Back to basics. Human Design.

So, I thought I would do an old fashioned Human Design post. A reading, or just general thoughts and notes. On Stefan Molyneux's Human Design.

Who is Stefan Molyneux?

Well, he is a philosopher. He is a secular philosopher, and one of his crowning achievements is to have put together a theory of secular ethics. Universally Preferable Behaviour.

We can see his incarnation cross is one of those that has only G- Self hexagrams. 46, 25, 15, 10. His theory of Universally Preferable Behaviour has as one of its first principles. That of Universalisation. That is, the mind universalises everything. When you show a child a tree, they automatically universalise this principle. They suddenly can identify a tree in any country. Any type of tree. From the tallest oak, to the apple tree. 

I wonder, a little bit. If the G- self is largely about Universalisation. The G- self I wonder. Is where our ethics sits? Anyone that has things going through the G-self and then to the throat. Especially if energised. Is going to carry general principles and ethics in anything they discuss?

If we were to look at Nietzsche's chart, which I understand that Nietzsche neglected a lot of moral arguments in his writing (I have not yet read them completely myself so can't confirm. But people that talk about Nietzsche second hand seem to think that Master Morality does not necessarily involve ethics!)

This is Nietzsche's chart:

I think that Nietzsche's perspective, as seen here. Was one very much of the pure animal realities of the world. The sacral. Some animals are just tougher or better than other animals from the sacrals perspective. 

Anyway, back to Stefan. We can see his main perspectives in his chart. In Stefans view, the state is a creature that is only negative. It is only capable of producing negative results (like war) because it relies on the initiation of force. The initiation of force is taxation. if the left wing political apparatus puts a gun to someones head, basically saying that pay up or go to jail. Then this is the initiation of force. From Stefans viewpoint, no good can come from this. 

For example, if we are to expand this out, say you have a governmental system that provides some sort of service. Like public schooling. They already have the money. So they have no real need to negotiate with the customers. (Students parents). Once that power dynamic has been decoupled. All sorts of corruption can come in. All sorts of inefficiencies that the free market would not allow. 

Such as the desire to teach students progressive politics that will not actually help them in the job market. In a small town this would not fly because the students would leave to work somewhere in the local town with a lot of additional information they did not need and was sometimes deleterious to their work. But divorced from the free market, these things can happen. 

Stefan follows on in some way from Ayn Rand. We can see this in his chart. The first point of the 'energy' that leads to the throat is his gate 14 in the sacral. The entire channel also linking to the gate 2 and G- self.

Reason, virtue and happiness. 

Some quotes from Stefan:

5764: 31 minutes: People avoid moral clarity because once you have moral clarity you have to take a stand or you feel like crap. 

5838: 15 minutes: You cannot have the love of the virtuous, which is the only love that matters, without incurring the hatred of evil doers.

1969: 1 hour 21: So people who say, something that is incomprehensible is not valid, are more accurate than people who say, things that are incomprehensible should run my life. 

The first two I think are good G- self comments but the last is a well articulated pro secular argument and this may come from Stefans 64-47?

One of his "meaning of life", kind of core of his philosophy statements is: "Reason, leads to virtue, leads to happiness." 

Furthermore, he has talked a bit about how for men, doing manual labour jobs is important. Or, even if not manual labour per sey. Even if it is coding. Doing a job that connects you to objective reality in that things in the real world are relevant. If someone codes something, the code either runs, and does what it is meant to do, or it doesn't. If someone works in fast food. They have to actually make the food and pass it to the customers. If a person works with heavy machinery, perhaps in a bad area. Like in the snow weeks away from a hospital. They have to deal with real machinery and put their life in their own hands. What they do in the real world is important.

Verses a lot of other jobs that are more language dependent. No one can really say if Human Resources is succeeding or failing at their job while they are hiring and firing based on woke ideology.  

This is very sacral based. Stephan criticises philosophers who have not worked a "real job" in their lives. Saying that this is where disconnected ideas come from such as "life is a simulation". 

But we see, with this reasoning. A very direct link between what Stefan says, how he justifies it, and his chart. Reason here is linked with logic. Because reason comes fundamentally from objectivity.  

Then virtue, Well, with the first two quotes above. I think the virtue of his message and how that directly ties into the G- self is quite well established. 

Happiness? "Reason leads to virtue leads to happiness". Is that true? I don't know. But connecting it to Stefans chart we can then see that the "happiness" part is where these things reach the throat.  

Further. 

Let's go further though. I have found the parts above the throat tend to shape the entire life while not being included in this kind of chain. In my own chart, below the chart, you can trace where each thing leads to the next. But above the chart. It simply adds a perspective or lens that the rest of the chart goes through. My 11-56 changes the rest of my chart into one that talks about philosophy and Law of One types of things. But the actual 'chain' of my life. How I deal with people in the real world. Comes from below the throat. 

Having all these viewpoints does not make a person a philosopher. At least, not in the same way Stefan is. He has described how his mind constantly races. One such event, was when he suddenly got the idea that J K Rowlings Harry Potter, was not actually about magic. But about a traumatised young boy who goes to a mental institution and we see his imaginings. Stefan said, he went to bed with the beginnings of this idea. And it kept him awake all night so in the morning he had put together all the different reasons why. 

The 64-47 I would say is the 'God' channel. (Where 61-24 is mysticism and psychology, and 63-4 is the scientific process) Like how Ra Uru Hu said that the human design is not a system of morality. Where his energy stream fed through the 51-25 and then 10-20. His energy stream went through the G- self and the expression was to REJECT ethics. Not in real terms, but in theory. I wonder if Stefans 64-47 is part of his expression in rejecting God, as a philosophical interpretation. 

The undefined centres.

Stefan, to me, is closest to the ideal man as you can get. I say ideal not as a term of worship or endearment. But in the technical sense that, he has got a lot of stuff right. He grew up in a poor family in an abusive situation. He worked for a while in very highly paid roles and used what is likely an extremely high IQ in a technical field. He was kind of alpha in that time and dated a lot of women. As far as I know this was serial monogomy not hook ups. Then he settled down, has a wife and daughter, whom he often talks about and adores. And he has produced incredibly powerful and valuable work for the world in the form of his philosophy. 

Because he is an ideal then, I think one of the things we can do with his chart is back date what in his chart means what. What things look like when they are performing well. The Human Design main system does not believe this, and has a tendency towards a kind of Protestant understanding. That we are all such sinners that we cannot guess what living authentically actually means. We are too far away from it. I do not see things like that. 

This would not work with someone like David Wilcock. Even though I think he intended to be service to others. We cannot look at his chart and his life and be certain that the comparison is accurate since he was so mentally disturbed. Because a good deal of what we see in David Wilcock is likely, a term I don't like that much but don't have a better one for... "Not self".

My general theory about the Human Design and how it functions is this. We are our defined centres. This is the thing we are as we experience it in the everyday world. As a soul obviously we experience all centres. An undefined sacral centre does, for example, experience sexuality. But as we pull ourselves together and interact in the world. What we produce, which is what feels like what we are. Comes from our defined centres. The defined sacral has to go to work or they drive themselves up the wall. The undefined sacral will be more easily tired out and will adapt better to a workload that is less directly taxing (this also includes non work things like joy, parties, sex itself, etc.)

So through our life we go through and tune our defined centres, in various ways. For instance, my G- self has been strongly tuned by listening to Stefan Molyneux. Before listening to him. It was probably far more weak in the area of the kind of morals he talks about.  

But life, real life, outside of our own perspective. Is not only the centres we have. (Even if we have every single one defined). Real life is all of it:

For instance, I do not have a single hexagram on the Solar Plexus. But that does not mean that in an ideal world, solar plexus energy is missing from my life. It means, that if we were all in a service to others environment. I would find that solar plexus energy in other people. Thus, if it were frequent enough. Even though I have nothing there, I would amass positive wisdom of what is going on with the solar plexus. If I had a wife that had a defined solar plexus. And was with her for 5 years or so. I would learn certain wisdom that came with it. Such as with the solar plexus to the throat, there is no way out of expressing your emotions, even if it is annoying to others. 

If I then had a child with a defined solar plexus. I then already have that understanding. It does not only relate to other peoples energy. But even my own. Even though nothing is defined there. There will often be something in those solar plexus hexagrams. We are 'all things', as the Law of One teaches. Or perhaps it is conditioning. 

So where I am going with this. Is that, as a philosopher. Stefan also needs to articulate a lot of what is going on in other centres. There are some areas that he likely will not talk about because people don't need to talk about everything. Like, I have not heard him discuss anxiety much, the undefined root or spleen are not talking about that. But as regards to a lot of work challenges. Which would be the ego. I have heard Stefan talk about these things a bit.

But, I suppose we are coming to the point I started with. When I was out walking maybe, just flipped into my head. The Human Design holds that hexagrams that are in undefined centres are not really useful to our selves. Our lives. Our evolution. Whatever. I suppose I have heard that. I have also heard the entire area talked about in more vague terms as though, people haven't thought about hexagrams on the undefined centres. 

Stefan bases a lot of what he says, explains a lot of his worldview. Via Evolutionary Psychology:

"Scarcity is where morals come from" - 5570 (But I don't have the time stamp for this one).

He also has the 41.5. I have seen someone else with the 41.1 who expresses evolutionary psychology themes fitting with those different lines. The 41.5. means that Stefan expresses this area in a way that it fits together in a framework that it is good and right that things do work in relation to evolutionary psychology. Whereas, when someone expresses these themes from the 41.1. It seems to be more that this is how it is and if it is chaos or negative. Well, we're just talking about what it is. 

This is an extremely strong and valid part of his chart. We do not know a great deal about his life really but, we can say that he deals with others in a positive manner and obviously those people have different definitions to him. He deals very regularly with his wife and daughter so both of those likely offer positive conditioning from their own defined hexagrams and centres. There are very likely other people he deals with as well.

So, we can see that his conscious moon is a fundamental part of his being, and the philosophy he expresses. But it is in an undefined centre. Lending credence to my theory that the Human Design represents what we are. But the perfect expression of what we are, is one that lives within a community of positive people. So every centre and as near as possible every hexagram is experienced!

Larger and personal ideas on this. 

I have had this theory for a long time. We are linked to our society. Our lives and higher selves have a plan. If we are in a negative environment. We have certain programming within ourselves. Based on what we want. So, some plan to be dominant in such a situation. And some refuse to make moral compromises, so they become paranoid and guarded. 

We then have 'neutral'. A mix of positive and negative, what we have today. In this situation, a lot of people are disconnected. Living alone. Or dysfunctional in some other manner. Our full chart can't really work. 

In a positive environment. We have enough positive connection with others. That many of our gifts can come out and flow more. As powerful as Stefan's philosophies are. They are very much built on Evolutionary Psychology. And without that foundation, he might not be able to put the rest of it together.

This might be the reason I can't seem to get back to music as well. I wrote a lot of good pieces of music when I first started working and there was a lot going on socially. I could just sit down and write, at least the beginning of, a piece of music, every time I practiced.

Conclusion.

This was a bit hazily put together. I have more that I am thinking about this whole area but cannot articulate yet.