|
Post by andrew on Oct 26, 2013 12:27:43 GMT -5
I see what you are saying, but I have doubts as to whether it could work like that, I see the whole system as too corrupt for change to come about that way. I do believe that there is a global elite, but that's not to say that there are no good people working within, in fact I'm confident there are. But what I see as more likely currently is more revolutionary in its nature, something along the lines of the main players just being removed. See, I think it is highly likely that 'free energy' is available. If the main players were removed, all the 'secrets' came out, and free energy became available, it would change everything. As long as folks complain about a rigged system they are not ready for free energy. Yes, there's a fine line between complaining about something and recognizing a better available potential and honouring that and acting upon that in an effective way. In your sentence there you are recognizing a better available potential than 'complaining'. Unless you are complaining about complaining.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 26, 2013 12:36:47 GMT -5
yep that's also a fair point. And I agree that (based on what I have heard), the plutocracy are not united, and are split into many factions. What is interesting about them is that they do embrace a particular kind of spirituality/mysticism, its hard for me to understand, but it seems almost like a 'spiritual darwinism'. My feeling is that without their shared goal of keeping the general population under control, they would probably turn on each other. Money and power are interchangeable and they necessarily implicate control -- anyone with power, regardless of the system or the policies pursued, would be subject to the description of having that goal of keeping the general population under control. I'm not sure I understood, but I might agree. IMO, 'money' is outdated and reflects the conditioned belief that resources are limited. I don't believe they are. Similarly, I see capitalism as outdated, but I don't see socialism as the solution either. As I see it, it is possible to have bodies of people that are like 'stewards' of the world. But in order for this to be effective, there would have to be some ego work done. I see the spiritual people of today as the 'stewards' of tomorrow, though there may well be politicians today that fit in with that.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 26, 2013 12:39:37 GMT -5
Money and power are interchangeable and they necessarily implicate control -- anyone with power, regardless of the system or the policies pursued, would be subject to the description of having that goal of keeping the general population under control. I'm not sure I understood, but I might agree. IMO, 'money' is outdated and reflects the conditioned belief that resources are limited. I don't believe they are. Similarly, I see capitalism as outdated, but I don't see socialism as the solution either. As I see it, it is possible to have bodies of people that are like 'stewards' of the world. But in order for this to be effective, there would have to be some ego work done. I see the spiritual people of today as the 'stewards' of tomorrow, though there may well be politicians today that fit in with that. Power is power whether it's cloaked in the title of President, Minister, Chairman or ... Steward.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 26, 2013 12:56:14 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understood, but I might agree. IMO, 'money' is outdated and reflects the conditioned belief that resources are limited. I don't believe they are. Similarly, I see capitalism as outdated, but I don't see socialism as the solution either. As I see it, it is possible to have bodies of people that are like 'stewards' of the world. But in order for this to be effective, there would have to be some ego work done. I see the spiritual people of today as the 'stewards' of tomorrow, though there may well be politicians today that fit in with that. Power is power whether it's cloaked in the title of President, Minister, Chairman or ... Steward. The word 'power' is a very debatable one, and your use of it was one of the reasons I struggled to comprehend what you were saying. If a steward has done the ego-work (or is at least recognizes the importance of it and is willing to do it), then I see no problem. Some people are drawn to working with animals, some are drawn to teaching, some are drawn to science and technology, some are drawn to politics or 'stewardship'. I don't think that those that are drawn to dealing with the big 'over-seeing issues' are necessarily 'power hungry' or have issues with power. But I might be totally misunderstanding you here.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 26, 2013 13:22:34 GMT -5
Power is power whether it's cloaked in the title of President, Minister, Chairman or ... Steward. The word 'power' is a very debatable one, and your use of it was one of the reasons I struggled to comprehend what you were saying. If a steward has done the ego-work (or is at least recognizes the importance of it and is willing to do it), then I see no problem. Some people are drawn to working with animals, some are drawn to teaching, some are drawn to science and technology, some are drawn to politics or 'stewardship'. I don't think that those that are drawn to dealing with the big 'over-seeing issues' are necessarily 'power hungry' or have issues with power. But I might be totally misunderstanding you here. I haven't said that there is a problem or anything about being drawn or hungry. You said that those with power have the shared goal of keeping the general population under control. What I said was that this observation will be available about whoever it is that's in power, as long as there's someone in power. Specifically, if you have someone do ego-work and call them a steward, and then you give them authority (power), it will inevitably look as though they are trying to keep the general population under control. It's the nature of power.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 26, 2013 13:32:49 GMT -5
The word 'power' is a very debatable one, and your use of it was one of the reasons I struggled to comprehend what you were saying. If a steward has done the ego-work (or is at least recognizes the importance of it and is willing to do it), then I see no problem. Some people are drawn to working with animals, some are drawn to teaching, some are drawn to science and technology, some are drawn to politics or 'stewardship'. I don't think that those that are drawn to dealing with the big 'over-seeing issues' are necessarily 'power hungry' or have issues with power. But I might be totally misunderstanding you here. I haven't said that there is a problem or anything about being drawn or hungry. You said that those with power have the shared goal of keeping the general population under control. What I said was that this observation will be available about whoever it is that's in power, as long as there's someone in power. Specifically, if you have someone do ego-work and call them a steward, and then you give them authority (power), it will inevitably look as though they are trying to keep the general population under control. It's the nature of power. 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'.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 26, 2013 13:48:58 GMT -5
I haven't said that there is a problem or anything about being drawn or hungry. You said that those with power have the shared goal of keeping the general population under control. What I said was that this observation will be available about whoever it is that's in power, as long as there's someone in power. Specifically, if you have someone do ego-work and call them a steward, and then you give them authority (power), it will inevitably look as though they are trying to keep the general population under control. It's the nature of power. 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?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 26, 2013 14:06:48 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? 'Power' is not a word I would use in this discussion because it's very debatable, 'ego' is also debatable and I am using it sloppily but in a discussion of this type I am affording myself some sloppy license on that one. So, I would rather not specifically say that the plutocratic elite 'wield power'. I would rather say that they control and use resources, media, government, institutions and religion to control the mass of the world's population...and that's not just in terms of wealth, its also in terms of how the world/life is understood. I don't even think money is their priority, their main agenda is control, though it's entirely possible that they have believed that they are doing the world a service. IMO, the world is waking up to the way things have worked, and the plutocracy is now extremely unstable. That may not appear to be the case though. Oh, with regard to the second question, no, they wouldn't be 'in control'.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 26, 2013 14:23:55 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? 'Power' is not a word I would use in this discussion because it's very debatable, 'ego' is also debatable and I am using it sloppily but in a discussion of this type I am affording myself some sloppy license on that one. So, I would rather not specifically say that the plutocratic elite 'wield power'. I would rather say that they control and use resources, media, government, institutions and religion to control the mass of the world's population...and that's not just in terms of wealth, its also in terms of how the world/life is understood. I don't even think money is their priority, their main agenda is control, though it's entirely possible that they have believed that they are doing the world a service. IMO, the world is waking up to the way things have worked, and the plutocracy is now extremely unstable. That may not appear to be the case though. Oh, with regard to the second question, no, they wouldn't be 'in control'. 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.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 26, 2013 14:35:48 GMT -5
'Power' is not a word I would use in this discussion because it's very debatable, 'ego' is also debatable and I am using it sloppily but in a discussion of this type I am affording myself some sloppy license on that one. So, I would rather not specifically say that the plutocratic elite 'wield power'. I would rather say that they control and use resources, media, government, institutions and religion to control the mass of the world's population...and that's not just in terms of wealth, its also in terms of how the world/life is understood. I don't even think money is their priority, their main agenda is control, though it's entirely possible that they have believed that they are doing the world a service. IMO, the world is waking up to the way things have worked, and the plutocracy is now extremely unstable. That may not appear to be the case though. Oh, with regard to the second question, no, they wouldn't be 'in control'. 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.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Oct 26, 2013 15:28:54 GMT -5
Sorry, but I think the "stewards" idea is pretty bad. It's way too easy to fool people and fake good character traits. Not in a million years would I let guys like let's say Mooji or Adya represent me, they aren't experts at anything except talking.
Spirituality has no business at all in politics. For example in my "direct democracy" scenario I wouldn't care if someone is the biggest ásshole ever, if I believe that he really knows his stuff when it comes to let's say agriculture then I'll choose him to represent my vote when decisions are to be made in that area.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 26, 2013 15:38:08 GMT -5
Sorry, but I think the "stewards" idea is pretty bad. It's way too easy to fool people and fake good character traits. Not in a million years would I let guys like let's say Mooji or Adya represent me, they aren't experts at anything except talking. Spirituality has no business at all in politics. For example in my "direct democracy" scenario I wouldn't care if someone is the biggest ásshole ever, if I believe that he really knows his stuff when it comes to let's say agriculture then I'll choose him to represent my vote when decisions are to be made in that area. Hold on though, I'm not saying the sole criteria for being a steward/politician is being spiritual, I also can't imagine Mooji or Adya representing. I am saying that those that are drawn to stewardship/politics should be spiritually inclined, and that's because someone with a heavy investment in their self-image is gonna be trouble no matter how knowledgeable they are. Even an 'altruistic' self-image can be deeply problematic.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Oct 26, 2013 16:12:15 GMT -5
Hold on though, I'm not saying the sole criteria for being a steward/politician is being spiritual, I also can't imagine Mooji or Adya representing. I am saying that those that are drawn to stewardship/politics should be spiritually inclined, and that's because someone with a heavy investment in their self-image is gonna be trouble no matter how knowledgeable they are. Even an 'altruistic' self-image can be deeply problematic. 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2013 16:17:03 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.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 26, 2013 16:33:25 GMT -5
Hold on though, I'm not saying the sole criteria for being a steward/politician is being spiritual, I also can't imagine Mooji or Adya representing. I am saying that those that are drawn to stewardship/politics should be spiritually inclined, and that's because someone with a heavy investment in their self-image is gonna be trouble no matter how knowledgeable they are. Even an 'altruistic' self-image can be deeply problematic. 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. The question of 'how would you know' is valid, and I don't have an answer to it, but I can't help but feel that the question itself arises from within the very paradigm that needs removing. Sometimes something has to be cleared before the way forward can be seen clearly.
|
|