Read Peter Klevius in-depth research on The Psychosocial Freud Timeline.
Read Peter Klevius Origin of the Vikings from 2005 - now again available after Google deleted it 2014 and again in February 2024.
Read how climate change made human evolution possible in SE Asian volatile archipelago - not on a continent like Africa.
Read how
two craniopagus twins born 2006 solved the "greatest mystery in
science" - and proved Peter Klevius theory from 1992-94 100% correct.
Read Peter Klevius thesis Pathological
Symbiosis in LVU on how a hoax child-psychoanalytic concept is still
used by the Swedish social state to abduct children on subjective
grounds. It also reveals (see email correspondens in appendix) how
legislators were lured to pass a Human Rights violating law which was then
blinked by ECHR because it was seen as below the "margin of
appreciation". Atheism*, not
racist/sexist and militant "monotheisms" (look at Syria, Israel,
Palestine etc.), is the only road to human virtue and the full
acceptance of basic (negative) individual and Universal Human Rights
without "monotheist"** religions defining exceptions.
*
The only relevant definition of Atheism ought to rest on its European
16th Century meaning as the opposite the "monotheistic" God. Atheism
cleans you from religious prejudice and delivers a rock solid platform
for how to be a decent human. Atheism is the only route to fully respect
Human Rights, i.e. not believing in an impossible monotheistic God
"above and beyond anything that exists in the world", which is, in fact,
your own personal wishful twisting of language. Language is human made
"building blocks" and can construe whatever meaningless nonsense. This
distinguishes an irrational ("outside" language) belief in God from a
rational (inside language) belief in God or other deities, ghosts etc.
Pretending to talk "outside" one's existencecentrism is self delusion.
**
The peculiar concept "monotheism" is an oxymoron because its truly
"God-part" is declared inaccessible for the human mind and cannot
therefore be shared among humans. This leaves every believer with his
own belief construction lacking any "essence" of "God's" most important
characteristics.
Existencecentrism
is the observable and thinkable world, and nothing can therefore exist
"outside" it - incl. any question or belief.
Atheist Peter Klevius explains why the belief in a "God"* is
impossible - and why "monotheisms" are against Human Rights. And he has
all of human history on his side**.
* Defined as "outside" human
reach. Whereas the Jew (Moses) could talk to God but not see his face,
the early Christians could only see God's humanized son, and Muhammad (a further development of Arianism) who got no
direct or indirect contact with God but had to settle with an angel. In
polytheistic belief systems, a god is "a spirit or being believed to
have been created out of something already existing in the world.
**
Peter Klevius lives in a time when the world has got enough of
"monotheistic" evil - and when the much older, self-evident and
sophisticated Atheism is surpassing in R&D, meritocracy, fairness
etc., first shown by post-war Japan and now China.
Ghosts can be derived from faith - "God" cannot. Faith is
limited by our existencecentrism (mind, if you prefer) which excludes a "creator"* as a principal
object of faith. Whatever you have faith in is within your
existencecentrism - meaning Peter Klevius can only write about the
border of existencecentrism, but is excluded from meaningfully writing the
sentence 'outside the border'.
*
A "creator" is
already created and as such locked into the human mind - and nowhere
else. Communicating one's "creator" to an other person inevitably adapts
and changes this "creator" in accordance with this other mind. Because
of existencecentrism, a "God" cannot be omnipresent. In other
words, a "God" cannot be part time present in the human mind. What is
present is all there is of "God". Same applies to the hence meaningless
sentence 'but there could be something beyond human comprehension'. The
term "supernatural" emerged in the Middle Ages and did not exist in the
ancient world.
1981 Peter Klevius outlined in an article (Resursbegär) the meaning of
what he later (1992) titled 'existencecentrism' in his book Resursbegär
('Demand for Resources' in the Swedish/Nordic creole* language now
called English). G. H. von Wright (Wittgenstein's self-appointed successor at Cambridge) strongly approved of both versions.
* Resursbegär in direct translation would be something like 'resource beggar'.
The first paragraph in the original 1981 article in a poor translation from Swedish with some added comments in brackets:
The
basic element of existence is change where the causality of events
constitutes a complex of evolution and devolution (a popular division of
the more appropriet 'adaptation'). Evolution can (therefore) be said to
be the consequence of the variables of causality in time where the
complexity (from an evolutionary point of view - i.e. not necessarily
absolute complexity) of older structures is reinforced. This development
stays in an apparent opposition to the thermodynamics of universe which
theoretically could leads to what is called "maximum entropy", i.e.
equal distribution of energy, where time itself stops. Thus, one could
fatalistically say that evolution in fact only constitutes components of
causality on its way to uniformity, where the end point of evolution is
determined by its external frame of reference i.e. (the observable)
universe, and can be summed up in the words of the philosopher Hegel:
'Pure being and nothingness are identical'. A consolation for the
intellect, however, is that the more facts science (nature) presents,
the greater appears to us the underlying structure of existence that we
cannot reach. Being able to live with and accept this uncertainty
(existencecentrism and due uncertainty* as the real "meaning of life")
is not only a must but also a privilege. Desperately lapsing into
dogmatism or hasty conclusions due to inability to live with unsolved
problems is highly unscientific.
*
You can only be uncertain within your existencecentrism. Moreover, this
uncertainty cannot even speculate beyond one's existencecentrism, only
within its ever changing complexity. And even though everything
constantly changes, the limit of existencecentrism does not because
there's no reference "outside" it.
All creation myths - except "monotheist" - start from something already existing "inside" the world.
It's
shameful and
appalling of the $-thief US led West to imply that "belief" in a fancy
but destructive mythology about an impossible "monotheist" God somehow
would be more "sophistocated" than the sound views of billions of
Atheists who understand that a "god" "outside" the human realm is
impossible. In its latest modern appearance it all started with US
colonial imperiaism followed by US "Red Scare" anti-Communist
propaganda, which is now targeted on China. Atheism is by supremacist
theocracy presented at best as something not reaching the level of
"monotheisms", and at worst as plain evil, when in fact the very
opposite is more than true, i.e. considering the impossibility of
"monotheist belief".
Wikipedia: Proponents of "Abrahamic" faiths
believe that God is beyond the grasp of the human mind and
transcendent, meaning that he (sic) is outside space and outside time
and therefore not subject to anything within his creation.
Peter
Klevius: So how could you possibly have "faith" in the part of God
that's beyond you? Leaving you - as Peter Klevius has stated since his
early teens - with only your "personal God", i.e. a castrated one in
your imagination.
Peter Klevius has been surrounded day and night by people
throughout his (Atheist) life, yet no one (incl. himself) has ever seen
him unhappy (having faced problems yes, and solved them, but never trapped in "idling" unhappiness).
Excerpt
from Demand for Resources (P. Klevius 1992:21-22, Resursbegär, ISBN
9173288411). A follow up to the original (see below) article from 1981
which first described what later became titleds 'existencecentrism', and
which 1980 was hailed by G.H. von Wright (Wittgenstein's successor at
Cambridge) and again a decade later 1991 when he read the final
manuscript of the book - including this chapter on existencecentrism.
Chapt. Existencecentrism (Resursbegär 1992).
The
civilized human retraces her/his steps, lights a light and allows
her/himself to be enlightened - only the suffering in the past and the
shadow over the future are greater.
The word 'to exist', from
Latin existere - to emerge, to appear - has, like the word existence,
nowadays as the main meaning pre-existing, i.e. something that has
arisen/been created and now exists in the world of our senses.
To
exist, i.e. existence, constitutes our vantage point when we consider
our surroundings in time and space. We are existencecentered. Existence
prevents godlike all-mightiness but also easily leads to self-glorifying
considerations. The word anthropocentrism covers some, but not all, of
the meaning of existencecentrism.
Existence stands in contrast or
as a complement to the modern Protestant concept of God. Existence and
God, or as I prefer to express it, human and the unconscious or
unreachable (the "outer" limit of existencecentrism) together form
'everything' - God/the unreachable is thus not seen in entities but in
the existence of thoughts via awareness of our existencecentrism (hence
excluding even any thought about a God "residing outside" our
existencecentrism - only within it, which of course eliminates God's
most important definition other than as play with language).
That
the human thought is locked to its subject, i.e. that someone thinks
the thought, is connected to our linear cumulative conception of
history. The narrative/thought creation turns into a giant inverted
pyramid where stone is added to stone while the tip proportionally gets
narrower as it points downward/backward and we ourselves stand on the
top/latest and widest part (called 'now' in Peter Klevius 1992-94 EMAH
theory that later became empirically proven through the 2006 birth of a
unique set of craniopagus twins with separate cortices but connected
thalanuses which made them able to 'talk inside their head' while
keeping separate personalities in their cortices).
The engine of
the cumulative conception of history, i.e. what determines the value of
past and present-day social phenomena, exists only in the present. The
perception of history as linearly cumulative has as a consequence the
need for creation. Development requires a beginning. The creation
stories can be divided into two main groups: Creation from something or
from nothing. In more "primitive" cultural contexts, it is common to
imagine some form of primeval being that is brought to life during
creation, while within the monotheism influenced cultural circle,
creation out of nothing with the help of God (the "first mover") is
advocated. This can sometimes take surprising expressions such as e.g.
in the s.c. "Big Bang" theory.
The driving forces behind science
and religion are close to each other and the idea of an eternal
universe where creation only exists in the human mind is difficult to
accept (P. Klevius 1992:22).
Peter Klevius additional comment:
Existencecentrism,
together with the stone example in the same 1992 book, laid the ground
work for EMAH, which 1994 added the new findings re. cortico-thalamic
two-way connections reported in Nature 1993. Although Peter Klevius had
always been convinced it all happened in the thalamus, he out of
intellectual cowardice didn't dare to write it down in the 1992 book -
which, btw was strongly supported 1991 by G. H. von Wright
(Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge) who 1980 also approved of the
first outlining of existencecentrism in the 1981 published article
Resursbegär.
Most people
are Atheists, yet some are still haunted by the negativism $-embezzler
(since 1971) US injected in it in its Red Scare campaign, McCarthyism
etc.
Statistically Atheists in England have now surpassed
anti-Atheists. However, do realize that most people who pose as
religious, do not in fact believe in an irrational (i,e, outside
language) God, i.e. they should therefore also be classified as Atheists
- although unwittingly still supporting irrational orthodoxy because
still sharing the same title of their beliefs. Moreover, there's also a
tendency that people who normally don't bother much of their kins or
"community", utilize historical religious traditions to make up for this
lack.
The "monotheistic" God first appeared as picking Jew's
as his "chosen people", then was split in three by Christianity, and
finally got rid of completely in islam, which replaced Allah with a
medieval human warlord whose deeds are still accepted as norm by
islamists while the rest of muslims have to constantly update their
"interpretation" of islam while facing Muhammed.
Why $-freeloader (since 1971) US forced its "allies" to ban information about Confucianism
The
appalling supremacist and presumptuous US led Western delusion about
supernatural* "monotheism" being somehow better than Atheist (i.e.
not-monotheist) cultures and societies like e.g. China, Japan etc., is
West's downfall trap.
You are - just like a stone in a river or
the observable universe - the ever changing product of your adaptations
to your ever changing surroundings. You were born with many more synapse
connections than you have now as the result of your adaptation to your
surroundings which has removed excessive ones (although new connections
are also made albeit to a lesser extent) so to match and synchronize
(update) to your life situation.
Everything we can think and talk about is within our mind (existencecentrism) - and nowhere else.
In
language made up "forces beyond scientific understanding or the laws of
nature"* have no meaning outside language. Likewise, there is no
"mystical" math connection to a "real world". Mathematical objects are
all operational entities applied to where they fit, so to say. A number
or a traffic sign are operational, and should not be confused with their
medium, i.e. for example when crashing into a traffic sign with a
number.
* Law is a set of
rules that are created and are enforceable by social or governmental
institutions to regulate behavior, with its precise definition a matter
of longstanding debate.
Quite the opposite to Aquinas,
Peter Klevius points out that because of language, only humans can be
irrational. A stone or an insect etc. are always rational, i.e.
rationally* adapting to their surroundings. It's only in language we can
be irrational. A human without language can not be irrational.
* Rational here of course means from the perspective of the insect - not from a human.
Words
like nothing, nonexistence, and non-being, are ontologically
meaningless. Questions like 'why is there something instead of nothing'
lack definition of the proposed but impossible to define 'nothing'
"alternative".
The ghost or "God" are always knowable because
they exist within human existencecentrism. However, they can never be
unknowable because that would imply "outside" human existencecentrism
which is logically impossible.
"Monotheism" timeline
The
Chinese heaven at least 2050 BC was the origin myth under which the
emperor ruled, and was securely anchored within human existencecentrism,
i.e. the primordial state as explained by Peter Klevius (1992) as being
- with many variants - the global creation myth in every society except
for the late introduction of the "monotheistic" ones. However, it was
during its path via Zoroastrianism 1700 BC to Sogdia in the 6th Century
BC where it culturally mixed with Indus valley, and changed character
when it reached Judaism and became the racist God's "chosen people"
dogma.
The sum of all adaptation/experience by an individual cannot incl. non-experience.
Since
Kierkegaard, most Christians are Agnostics - but without always
admitting it. Peter Klevius advise encourages them to become fully
Atheists so to be able to reconcile themselves with basic (negative)
Universal Human Rights of the individual, not the religious "community".
After all, we are individuals, not "communities.
Existence cannot
be "meaningless" because the concept of "meaningless" is part of
existence inside existencecentrism. In fact, as Peter Klevius wrote 1981
(in Resursbegär), an all-mighty "god" would drown in its logical
boredom, whereas for humans the very uncertainty in an eternally
changing world is what gives meaning to life - to a point where even a
person doomed to die prematurely, clings to hope.
There is no universally accepted consensus on what a deity is.
"God"
comes from the Proto-Germanic Gaut, which traces it to the PIE root
*ghu-to- ("poured"), derived from the root *gheu- ("to pour, pour a
libation"). The term *gheu- is also the source of the Greek khein "to
pour". Originally the word "god" and its other Germanic cognates were
neuter nouns but shifted to being generally masculine under the
influence of Christianity in which the god is typically seen as male. In
contrast, all ancient Indo-European cultures and mythologies recognized
both masculine and feminine deities.
The
legitimacy of Western philosophy was thoroughly crashed by a Western
"philosopher" named Ludvig Wittgenstein (the mentor of Peter Klevius
mentor G.H. von Wright). Although the catholic Anscombe was a good
friend with him, she didn't fully understand Wittgensteiun's curiosity
about religion, psychoanalysis etc.
Swedish "alternative media" Swebbtv is sadly a prejudicial and theocratic laughing stock under a dumb and prejudicial leader.
Swebbtv's
owner and opinion dictator Mikael Willgert is an extreme Sinophibe, but
eagerly supports Israel's genocide against Paöestinians. He also boosts
extreme conspiracy theories such as e,g, that Sweden's PM Olof Palme
wasn't murdered and that it was just a "theatre murder". He also boosts
the cracy idea that US government triggered nukes under the Twin Towers
etc. And if someone comments criticism against what Mikael Willgert
opinions then they are deleted. Mikael Willgert also seems to boost a
misogynist agenda spiced with long outdated views on what women should
and shoudn't do as well as women's inferior capacities as leaders etc.
The only decent voice on Svebbtv is Lars Bern who seems to understand
the problem with US and the possibilities with China.
