"This universe is a dream that all six billion of us are collaboratively dreaming up into materialization together. When we realize this, we can put our lucidity together in a way where we can co-creatively dream up a much more grace-filled universe into incarnation. This is nothing other than an evolutionary quantum leap in human consciousness, unimaginable until now." - Paul Levy
Paul Levy is an artist and political activist. A pioneer in the field of spiritual awakening, he is a healer in private practice, assisting others who are also awakening to the dream-like nature of reality. He is the author of The Madness of George Bush: A Reflection of Our Collective Psychosis, which is available on his website www.awakeninthedream.com.
Levy has several previous articles analyzing the state of denial that he sees characterizing contemporary society. For example, Homeland Insecurity http://www.awakeninthedream.com/insecurity.html , Breaking the Vow of Silence http://www.awakeninthedream.com/vow.html
DENIAL - The 51st State
By Paul Levy
5-29-7
"What the underlying military-industrial-financial crime syndicate that controls our government is doing, both domestically and internationally, is so horrifying ...that it is literally traumatizing to consciously bear witness to it, to experience it. When we become traumatized, we become stuck, literally "frozen in time," as our ability to creatively respond and mobilize ourselves in the present moment into effective action in the world becomes in-operative. When we become overwhelmed by trauma, we are not able to creatively express our internal experience in a way that dis-charges what has been triggered in us. We feel impotent. We are unable to give voice to our experience, as our power to be ourselves has become foreign to us. We become mute. When we become traumatized, we lose touch with our inner voice, which is our guiding spirit, our true genius."
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 42
As for the war in Iraq, it seems as though approximately 70% of Americans have cut loose from their denial and are, in fact, bothered by the fact that our leaders are conducting the foreign policy that they are.
As for 9/11, a big factor in the blinding of people to the myriads of unanswered questions and the horrible in vestigation that was conducted, is the media. The media has perpetrated a concerted effort to convey to all the absolute fact that anyone who questions the official story is a whacko.
Who do they associate with that thinking? - Rosie O'Donnell....Who do they ignore? - physicists, government or ex-government experts, national politicians, academics and other leading thinkers. Why the media is obviously involved in this coverup, I don't know. But, to begin with you can start with the fact that it is totally owned by billionaires, a cliquey little club if there ever was one, and one that just loves the Bush Administration and those huge tax cuts.
But I digress. My point is, that despite the attempted manipulation of public opinion, enough peo[ple who actiually have the ability to think for themselves have come forward, and their concern is being heard. Congress is beginning with a quiet little investigation of a couple of aspects of the 9/11 situation, and it could lead to a broadening of the inquiry.
This "denial," then, may not be so much something that was psychologically created as it was a flagrant and widespread manipulation of the public perception. If anything, the latter took advantage of the former, but there's a lot more going on here than just people not wanting to see the truth.
It is not like Germany in that in America the powerful have more to gain from the depoliticization of the populace, the slide into cynical, quiet, apathy, than they do from wholesale mobilization. "Caging" votes was behind the Gonzalez' scandal. The Bushies had many schemes to disqualify voters at the polls (a felony) and they wanted "their" lawyers to assist. The peope don't want the war , but they haven't had to face the cost or been asked to sacrifice.
The rest is actually not Bush's insanity, but our own collective disharmony, of which bush is our karmic mirror. The moment enough of us "get it" (about clearing the subconscious of its lower-vibe default programming for disharmony) and taking the LEAP to the cleared collective subconscious reprogrammed for Beauty Peace Harmony Compassion, then we'll have such a wave, such a wave of positive new creation - Oh, YEAH.
I've just taken a quick look at the "DENIAL" article by Paul Levy. Very interesting reading. I was particularly interested in his commentary about the 9/11 event as he wondered if there was far more to the story than many of us citizens had been led to believe by the perhaps very inadequate 'evidence' that we have been able to obtain through normal channels : Government and our Presses.
I think it was yesterday that I had a pleasant JOLT. I was listening to the radio and some reporter was reporting on the work going on IN A QUIET WAY about this Department of Justice issue that seems to be waxing and waning, and seeming TO ME (and perhaps many others) to be headed for a not-to-be- set of possible important consequences. In other words there may NOT be a 'piper to pay' for the possible 'wrong-doers'.
The report on the radio noted that this quiet and more thorough investigation was asking for MORE SUPPORT in order to investigate much further than had been done recently in the Congress and temporarily 'leaned into' by our not always too diligent PRESS. The report suggested that this group was very serious about getting into the root causes of possible illegal actions within the DOJ.
I think the investigative group is composed of lawyers (and possibly political scientists?) from outside the government. But I do not really KNOW. Since the issue is so FUNDAMENTAL it can possibly be BEST investigated by a TRULY professional group of NON-GOVERNMENTAL lawyers and judicial minded other folk. "Hoop La" is typical in such circumstances (politics as presently being practiced is a 'game' rather than a 'serious effort ' to serve the people, many of us would proclaim). Just perhaps, these kinds of groups which see the long-range implications of politics entering the 'justice process' might develop the determination to FIX our precious system by paying most SERIOUS (non-political) attention that our present (and future?) Congress may NOT be able to provide. The Presidency needs fixing, but even possibly moreso, the Congress needs fixing too.
Professional -- outside of government lawyers -- may be just the RIGHT kind of persons to investigate this (and other?) mess-- with or without governmental financial or technical support. I would suggest to Paul Levy that the 9/11 mess may never be properly investigated given the great cloud of POLITICS which now (and then) looms over this most complex issue. If there is any substance at all suggesting complicity by USA governmental involvements, the 'case' should be opened. 9/11 may become of interest to Historians, but JUSTICE issues may never be uncovered and resolved. In some best sense they can be motivated by the necessity to find the TRUTH and then set about to REPAIR THE DAMAGE, if there is such. The possibilities however of 'punishing' the wrong-doers should also be an intent. Here the Congress seems to be almost impotent, and court cases take time to enter and be heard in the proper legal settings.
I don't think that our Founding Parents intended to let wrongdoers get around the law and do wrongs, but we seem NOT to know how to overwhelm the power of politics and ebate obfuscation in order to mete out justice and proper punishment. I do not know if this group I mentioned with the slim evidence of hearing about it on the radio is an internal Department of Justice Group or a purely 'outside group' by concerned and 'truth and justice seeking professionals'. I just hope that JUSTICE WILL OUT. There seems to be little hope that the USA political system is or will continue to work to generate true objective studies of important problems. (Even Global Warming could be integrated into investigative studies here, based on long-term damage to our human physical environments.) . But those issues constitute the REAL problem that we must face in the future -- if we are to create and ever grander Nation and world. POLITICS-as-USUAL seems to me, NOT to be working to address and solve KEY human-citizen problems. And simple-minded looks will not repair our (ONCE?) GREAT system.
I have a modest suggestion. I suggest that some of our biggest and best FOUNDATIONS create a special very large FUND to support legal efforts by our best minds in our legal profession to investigate and litigate issues such as these when necessary. Perhaps our present BEST LAW Firms could create, help and sustain a public-sectot 'surge force' to help us cittizens to build upon. A sort of CITIZEN WATCHDOG group that can move rapidly and help protect our nation (and the rest of our world too) and ALL peoples there on our planet. Our Congress has that legal responsibility in our USA, but it seems to me that the OBJECTIVITY needed cannot be counted upon BECAUSE of the insidious character, at times, of our POLITICAL-PARTY system. WE THE PEOPLE are basically our GOVERNMENT. Perhaps this is the role of our PRESENT PRIVATE SECTOR : to create an organizational form that will be more OBJECTIVE and RATIONAL than our present PARTY system provides.
Dick
I believe that people are going to need to come to the truth of this before they can hope for any 'positive' change in our reality. As it has been presented in the purely objective form down from leader to follower, in the hierarchical sequence of top down 'leader' (Father ?) knows best ... get ye in line. We have become the blind following the Blind ... waiting, expecting and/or hoping for a 'savior'.
We as a people must come to know that our very highest truth will come from withIn via our own INtuitive contact with the spiritual (subjective) universe ... by whatever name applied ... not from governmental and religious 'authority' who have been misleading us all since the very beginning of time.
When we INdividually learn this truth, we will find that it is truly the truth that sets us each free ... and when enough learn of it a 'critical mass' will automatically bring the rest along.
We need to be INternally free in order to be truly free ... only then will we recognise that in each other to the degree that we can trust and cooperate with each other resulting in a synergy that is greater than the simple sum of the parts ... as it is we have had a competing world seeking advantage over each other ... at least at the level of our leaders and 'their' controllers ... those with the funds and the clout.
There are so many ways that we as honest caring people who trust in the power of the subjective universe and our relationship to it, could achieve anything we cooperatively set our minds to.
As long as we wait on someone else to come along and solve our problems, be they a secular, religious, governmental or private person, we will be just waiting forever because this objective world is dominated by fear and the leaders are immersed in it and use it to control ... they have far too much accumulated power to be overcome, they are fully entrenched in every aspect of that needed to maintain control under the present fear based 'reality'.
We really need to disregard those such as Don and his ilk that cry out 'moonbat', 'tinfoil hat crowd', and their other simplistic and mindLESS pejoratives towards those they could never understand because they are too fearful to think for themselves, relying solely upon their preferred 'leaders' like Rush Limbaugh and the like ... simpletons that they have become in doing so.
When enough of us that can think for ourselves and trust the truth of the universe get together just by the accumulation of our like thinking ... the manifestations will automatically 'appear' ... we will have created jointly our better reality ... and it may well be very separate from those that stay locked in their fear and greed modes ... as you think, so it will be ... but it must be based upon truth seeking rather than just wishful affirmations where you know you are just trying to fool yourself.
The truth shall set us free ... it is a divine promise ... it is real ! Those dealing in other will have other ! There is really room for both ... to each their own ... we need but to trust truth more than fear. Seek and ye shall find !
I don't see how Levy's speculations on the event of 9/11 are important relative to his thoughts on the contemporary denial? You are aware that Robert Zoellick , now nominated as head of the World Bank, was engaged prior to 9/11 as US Trade Representative to woo the Taliban to get them to agree to a contract with the with Enron or a pipeline to India for natural gas? The Bush administration didn't express any concern for bin Laden in these discussions. They indicated to the Taliban that it would be carpets of gold or carpets of bombs if they didn't agree, prior to 9/11. Z was the major domo of the 9/11 commission: he chose who would be allowed to testify. He also wrote the final Commission report. He was co-author with Condi Rice of books, and later her second at State Department. The Commission had no power of supoena and the members all had conflicts of interests and were DC insiders. David Griffin has written on this.
While I see much value in discussing such things as the effects of psychological trauma on individuals, and in turn societies, which is to say places where large numbers of individuals are traumatized; I feel you would do wisely to note Don's reaction. By linking the "collective consciousness" theory so directly to all of this, there is I'm afraid, a rather good chance people will not take it seriously.
In this article, and elsewhere that I've seen discussion of this theory, the adherents generally make concrete statements of the "factuality" of such things. It is this very way of speaking which creates much skepticism in myself, since I already explored such matters to understand that such things simply can't be "known". I am then left to wonder about the speakers self awareness in general, since they don't seem to have the humility to accept their own fallibility.
The very concept of such a collective consciousness is, by it's very nature, implying something which one could not actually "know", in any common sense of the word. When it is presented as something someone 'knows", rather than more palatably to most; something someone "believes", one invites that initial common sense reaction. This does make one wonder just how in tune with any potential collective consciousness you guys really are. As a monotheist (I guess) I am rather conscious of the effect such "flat out statements" have on people. I suppose that's why we often refer to like minded persons as 'believers', and shun the more impressive sounding, at first glance: 'knowers'.
Also, I can never understand why those that speak of this grand "evolutionary leap" don't seem to notice that if you got virtually every person thinking about such things, the leap would already have occurred in the main. That is, the bulk of humanity concerned with our collective welfare. When you posit this in such a way as to make that a sort of "if only", rather than a state of affairs which itself would constitute a major shift for the better, regardless of whether some form of "created universe" consequence follows, there is a subtle dehumanizing element introduced. As if it were not for the sake of wisdom and cooperation that we ought get beyond our selfish thinking, but for some hoped for cosmic shifting.
I often am accused in a blanket fashion of believing in God because I fear death, or am fixated on a dreamy heaven or something. Truth is, I never even think about such things, other than in connection with understanding what is written in the Book, and how that relates to my present circumstance. Assuming this life is not the end, does facilitate thinking in terms of right and helpful behaviour, since there is the assumption that it is not necessary to justify selfless actions with "real world" benefits. Which of course would disqualify said actions as selfless.
Is there not a "tempting heaven" aspect to all of this ? Indicating a belief that more people would spend the time and effort to get all collective, if they believed some wonderful reward was to result (other than the inherent ones). Are you not therefor pretty much insuring that many folks will not really be "in tune" after all, since the end of self cannot be achieved if reward is the motive.
Kind of a shame, since on some level there may be aspects of this which might be "true", regardless of whether there is a God in my sense of the word. In the end, I hear proponents of this theory mostly espousing an alternate explanation for spiritual phenomenon and drives, which seems more about claiming there is no God, than actually looking into what truth there might be to some form of collective consciousness.
For myself, and perhaps for yourself, there is nothing "new" in the patterns Levy writes about. A reader of Gibbon's Decline and Fall (1776) or Erich Fromm's interpretation of Western contemporary "hypnosis" or "denial" will find the same patterns better expressed. ( Fromm's popular book ,The Art of Loving ( 1956) recapitulated the theoretical principles of human nature found in his Escape from Freedom and Man for Himself. The core of Fromm's world view was his interpretation of the Talmud.)
The notion of a global change in consciousness is supported by previous historical examples . During times of transition from one civilzation to another, many different predictions appear. They rarely correspond to what comes about. The changes may occur rapidly and in quite unanticipated ways. It is individuals who change themselves and the work of small groups of like mind that are positive agents for change.
Well, you see, the way you speak of it there is far more "palatable" to my critical mind, which sets off a little alarm of sorts when statements exceed there "natural" certainty range. What you said is not "forcing" conclusions as to the origins and mechanisms involved. It does not create what to me is an unnatural division between various levels of awareness and social interaction.
I don't think "inner selves" operate independently from outer selves, or any other selves. It is the totality of the fully mature and sensitive human being which I believe accounts for the impression that there is a "higher" form of consciousness. Basically it is in fact a "fuller" form, and yes, in that state a human becomes an extremely potent thing. I suppose our chief difference lies in our concepts of which is the "design" form. Which is to say, the "normal" form.
Erich Fromm begins his Sane Society (1955) with the sentence: "Nothing is more common than the idea that we, the people living in the Western world of the twentieth century, are eminently sane."
Fromm rejects this and seeks other more objective measures of sanity. He observes," The western world have created a great material wealth more than any other society in the history of the human race. Yet we have managed to kill of millions of our population in an arrangement, which we call war. During these wars, every participant firmly believes that he was fighting in his self-defense, for his honor, or that he was backed up by God. The groups with whom one is at war are, often from one day to the next, looked upon as cruel irrational fiends whom one must defeat to save the world from evil. But a few years after the mutual slaughter is over the enemies of yesterday are our friends, the friends of yesterday our enemies, and again in full seriousness we begin to paint them with appropriate colors of black and white. "
Fromm analyzes 1950's society on the basis of human nature which arises from the human condition, his whole existence. Fromm finds that man has, over the centuries, removed himself from nature which formed for him the womb and the spiritual connection necessary for him. Man developed his own world through the creation of villages and towns and agriculture and some independence from nature as the provider and sustainer. The extreme aspects of this alienation are found in both communism and capitalism where the individual no longer feels a relatedness to others in the society, an alienation which itself can lead to insanity. The fact that people are capital and not "people" anymore and that their work becomes capital as well which can be interchanged with other forms of capital which have no human base produces ill health and a mentally ill society. "Money, prestige and power are the main incentives today for the largest section of our population - that which is employed" Fromm suggests sanity can only be achieved through changes in all aspects of the human condition: his economical, political, spiritual and social needs must be met at the same time.
Fromm's social ideas are similar in this respect to the idea of a Threefold Social Order which was outlined during Word War I by Rudolf Steiner.It has been discussed by contemporary people who are not affiliated with his teaching as "Threefoldness." (There is a wiki article.) A recent article on the Threefold Social order is
"Nine Propositions in Search of the Threefold Social Order"
By Christopher Schaefer
I quote a bit of it:
"In a series of lectures called "Education as a Force for Social Change," Rudolf Steiner describes three great dangers for modern humanity: the mechanization of the spirit, the vegetablization of the soul, and the animalization of the body. Since his time, these dangers have become ever more pronounced through a media-driven, consumer-oriented global society, promoted by the market capitalism of the West. His response to these dangers was to promote the ideas of the threefold social order, arguing that a healthy social life and healthy human beings depended on grasping the principles of threefolding, "socialism for economic life, democracy for the life of rights, and individualism for spiritual life."
As we come to the end of the century and the unquestioned global triumph of the democratic capitalist model of society, we need to recognize how few of Steiner's social ideas have found an echo in our broader culture and how, even in our own circles, his social imaginations and concerns have elicited limited interest and response. I believe that this limited interest and activity among individuals and groups otherwise interested in spiritual science is largely due to the fact that we see Steiner's social ideas as a program or a utopian model to be imposed on reality, rather than as an actual description of what is already present in reality, although unconsciously. For this reason, I have chosen to elaborate, in a very brief manner, nine propositions about the Rudolf Steiner's social insight and the principles of the threefold social order as a spur to dialogue and action.
Steiner suggested that social understanding required jumping into the test tube, or what my profession refers to as "action learning." The principles of the threefold social order were elaborated by Rudolf Steiner in many lectures between 1918-1922 and his book, translated as Toward Social Renewal.
The research I have been doing over the last few years leads me to believe that practice is ahead of theory—that many individuals and organizations are engaged in wise practices embodying the laws of threefoldness. Our challenge is to perceive, practice, and articulate the lawfulness that is already present in the social world."
http://home.earthlink.net/~coalition4peace/ninepropositions.htm
I have yet to look at the links in your above comment, but I must also say that I fully agree with what you presented about Steiner above.
I think a great part of the problem as to the polarization of our peoples, is the tendency required of duality to 'pick' a winner to support and/or 'follow' ... people seem to take the very easiest and quickest route to 'their' winner that they can muster ... often just the simple recommendation of some other person that they already believe to be a relative 'winner' (authority recognised by 'others') ...
Thus people polarize just by simply picking their 'side' of the extremes of issues ... and seldom see the value of a balance more centered ... the common ground available from more cooperation.
The one side, as the links indicate, will be in fearful denial, which will also automatically deny the validity to them of the other 'side' ... they can NEVER seem to believe that their 'opposition' (to them) actually can understand 'both' sides and only wants to accept them into that enlarged view (INsight) ... it may well be the latter that is more enlightened due to being associated more with the common spirit of all ...
But to even suggest this, also automatically causes the fearful side to deny this fact with great bitterness usually ... so what is the real answer ? I do not know except to stick to my guns and insist that there IS a larger picture to things that they are just not yet aware of ... and that when they do become aware, we will all be better off, especially them as they will see the most improvement in themselves.
When one comes to understand the basics in metaphor (which is the subjective essence of truth overall) they will not need to study all of the great philosophers and pick and choose from their words and views, as they will already know deep withIN themselves that their own INtuition will give them just what they NEED to know ... that is the truth of Spirit Realized. IMnsHO.
Great information Clarke ... but I suspect that few would take the time to read it all and allow it to soak in for the needed comprehension ... I hope I am wrong on that.
These "if only" meanderings have no real value at all. The people that can see their wisdom are in no need of it at all. Those that can't, are never going to be "enlightened" by endless yammering about how wonderful the world would be if only everyone would act wonderfully. That crap is nothing more than know-it-alls telling each other how beautiful their dreams are. They have nothing to do with reality, other than a plagiarist propensity for re-packaging what was written thousands of years ago, and well understood by human beings that dismissed such trite circular wishing as the totally undeserving self congratulatory mumbo jumbo that it is.
Go read the book of Job, for goodness sake. You guys are playing out the roles of his "comforters", reciting long diatribes on a wonderful fantasy of what ought to be, while the world sits ravished by forces you have yet to even notice.
I can't have a reasonable conversation with any of you, because you drift off into your imaginary "solutions", to your imaginary "shortcomings", of the imaginary "people" in your heads. Look to yourself for what is "wrong" with mankind, for it is only there that you can find it.
You'll just have to excuse my impatience, because you have earned it.
But for a man that likes to think that he knows all that needs be known ... to the degree that others of us can know something different that you evidently do NOT know ... but somehow you are qualified to tell us that what we know is not so ... ? How is that that you know so much and are yet so confused ... confused enough to call others confused yet ?
Can it be the one and only most valuable Book of books gives you such wisdom to know that 'our' messages are bogus ? Does that mean that only one Book is qualified to give the rest of humanity the answers they need bar none ? Is it that the readers of that Book are more qualified to comment on the subjective spiritual possibilities than those of us that have 'other' sources of information ? Could it be that only rational objectivity and literal interpretations of THE Book are allowed for serious logical discussion ... ?
What are the 'rules' that you would have, that we all just agree with you alone ???
"John, good for you ... you are showing your true colors"
Hey dude, I have ALWAYS shown my true colors, you just won't look at them.
Of course you go into a bunch of accusitory horseshit, and totally ignore what I wrote. YOU HAVE NO ANSWERS. You only have dreams.
On that issue I have my own take on it so far ... based upon what I do know ... and that does not cover any real research into conspiracy theories ... so I will not say one way or another as to that because I do not have an opinion ... but I surely will not discount out of hand the possibility just because 'others' do. Anything is possible.
As for 'ignoring' what you wrote ... I was not aware that I was doing that ... either I do not understand it all of the time, or I just do not always agree with it.
Quit with the juvenile insults and address the EXTREMELY relevant and important points I raised in all seriousness.
This is not ONE TENTH the flak you've given me on a hundred threads, and it isn't filled with a bunch of robotic criticisms which express nothing more than some competitive attitude, or self righteous declarations.
The reason I sent you to Job has nothing at all to do with the books divinity, but the fact that the key issues in the converstaion we are having, were first discussed 2500 years ago. It's old news.
I do not see myself as being juvenile nor 'competing' ... I do not see myself as being ego oriented ... but I do see myself as being 'righteous' to a degree ... but not more than I think is proper under the circumstances ... I do attempt to tone it down in most cases because so many think one must always be humble and unassuming ... just like everyone 'should' be religious I suspect rather than spiritual.
I fully believe in my 'declarations' ... I believe they could help this world better find it's way ... I put them out for what they are worth ... none are forced to consider.
I say again for the umpteenth time ... I have had spiritual experiences that make me 'different' than I used to be when I was much more like you prior to that. I now attempt to meld together the subjective spiritual 'wisdom' with the orthodox objective intelligence of normal logical and rational people of which you seem to be ... IF you were spiritual, you would understand. The fact that you seem not to, does not necessarily make me 'wrong'.
I will continue to do my very best to bridge our 'differences' and discuss as best as I can ... that is my mission from God ... I would hope that you could give the benefit of the doubt and attempt to understand.
Comment on what I raised or forget the whole thing. What you are doing is proving my points, not refuting them.
Consequently, the earth has been and will always be a school for those that have not yet learned enough to 'graduate' ... that is why the same ole conversations have been going on for millenia ... but it is not of the same beings conversing ... only those who have not yet learned. IMnsHO.
¿Nothing at all about the matters I raised ?
While I see much value in discussing such things as the effects of psychological trauma on individuals, and in turn societies, which is to say places where large numbers of individuals are traumatized; I feel you would do wisely to note Don's reaction. By linking the "collective consciousness" theory so directly to all of this, there is I'm afraid, a rather good chance people will not take it seriously.
In this article, and elsewhere that I've seen discussion of this theory, the adherents generally make concrete statements of the "factuality" of such things. It is this very way of speaking which creates much skepticism in myself, since I already explored such matters to understand that such things simply can't be "known". I am then left to wonder about the speakers self awareness in general, since they don't seem to have the humility to accept their own fallibility.
Don's reaction(s):
moonbat alert!!!!!
and :
David -- I've researched both sides of the 911 story exhaustively. Anyone thinking it was an inside job or a cover-up is seriously lacking critical facilities.
My addressing :
Don thinks like a 'normal' orthodox objective thinker ... ego oriented with no 'connection' to anyone else other than the occasional 'physical' interaction involving the 5 senses.
Anything beyond that is subjective and not worth considering. Anyone not agreeing with him is lacking critical facilities.
Linking the 'collective consciousness' to life will not be taken seriously by 'normal' people such as Don ... and I assume John. But for objective people there is no such thing as that so of course it will never be taken at all, let alone seriously.
Yet those that claim to know of the CC as a part of their reality that they consider to be their relative 'facts,' cannot 'show' it, because it is subjective and can only be mentioned and/or experienced ... thus there is no 'objective; proof available to convince 'normal' people ... therefore those that know subjectively are 'fallible', meaning 'wrong' to 'normal' people ... but IF they were humble they would know that and never contend such in the first place ... that would mean that they were normal orthodox conformists. Then they would be also on the side of logic and reason and the world would be normal which is good for normal people who are never confused by normality. If everything stays within and fits in the 'box,' then there are no problems ... (for normal people) ...
Sorry, that was the best I could do under the circumstances. Of course I could be all wrong on that, but it was just MnsHO. :-)
Let me refresh your memory as to where you went ballistic on me;
~~~~~
I went to the link, and can only scratch my head and wonder what it will take to get otherwise intelligent people to quit wasting their time on endless variations of the same ancient platitudes which have failed to work their "magic" on mankind at any point in the whole history of our wretched "civilizations".
These "if only" meanderings have no real value at all. The people that can see their wisdom are in no need of it at all. Those that can't, are never going to be "enlightened" by endless yammering about how wonderful the world would be if only everyone would act wonderfully. That crap is nothing more than know-it-alls telling each other how beautiful their dreams are. They have nothing to do with reality, other than a plagiarist propensity for re-packaging what was written thousands of years ago, and well understood by human beings that dismissed such trite circular wishing as the totally undeserving self congratulatory mumbo jumbo that it is.
Go read the book of Job, for goodness sake. You guys are playing out the roles of his "comforters", reciting long diatribes on a wonderful fantasy of what ought to be, while the world sits ravished by forces you have yet to even notice.
I can't have a reasonable conversation with any of you, because you drift off into your imaginary "solutions", to your imaginary "shortcomings", of the imaginary "people" in your heads. Look to yourself for what is "wrong" with mankind, for it is only there that you can find it.
You'll just have to excuse my impatience, because you have earned it.
~~~~
Have you got anything at all to respond to this ?
" ... don't seem to have the humility to accept their own fallibility. ... "
That seems to have been a key issue between us for a long time and also does apply to your repeated comment here above it seems, especially after you condense it all into:
" ... I can't have a reasonable conversation with any of you, because you drift off into your imaginary "solutions", to your imaginary "shortcomings", of the imaginary "people" in your heads. Look to yourself for what is "wrong" with mankind, for it is only there that you can find it. ... "
I will agree fully that the bulk of people repeating ancient platitudes from philosophers and the good Book have not the slightest idea of the deeper truths of the real meaning of such ... that is a major problem in this world. The dilution and contamination of meaningful words with triviality and shallowness where such statements become just common trash for most that either cannot, or will not, see through it all.
But just because some (most) do not understand, does not mean the 'message' has no merit. Just because 'you' do not understand, or agree, with what 'you' might think is in 'my' head, does not mean that it has no valid meaning for me, and maybe for some others.
We all have our 'opinions' and are entitled to them. We can, and should, express them as a part of our ongoing social relations ... above all, we should be as honest as we can in doing so ... the better to be understood, accepted or not. There is something for everyone, and to each their own.
Other than that, I can only say again that I value my intuitive 'imaginary' inputs because they have transcendent meanings to me ... in a world that seems to be deteriorating very fast due to lack of such wisdom, I think that even more people should take stock in the imaginary people ... but only those seeking truth.
And I might add, that in my case, the 'ideas' came first ... they were then backed up and confirmed via the writings of and about people that have had the 'same' ideas forever ... those ideas are associated with what is called the 'Perennial Philosophy' ... it is the core essence of all thought for all time ... and does have great value ... for those willing to understand.
As I noted , the patterns of denial when societies go mad are recognizable throughout history and there are always some individuals and communities who perceive the situation and attempt to live normal lives and pursue positive goals in society.
Erich Fromm's experience in Nazi Germany influenced his early writings as "Escape From Freedom" (1941). In the chapter, "Mechanisms of Escape": "The person who gives up his individual self and becomes an automaton, identical with millions of other automatons around him, need not feel alone and anxious any more. But the price he pays, however, is high; it is the loss of his self." In the chapter, "Freedom and Democracy": "This loss of identity then makes it still more imperative to conform, it means that one can be sure of oneself only if one lives up to the expectations of others. If we do not live up to this picture, we not only risk disapproval and increased isolation, but we risk losing the identity of our personality, which means jeopardizing sanity.... We must replace manipulation of men by active and intelligent co-operation, and expand the principle of government of the people, by the people, for the people, from the formal political to the economic sphere."
I think it is a distraction in considering "denial" to debate about conspiracy theories regarding 9/11. Had there not been that event, would the situation
today have been different than it is? It is obvious that there is
nothing theoretical in stating the 9/11 Commission was tasked with whitewashing history and avoiding any embarassment to the government.
David Griffin has debunked the 9/11 report, without resorting to advocation of any conspiracy theories.
We can see that 9/11, from day one, has been used the government to manufacture consent for its policies and to do so by creating fear and hatred. They would have tried to do the same had there been no 9/11 event.
Honest up front people have no need nor reason to conspire ... but the nefarious ones that want to pull the wool over our eyes most certainly do. It is they that have anything to lose by the truth. Thus it is they that insist that there is no conspiracy ... the greater it is the greater the need that it not be suspected.
A trick they employ is to either note, or manufacture 'silly' theories that are easy to discredit ... then pretend that those are also reflective of major theories as being 'also' silly nonsense. Those that you have mentioned that have a need to conform to their social 'identity' will be apologists for their 'group' ... that gives them a sense of 'belonging' to something 'bigger' than what they probably consider their own small and insignificant selves otherwise. These folks have truly small minds ... often quite fearful, especially of the suspicious unknown (the 'darkness'). Their 'leaders' convince them that those unlike them are out to get them so that they will stay in the 'group' and rely on it through the leader to protect them.
If that leader says something, they must loyally defend and approve or feel to be against their group ... these are relatively weak minded people that have no self confidence to be an individual and stand apart from a group. They often wistfully 'wish' that they were otherwise, and take on certain trappings of attire or the vehicles they drive to 'appear' to be what they are not, to appease their longing that actually comes from deep withIN their own INtuition ... which they seldom credit ... the very reason they need their group for peer support.
I ramble here ... granted, but people that want to be, or remain, free ... had better begin to listen to their own intuitions rather than their 'authorized' leaders. The group-think path does not go where free thinkers are entitled ... and this extends all of the way to eternity.
I think you make an excellent point, regarding the distractive quality of the debate about "who done it". The exploitation of the event it is obvious.
There is a deep significance to that "hurdle" effect, which the nature of that event produces. It is a great barrier to facing the entire matter, to have to FIRST swallow such a huge "lump" as ones own leaders intentionally doing that sort of thing. It is entirely possible, that even if the "government" was not the perpetrator, it could have been seen as an opportunity to generate a "smoke screen" of denial, by intentionally fostering suspicion that it was. It is actually "better", in terms of a prolonged state of general denial, that such a suspicion exists.
Unfortunately, I believe it is far more likely that such a psychological "cliff" was anticipated, long before 911.
Well, thanks for toning down your response, perhaps you realize I don't really have all that much "choice" in what I can truthfully say.
But ya know, for one who so often speaks of "essence", you sure have a way of ducking issues, and meandering into all sorts of "non-essence-ial" stuff. I'm wanting to question YOUR platitudes, and those used by adherents to the "we are creating the universe" religion in general. Can we do that ?
You see, this article is about denial, and specifically "communal" denial. So I figured it would be appropriate to check out the potential denial aspects, involving what the gentleman this article centers around proposes, that may be in play. There is, from my perspective anyway, a rather pronounced "physician, heal thyself" dimension to this outlook. As if someone were trumpeting logic, but did so using poor logic.
Thanks. Let's start with the point I raised about the idea that if "everyone" would take up a concern for the general welfare of man, and the planet etc., then a great "evolution" could occur. Does it not seem kinda obvious that if everyone were in such a state of "enlightenment", evolving would be unnecessary and superfluous? We would be enlightened.
It really appears that what is being packaged as a great revelation, is nothing more than an elaborate way of saying;
"If we could only become enlightened . . . we would be enlightened"
What is the point of tacking on all sorts of "pseudo-theology" to this push for enlightenment, when it brings in all sorts of stuff for people to get dogmatic and dreamy about? Which might very well prevent them from becoming truly enlightened?
But I believe that becoming so only puts us on a much faster track for fulfilment which is never ending according to my understanding. except of course when we are so satisfied that we do not want, or see a reason, to go 'further' ...
As for the second part ... we CAN all become enlightened ... at least when we are ready able and willing ... but 'that' is the gift of Grace from God, according to my understanding ... and will only happen on 'that' time table.
I think the point of 'promoting' it ... is to wake people up to the possibility. There are various modalities that are said to allow it to happen ... relaxation and attention to breathing is one of the most common and effective methods to quickening it.
I agree that all of the information tacked onto the subject can be so confusing and offsetting as to actually prevent many from ever reaching that state. In fact that is one of my own greatest concerns ... due in part from the fact that religions as I understood them made many such 'promises' that seemed to be pretty spectacular and a good thing ... but far from achievable to the degree they implied.
So in that regard it is not much different than religion in general ... except of course in my own case naturally :-) ... sort of kidding - sort of not.
Interesting . . . and much more direct, thank you.
I think you can see the "reward" problem here. While I know many in "publicity Christianity" stress resurrection as some sort of payoff, it is not dealt with in that way in the Book. It is rather more a "licence to do good stuff", since there is no need to convince the ego it is not gonna get short changed, as I said before. That is what Christ is referring to in the famous "do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing" statement.
In this regard, this new wave of "we create the universe", seems to be much more in line with the frivolous "Christian" take. There seems to be a distinct "baiting" maneuver going on.
In that vein, I am baffled by a related aspect I've seen. It has to do with "love". In my "religion", love is something one does, or expresses, and can basically be considered 'compassion'. It is very much an outward looking state, where the emphasis is on being very sensitive to the needs and situation of others. But in this "we create the world" religion, love takes on a predominantly inward slant. Folks seem to be speaking of what to me is merely "happy or pleasant feelings" in themselves. As though love were an emotion, or thought pattern.
This view then permits the odd possibility of a person "being" loving, while at the same moment being oblivious to the suffering of others. I see talk of "taking nothing seriously", and "striving to maintain a feeling of peace within", and the like.
But I cannot help but notice, in life, that love requires taking things VERY seriously. Being extremely empathetic, and truly entering the "misery" of others, so as to relate fully with their circumstance. This "inward" love would once again seem to be a "reward" based thing, with the "lover" getting theirs, so to speak, regardless of what another might have to endure. So . . .
Is this not a "cheapening" of the notion of love to you?
I suppose that anyone at all could place their own definition upon any word as complex as 'enlightenment', salvation, grace, being born again, seeing the light, an epiphany, an awakening … and on and on …
I do not recognize the word 'resurrection' as being anything I have thought a lot about other than Christ's appearance after His bodily death. I 'might' put that into the classification of 'materialization' in terms of 'alien' (divine or not) entities 'appearing' to certain people, according to their claims and stories. To me it is all just another potential possibility that I cannot rule out, but still do not put much thought into it and for sure do not place a high value to it … except in the personal experience of the person involved … where I suspect it would be exceptionally affecting.
Before I go too much further with this line of thought, I want to say that no matter how 'strange' and off the wall it may 'sound' to any not yet involved in it all … it is no stranger than the promises of 'faith' in most main stream religions … just having a different twist. I have stressed many times other places, that 'reality' may well be very much different than has been historically 'accepted' by most until now. Quantum science is bringing that home even for the more objective thinkers.
Now, to the 'create the universe' idea, I will have to say that I believe that is related to 'as you think - so it is' … of course the 'flip side' of that is maybe 'what it is -you think about' … which came first, the chicken or the egg ? … it may be just a matter of perspective and priorities. It may also be a mix of the two.
Most of these 'non-Christian' concepts are more related to what has been loosely called the 'new age' area. That is because the ideas come mostly from the East, from Hinduism and Buddhism, both which take an INternal focus on spiritual matters, a looking withIN, facilitated by meditation.
The 'reward' would then be getting in touch with your own Soul, also called your higher Self. That being the experience of the Unconditionally accepting Love of God (or God's Spirit at least). From that experience comes the true 'enlightenment', the opening up to the mysteries of the cosmos, often much increased physical health, a mental outlook that is very much drastically changed from then on. What might be called a 'polar shift' in ones thinking … basically because what had been an ego oriented OUTlook up to then, is reversed to an INlook to the Soul, considered as close to God as one will get while still living a life.
Of course the Western view of almost everything is the OUTlook … and western religions are basically arranged around that view … maybe not fully in words and theory, but usually in practice.
Before I get to that word Love, I must say that what I usually call the exoteric view is the one of those that have not yet actually 'met' with the Spirit of God … or in the case of say Christianity, those that have … but still allowed the church to convince them that the OUTlook was still the most valid view. God, Spirit, Christ, name it what stands for the essence of that, will NOT be an OUTward experience … it is an Internal personal experience.
Now it will then be 'secondarily' experienced outside with others … but the primary is still the Internal gnosis. One cannot 'truly' love others until one truly loves themselves/Self (that being the loving relationship between the ego self that surrenders to the spirit Self) … via 'that' experience one comes to know their relationship to all of God's creation as one of unconditional love … I believe that is called 'agape' in Christian terms.
Now then we get to those that talk the talk but in no way can walk the walk … because IT has NOT yet actually happened to them yet … they have NOT been enlightened, graced, born again, or what have you … at least in the truer essential INner sense of actual transcendent experience.
Many many have convinced themselves and even others that they are just what they claim to be … but they are either in ignorance of the real, wishful thinking, or just deceiving themselves and others. This is not to say that all are unreal, many ARE real … and there are countless others that are actually really 'there' but do not dwell upon it or are even not aware, because it just is not an issue to them … it is just the way they are ! Only God REALLY knows.
I believe that this concept (above) applies across the board, and there are probably far more Christians that come under this description than do New-Agers, just because there are far more of them overall.
Many put out their 'shingles' to make a living as healers or other practitioners to 'help' others related to what they think they know. Many quit 'advancing' at the initial 'realization' … which makes me wonder just what it was really all about to them compared to my own experience.
Far to many take lessons or a course from someone that claims 'qualification' to pass their 'abilities' on to others so they too can become 'teachers' and also (supposedly) pass it on and even qualify others with their 'authority' (license). Many (most) religious 'preachers' probably fall into this category.
But then as far as God is concerned (I suspect) it matters not because everyone gets their just rewards in the end … and there are no accidents.
Now to LOVE … human love is usually shared in that it is reciprocal … and because it is often NOT unconditional … there are 'strings' attached … what goes out is expected to be returned … or there will be a 'problem'. Such 'strings' do create problems often.
Divine Love is Unconditional … no strings, no expectations, … just a flowing out from the heart. But in 'my' case … mine is more 'mental' as related to 'others' … I have experienced the Unconditional Internally … and I share that INner knowing connection with all other via Spirit … yet my 'outer' expression is what I call my 'tough love' … that falls withIN the BET (+=-) of what goes around comes around. INtention is key with that.
So I will add that many Christian preachers lambaste new-age concepts of love thy self because they do not equate the outer ego self with the Inner higher (Godly) Self … so they just put it down as simply 'selfish'.
Sadly, because of all of the shallow imposters and those misguided as I mentioned earlier, many are just selfish … but the deeper truer essential meaning and experience of the relative few … IS that of the Unconditional Love of Spirit … the walk is walked for some. We should not throw the Baby out with the bathwater though, as far too many would.
As for taking nothing too serious … that is based upon the unconditionality of the Karmic process where each gets their own in their own time and space for eventual overall balance universally. In other words, things overall are just as they 'should' be … there are no 'requirements' because the law of cause and effect is based upon intentions first and results second. God does keep track and we each get just what we deserve.
The idea of Western views is often about 'sacrifice' … 'no pain - no gain' … even in the East that crops up, but there are 'other' considerations.
I suspect I have went on long enough about this … I hope that Clarke is not put off by all of this on his thread.
I really can't converse with you if you keep defining everything I say. If you have some question as to my intended meaning, you have but to ask. Requiring that I tip-toe around half the English language to avoid these lectures of what somebody else might mean when they use a given term is unrealistic.
I am not a robot. I have spent countless hours looking carefully at most every aspect of what I can observe within. I really do not need to be told what I'm "really" saying, I already know. Again, if essence is your objective, please quit being so superficial in interpreting my words.
To the best of my ability to follow your statements, it is my honest impression that you do not know love. I hate to be so blunt, but if you can't see that love is "essentially" an "other" based phenomenon, there is a problem here. I doubt you can take that seriously, for you seem to have a rather limited capability to accept that you are not wholly complete in almost every way, and this is not the sort of thing easily considered.
Please don't get all upset, I have my duties to perform as well as you. There is no insult intended, I'm not going to take my own sense of that as some sort of authoritative voice, or something immutable.
You ask me questions and I do my best to answer them. Because I do not see things as either black or white, I get more involved in the grey areas where I believe the truth lies.
As I have said many times before, I speak (in my writing) to the wider audience that may just be coming by ... I believe that you must take my words overly personal when you probably should not ... but you alone are the judge of that.
As for being insulted, taking things seriously like your statements about what you believe I am or am not ... etc. ... no problem, I am all for laying everything completely on the line ... it is for sure that you have differing 'standards' than I do ... believe it or not, but I am more than comfortable with that ... especially when it comes to the average view of most religious people that I intimately know and others I am more than just aware of ... IF you knew the LOVE that I am aware of ... you also would fully understand everything that I say and most likely be in agreement with it ... it surely takes more than a few comments, no matter how lengthy, to explain ... especially to someone that has had no similar experience.
Anyone that was truly interested, as I have suggested before, they should read the entire 180 pages of Spirit Calls ... a voice from the wilderness ... that is about all I could say about it all at this point.
No hard feelings on my end ... though I really wish you could understand ... maybe someday.
Fair enough. Thanks.
The long explanations of what some term or other might mean when used in this or that way, by this or that person or "group", is a virtual communication killer. I'm sure if I did it to you a lot, you would see my point better. There's simply no way to get past all that stuff I didn't say.
On the "love" matter . . . to me it seems we are speaking of different things. I am not unfamiliar with "receiving" love, and the powerful feelings and thoughts that can engender. But the thing I am speaking of is not about receiving, and often entails giving up those wonderful things for a while. To be overly concerned with receiving, no matter how precious the gift, is a precarious position to be loving from. To me, love has no such "tether". And the one aspect is no limit on the other. Both are the gift of God. Again there's that left hand not knowing of the right hand metaphor coming to mind. I guess you could say it's a different approach to the "dualism" trap you so often refer to.
I am well aware of the giving and the receiving of 'human' love and all of it's ramifications ... I was such a human for most of my life ... having had many wonderful friends, getting married long ago ... still married to same person, had 3 children, lost one to death at his age 18, now have 4 grandchildren ... on and on ...
But none of all of 'that' holds a candle to the unexplainable love of God I experienced during and after my 'awakening' ... which is so unconditional that my family actually is not (now/since) as important as my now relationship to this world (as IT is related to the spiritual universe as a whole) and GOD !
So, the point being, we are talking apples and fruit as a whole here because it 'seems' to me that you have not at all experienced the latter to make 'your' comparison to ... it has to be as simple as that because I always give the benefit of the doubt as long as I can ...
All of 'those dualistic' word comparisons are really just about that very thing ... the difference between the objective, exoteric, shallow, explicit, normal, orthodox ... and ... the subjective, esoteric, deep (essence), implicit, transcendent, out of the box ...
When you come to truly know of the latter as I do ... then and only then will you understand. Be ever-so grateful that such an experience still awaits you ... there is 'nothing' higher or more 'LOVING' knowable to mankind ... IMnsHO.