|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Oct 26, 2013 16:56:35 GMT -5
How would you know who is more and who is less invested in their "self-image"? To a rookie it would look like Jiddu K is much less invested in self-image than UGK, and yet the truth was the opposite. People can be fooled too easy. A knowledgeable person will always make better decision than a person with less knowledge but a better self-image. This seems self-evident to me. I would say that politics is already chock full of people with a lot of knowledge about their subject/field, but relatively few are coming from a place of having integrated some basic spiritual principles, and it shows. At the bottom level of politics there are all kinds of people from all walks of life, but at the top level most politicians are lawyers. They are not very knowledgeable at all except at how to use deception to win against their opponents, how to get into power and how to stay in power.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 26, 2013 17:17:02 GMT -5
I would say that politics is already chock full of people with a lot of knowledge about their subject/field, but relatively few are coming from a place of having integrated some basic spiritual principles, and it shows. At the bottom level of politics there are all kinds of people from all walks of life, but at the top level most politicians are lawyers. They are not very knowledgeable at all except at how to use deception to win against their opponents, how to get into power and how to stay in power. Yes, that's a skill set that many seem to have mastered. But again, without spiritual principles as a basis, I can't see how it could be much different. Ironically, I would say the plutocracy have an understanding of spiritual principles but have twisted some of them, and its because they are educated in that way that they have sought ways to keep the general population a) focused on and engaged in material 'realistic' concerns and b) caught in divisive arguments about race, nationality, religion, gender etc, that seem ridiculous when viewed from a wider perspective.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Oct 26, 2013 17:17:47 GMT -5
Seems kinda funny to me to be debating who makes better decisions for the greater good when the greater good is an illusion. Enlightenment doesn't make the illusion of a world go away, it only makes the ignorance go away. (First - define 'enlightenment'.) That's not gonna help the situation. IF the people, the general public are well educated in the classical sense, they'll be able to monitor and hold those in charge responsible, and that is why the powers that be are able to nip that in the bud by creating financial and social struggles to the point of distracting the gp -- plus controlling how the masses are educated.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 26, 2013 17:59:56 GMT -5
Lawyering over the word power is pointless but a person or group wielding control is generally considered to be in power ... to identify a plutocratic elite, declare that they control resources, media, government and religion and to balk at using the word power is just a rhetorical device. So your stewards would have no authority? Perhaps a useful distinction might be made by considering the question of what happens in the absence of control, particularly when the absence is sudden and follows a great degree of control. The stewards would have authority to make decisions, but would be fully answerable to the world, they would understand that they are accountable for their actions, not just to the population, but to 'the all'. Here's where the spirituality is important. Again, a key to this working is full disclosure. No secrets. If the plutocracy were removed, I really wouldn't like to say how things would play out in the short term. I have no concerns about their removal though and I believe that it would be a step in the 'right' direction. To say that the stewards would have authority but no control is a contradiction. If you suddenly blanked out all of the traffic control devices, including the traffic lights, in central London you'd likely have chaos, accidents, and people stepping up and in to fill the vacuum by getting out and directing traffic. On the other hand, removing government censorship of the internet in places where that's done would likely only create a hazard, if any, for the ones doing the censoring.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 26, 2013 18:06:37 GMT -5
The stewards would have authority to make decisions, but would be fully answerable to the world, they would understand that they are accountable for their actions, not just to the population, but to 'the all'. Here's where the spirituality is important. Again, a key to this working is full disclosure. No secrets. If the plutocracy were removed, I really wouldn't like to say how things would play out in the short term. I have no concerns about their removal though and I believe that it would be a step in the 'right' direction. To say that the stewards would have authority but no control is a contradiction. If you suddenly blanked out all of the traffic control devices, including the traffic lights, in central London you'd likely have chaos, accidents, and people stepping up and in to fill the vacuum by getting out and directing traffic. On the other hand, removing government censorship of the internet in places where that's done would likely only create a hazard, if any, for the ones doing the censoring. I don't see it as a contradiction, but it does depend on definitions, and I wouldn't readily use the word 'authority' as a way of talking about stewardship, but I went with it to try and answer your question on it. It seemed a bit contentious to first refuse to engage with 'power' and then refuse to engage with 'authority'. Personally, I don't have an issue with the potential of a level of chaos in the event of a plutocracy being removed, but neither do I think it HAS to be chaos. Either way, I feel the outcome beyond the short term would be a more harmonious world, because that's what I believe the current movement is towards.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 26, 2013 18:22:28 GMT -5
To say that the stewards would have authority but no control is a contradiction. If you suddenly blanked out all of the traffic control devices, including the traffic lights, in central London you'd likely have chaos, accidents, and people stepping up and in to fill the vacuum by getting out and directing traffic. On the other hand, removing government censorship of the internet in places where that's done would likely only create a hazard, if any, for the ones doing the censoring. I don't see it as a contradiction, but it does depend on definitions, and I wouldn't readily use the word 'authority' as a way of talking about stewardship, but I went with it to try and answer your question on it. It seemed a bit contentious to first refuse to engage with 'power' and then refuse to engage with 'authority'. Personally, I don't have an issue with the potential of a level of chaos in the event of a plutocracy being removed, but neither do I think it HAS to be chaos. Either way, I feel the outcome beyond the short term would be a more harmonious world, because that's what I believe the current movement is towards. Any system that involves a few people making decisions that effect the lives of many others involves control and the decisions are made and are enforced by other actors that comprise the system on the basis of the authority of those who made the decisions. The traffic light/internet censorship was to address the notion that power abhors a vacuum. In some cases, if you removed the existing structures of societal control there would be some sort of inevitable reformation of them into a different incarnation -- the discussion of why that is would be a deep conceptual bunny hole for sure. In other cases, removal of control would have the effect of lessening oppression but without impacting the day-to-day safety of people in conducting mundane business. Another term for that safety is social order. It's an interesting thing to imagine, the impact on social order, in the short and long term, of moving away from a currency of wealth (money) backed by the coercive force of government.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 26, 2013 18:37:09 GMT -5
I don't see it as a contradiction, but it does depend on definitions, and I wouldn't readily use the word 'authority' as a way of talking about stewardship, but I went with it to try and answer your question on it. It seemed a bit contentious to first refuse to engage with 'power' and then refuse to engage with 'authority'. Personally, I don't have an issue with the potential of a level of chaos in the event of a plutocracy being removed, but neither do I think it HAS to be chaos. Either way, I feel the outcome beyond the short term would be a more harmonious world, because that's what I believe the current movement is towards. Any system that involves a few people making decisions that effect the lives of many others involves control and the decisions are made and are enforced by other actors that comprise the system on the basis of the authority of those who made the decisions. The traffic light/internet censorship was to address the notion that power abhors a vacuum. In some cases, if you removed the existing structures of societal control there would be some sort of inevitable reformation of them into a different incarnation -- the discussion of why that is would be a deep conceptual bunny hole for sure. In other cases, removal of control would have the effect of lessening oppression but without impacting the day-to-day safety of people in conducting mundane business. Another term for that safety is social order. It's an interesting thing to imagine, the impact on social order, in the short and long term, of moving away from a currency of wealth (money) backed by the coercive force of government. In this discussion I am using the idea of 'control' to talk about something negative, so I would describe stewardship decisions as 'co-operative' based decisions not 'control' based decisions, but in my vision, there is no reason for anything to be enforced. The moment we bring coercion into it, I agree that we are in the realms of 'control'. Yes, it is an interesting thing to imagine, and the potential is there to imagine many different scenarios...I guess from Mad Max type scenarios to more harmonious ones.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 27, 2013 11:03:57 GMT -5
I used the word 'power'? Back tracking to look will take me more effort than I want to put in...but if I used that word, it was a poor word to use. I do recall using the word 'control', but in my vision, there is no one in 'control'. You used the word plutocracy in response to someone referring to an elite. Are you saying that the plutocratic elite doesn't wield power? So the ego-worked stewards wouldn't be in control of anything? I'm just wondering what folks who feel the need to get rid of plutocrats expect to happen after that. Same people, same mindset but different experience? Finally free energy and peace of mind for all? The approach seems backwards to me. If there's no dramatic shift in mass consciousness then nothing is going to change. But if that shift should occur then 'the system' would just whither away in a rather undramatic way. The shift, however, is an individual thing.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 27, 2013 11:55:12 GMT -5
You used the word plutocracy in response to someone referring to an elite. Are you saying that the plutocratic elite doesn't wield power? So the ego-worked stewards wouldn't be in control of anything? I'm just wondering what folks who feel the need to get rid of plutocrats expect to happen after that. Same people, same mindset but different experience? Finally free energy and peace of mind for all? The approach seems backwards to me. If there's no dramatic shift in mass consciousness then nothing is going to change. But if that shift should occur then 'the system' would just whither away in a rather undramatic way. The shift, however, is an individual thing. It's one of those counterintuitive conclusions that I found to lead to surprise of the mind on the informing of it and that the personally identified will never accept: the only way to change the world is to clean up your own house. It's not "clean up your own house first" ... it's just, clean up your own house.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 27, 2013 11:58:28 GMT -5
You used the word plutocracy in response to someone referring to an elite. Are you saying that the plutocratic elite doesn't wield power? So the ego-worked stewards wouldn't be in control of anything? I'm just wondering what folks who feel the need to get rid of plutocrats expect to happen after that. Same people, same mindset but different experience? Finally free energy and peace of mind for all? The approach seems backwards to me. If there's no dramatic shift in mass consciousness then nothing is going to change. But if that shift should occur then 'the system' would just whither away in a rather undramatic way. The shift, however, is an individual thing. The end of plutocracy would reflect a shift in mass consciousness (and in turn, the end would probably facilitate a further acceleration in that shift). The change doesn't have to be dramatic though, in fact some reports suggest that there already have been some removals, I don't know if that's true or not. I would say that folks that would like to see the end of a plutocracy do expect the outcome to be a more peaceful, harmonious world, yes, but I expect mindsets would change a lot following disclosure of all that has been suppressed, and that includes a great deal of 'spiritual' type information.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 27, 2013 12:06:12 GMT -5
I'm just wondering what folks who feel the need to get rid of plutocrats expect to happen after that. Same people, same mindset but different experience? Finally free energy and peace of mind for all? The approach seems backwards to me. If there's no dramatic shift in mass consciousness then nothing is going to change. But if that shift should occur then 'the system' would just whither away in a rather undramatic way. The shift, however, is an individual thing. It's one of those counterintuitive conclusions that I found to lead to surprise of the mind on the informing of it and that the personally identified will never accept: the only way to change the world is to clean up your own house. It's not "clean up your own house first" ... it's just, clean up your own house. IMO its not a mutually exclusive thing i.e. sometimes 'cleaning up your own house' can mean a literal clearing up your house! There's a lot of angry conspiracy theorists out there that want 'justice', and they might benefit from focusing internally a bit more, but then equally there are people massively focused on internal work because they have been told that that is what to do, and completely ignoring internal guidance to take external action. But in the end, give me an angry conspiracy theorist that sees what's going on and wants to see global change, than an angry nationalist that is plugged fully into what the plutocracy want them to see.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 28, 2013 20:33:45 GMT -5
I'm just wondering what folks who feel the need to get rid of plutocrats expect to happen after that. Same people, same mindset but different experience? Finally free energy and peace of mind for all? The approach seems backwards to me. If there's no dramatic shift in mass consciousness then nothing is going to change. But if that shift should occur then 'the system' would just whither away in a rather undramatic way. The shift, however, is an individual thing. It's one of those counterintuitive conclusions that I found to lead to surprise of the mind on the informing of it and that the personally identified will never accept: the only way to change the world is to clean up your own house. It's not "clean up your own house first" ... it's just, clean up your own house.Precisely!
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Oct 29, 2013 1:03:56 GMT -5
I'm just wondering what folks who feel the need to get rid of plutocrats expect to happen after that. Same people, same mindset but different experience? Finally free energy and peace of mind for all? The approach seems backwards to me. If there's no dramatic shift in mass consciousness then nothing is going to change. But if that shift should occur then 'the system' would just whither away in a rather undramatic way. The shift, however, is an individual thing. It's one of those counterintuitive conclusions that I found to lead to surprise of the mind on the informing of it and that the personally identified will never accept: the only way to change the world is to clean up your own house. It's not "clean up your own house first" ... it's just, clean up your own house. Yep most folks hope for the rest of the world to become free of suffering before they think their suffering can end, they don't realize if they were free of suffering the effect on the world that will have .
|
|
|
Post by silver on Oct 29, 2013 1:17:58 GMT -5
It's one of those counterintuitive conclusions that I found to lead to surprise of the mind on the informing of it and that the personally identified will never accept: the only way to change the world is to clean up your own house. It's not "clean up your own house first" ... it's just, clean up your own house. Yep most folks hope for the rest of the world to become free of suffering before they think their suffering can end, they don't realize if they were free of suffering the effect on the world that will have . Cleaning up one's house has to be adequately defined first. As was talked about on some thread somewhere, it's all about individual and subjective perspectives. I haven't seen anybody define what it is to clean up one's house, so it's still all completely nebulous and shapeless. Therefore, nobody will ever be satisfied who looks for the whole world to sing kumbayah together. It won't happen and you all will continue to be free to pay lip service to some special coming of the day when everybody gets the houses cleaned up.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 29, 2013 11:46:55 GMT -5
Yep most folks hope for the rest of the world to become free of suffering before they think their suffering can end, they don't realize if they were free of suffering the effect on the world that will have . Cleaning up one's house has to be adequately defined first. As was talked about on some thread somewhere, it's all about individual and subjective perspectives. I haven't seen anybody define what it is to clean up one's house, so it's still all completely nebulous and shapeless. Therefore, nobody will ever be satisfied who looks for the whole world to sing kumbayah together. It won't happen and you all will continue to be free to pay lip service to some special coming of the day when everybody gets the houses cleaned up. TMT
|
|