in a powerful and potentially life-transforming way.

Both have systemized some basic archetypes and some of their dynamics. And since archetypes are universal, they will resonate with whomever is receptive to it.

Both can serve as very good projection objects. We see ourselves in the astrology charts or a tarot card or layout because we put ourselves into it.

Synchronicities can play a role in both. Something going on in our life – and especially in our mind – can be reflected in astrology and tarot.

In all of these ways, astrology and tarot can serve as a mirror for us. They can help us see and get to know aspects of ourselves.

It seems less useful if we have a simplistic and heavy-handed approach to astrology, tarot, or anything else. For instance, if we think they tell us something that’s going to happen. That can create stress, and even self-fulfilling prophecies (or the reverse).

And it seems more useful if we hold it all lightly. If we consciously use them as mirrors for ourselves. And if we are conscious of the archetypes, projections, and synchronicities.

Of course, the whole world is a mirror for ourselves. We don’t need astrology, tarot, or something similar to see and get to know aspects of ourselves. We just need to recognize that the whole world – and especially what in the world and our life currently draws our attention – is a mirror for what’s here now.

Astrology, tarot, and similar things are more formalized, structured, and explicit mirrors for ourselves. Life is the mirror we live with all the time, and we may need a somewhat structured approach to make use of it. For instance, some form of inquiry.

Unedited photos from Bryant Park, New York.

Editing photos. When I take, select, and edit my own photos, I need one or more pointers for myself to guide me. Here are some of the pointers I tend to use:

Something I would like to look at over time, and again and again.
Something that gives me pleasure.
Something that is interesting.
Something where I can keep discovering new things. 
Something that conveys a certain mood.
Something that conveys a certain way of perceiving the world.

Something that feels right at a deep level.

Of course, not every photo need to satisfy each of these. And a photo can be interesting for other reasons. But these are useful pointers for me, at least for now.

January 30, 2020

Number synchronicities. It’s popular these days to talk about number synchronicities, perhaps especially 11 showing up in different places. I have experimented with this and it seems that if I intend to see a certain number pattern, I do. And if I intend to see a variety of different number patterns, that happens too. Especially, of course, when I see the time on my phone when I happen to open it up. (I decided to do this experiment again and have a collection of number-synchronicity screenshots from the last couple of weeks.)

It’s a fun experiment and perhaps says something about the nature of synchronicities. (They respond to – or interact with – our intention.)

February 2, 2020

Oslo botanical gardens, December a few years ago.

Drawing, painting, photography. I enjoy photography, drawing and painting. (Although for the last several years, it’s been mostly photography). One thing I notice is that I enjoy all of it about equally much when I do it, but the after-effect is different. When I draw and paint, I notice the after-effect for one or more days after. And with photography, it is gone almost as soon as I done with taking or editing the photos.

What is this after-effect? It’s hard to put into words. It’s a sense of it filling my soul. Of being connected with something vital in myself and life.

February 3, 2020

Star Trek: Picard. I loved Star Trek TNG, DS9, and Voyager, and have also had a fondness for the quirkiness and heart of TOS. I was mildly disappointed by Star Trek: Enterprise (a bit boring and felt a bit off). Very disappointed by the JJ Abrams movies (didn’t seem like Star Trek at all but more like generic science fiction), and was unable to watch more than two or three episodes of Star Trek: Discovery (I honestly thought it was set in the mirror universe because of the petty squabbling).

So I am very happy to have thoroughly have enjoyed the two first episodes of Star Trek: Picard. It feels like Star Trek. It’s well written. And it expands on the earlier stories. It’s familiar in a way that feels right, new in a way that feels right, and very well done.

The rapist is you. For a few weeks now, a protest song has been sung by women – first across Latin America and then across the world. One of the key lines is: the rapist is you.

I assume some men will say “it’s not me”. But that’s a bit misguided.

They are pointing in different directions while singing the rapist is you. So we can say that wherever they are pointing, they will be pointing towards an actual rapist. It may not be you. That’s not the point.

In a more general sense, it’s true that we all are the rapist.

We are all a part of a power-over culture and mindset. We have internalized it because we live in this culture. We all – at least partly – perceive and act through it. (Even if we are law-abiding, good citizens.)

We have in us the same power-over mindset that brings about rape, that justifies rape, and that excuses rape.

We can’t get rid of this mindset. But we can be aware of it. We can be aware of all the many ways this power-over mindset influences our perception and actions. We can chose to not act on it. We can chose to adopt and fuel a more life-centered power-with mindset and perceive through and act from that.

February 12, 2020

Corona virus. I am sure I am missing something, but from my limited understanding of the current Corona virus scare, it seems that it’s actually less dangerous – in terms of the percentage of infected people dying from it – than the regular flu. So why does it get so much attention? Why the strong measures (cutting off entire cities in China, quarantining cruise ships)? Why so much media attention?

I understand that the media like to dramatize stories to draw an audience (if it bleeds, it leads). But why do governments seem to do the same? Why such a reaction for something that doesn’t seem more dangerous than the regular flu we live with every year?

Do others know something I don’t? Yes, obviously and always. But perhaps it is what it looks like on the surface, and what we have seen many times before: an overblown scare without very much substance.

Sanders vs Trump. In the last US presidential election, I remember several surveys that showed that Sanders had a better chance to win over Trump than Clinton did. This time – although I don’t go into the election in-depth – I have seen similar surveys.

So why do people – including some friends (older white men) – keep saying that more moderate Democrats like Biden or Bloomberg will have a better chance against Trump? What do they base it on? The numbers still seem to suggest that Sanders have a better chance against Trump.

Of course, when the economy is doing well – at least according to the job numbers and wall street – people tend to re-elect the current president. We’ll see.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.