Bridges to Peace ... or voids of war ?

Thanks for the link, Jerry. A good read.

Is not to divide (/) to make notably less .... unless one divides by < ONE?

Sorry, couldn't resist ..... even metaphysically

Thank you for the link. It was refreshing.

Thank you for the link, I enjoyed the debate that was going on. It actually got good when they stopped calling each other names and started presenting their ideas.

Jerry - As far as your comment, you lost me. It was long and wordy and I couldn't keep my attention to it. Maybe you could make a synopsis to it for someone of small brain like myself. I appreciate your spirituality and that you want/need to share your revolations with everyone, that is why I read your work, but sometimes you get so caught up in the idea that your works don't reflect it, or at least they hide it. For us simpletons (or at least me) plain direct english is sometimes the best teacher.

Since I've published this in GLOBAL HEARTMIND, I feel a responsibility to make the BRIDGE between the argumentative quality of this article's comments and the purpose of Global Heartmind - which is always to see things through the eyes of more than one being, to see at a higher-than-humancentric level, and to see Good Things for the Planet and to see a way of getting to them and working at them.
I hope Jerry publishes his comment here.
I'm copying mine into this space, as a way of doing my BridgeWork:
I'm all about making bridges - and taking whatever appears to be "evil" and transforming the energy to a more useful [non cancer-promoting] form.

A simple note here, a quote from Shakespeare:
"All's fair in Love and War."
From the teachings I've received on peaceful warriorhood the last few years, a knowing:
It is the principles shared by Love AND War that are the foundation of dynamic peace.

The bridge-building we're talking about has nothing to do with "king of the hill" or "overcoming the enemy" etc; it has everything to do with SHARED GOODWILL, SHARED CREATIVE WORK, SHARED HEALING.

The keys to this bridgework are three:
1. 50%women / 50% men in political office nationally and worldwide. The women, the feminine energy, provides the critical re-balancing that stops the males from going rogue and perpetrating bloody warmongering.
It is that 50% women in office that guarantees not detente, but a real, living culture of peace. Dynamic Peace.
2. All legislation must be grounded in a thorough understanding of and adherence to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.
3. Reforestation, worldwide - minimum 8 trees per human. NOW.

carolion, before I answer you and the others, which I will do next, I will paste my comment mentioned here also for what it is worth, as follows:

Great article, great comments.

A different way of saying just what I have been promoting all along. Your view is logical, rational and practical, even pragmatic, truth be known. My view appears more metaphysical even though it is spiritual, actually it is the essence of all of your views as well as the metaphysical … that is what the spiritual is … the a priori … all of the 'others' are then a posteriori. Intentions first, then actions.

Which brings us to that most critical of questions … what are the intentions ? Do they serve to further subtract and divide, the actions of fear and hatreds, actions that conflict and destroy … or will they be additive, even multiplying, as in respecting and loving … maybe even synergistically 'creative'.

The world mode of think involves the difference between the extremes, polar opposites, because it is those differences that are great enough to offer the needed 'contrast' that enables one to get a clearer picture in order to identify and/or define what it is they want to support or oppose.

This is commonly referred to as 'Duality', often resulting in Dichotomy and even Conflict. There is NO BRIDGE between those polarities where each side sees themselves as the 'Good' side that they naturally apply a positive sign "+" to, to denote their concept of 'best' or 'highest' … that being 'over' the 'other' that 'they' apply the negative sign "-" to, to denote that other as 'lesser' and 'lower' … placing (rather than a bridge) a 'Void' or 'Gap' designated as "/" in between the polar differences … (+/-) a Duality.

In the western concept of thought, this has been the outcome of old religious views from way back when Augustine fathered what became the Christian concept of there being only two choices, the extremes of "good' (commonly called 'perfection') and the 'evil' other … we all know what kinds of 'names' and concepts have evolved from 'that'.

Thus in the 'church' view, there is no room allowed for any grey area middle ground (where 'bridges' could be built) compromise … no 'fence' sitting allowed, each must take their 'side' and compete, conflict, and even 'war upon' the evil 'other' … "You are with us or against us " … and the like.

The problem though, becomes then the 'action' of the side that claims the most 'righteous' position, the higher road … and then the 'reaction' of those 'told' that they are lesser, those deemed "-" by the "+"s that have righteously taken the initial 'action' of the 'defining' … it always works in that order because no one will willingly accept a role of lesser … that always being 'forced' upon those so deemed by the 'greater' … recognize yet why 'resentment' arises and subsequent 'conflict' ?


Bridges then are required for two way interaction of a more 'peaceful' nature. They allow the 'freedom' of exploration of 'both sides' without fear of entrapment … always allowance for a return to a 'preferred' side.

In the rational and logical way of thinking, it is just good common sense to never 'burn' your bridges … (that is only done in War). We all have an INtuition that would best INstruct each of us about 'that'.

Which brings me back to the less 'Rational' mode of thought (as perceived by most 'rationalists'). Most people pride themselves in their 'Objectivity', the 5 sensory way of seeing 'Reality' … the more exoteric way of the Dualist … leaving for only a relative few, the Spiritual or Subjective way of the esoteric Metaphysicist or Spiritualist … one that knows where the a priori resides … in the mind of God, the Spiritual realm, realized through our Intuition … when we come to know and trust it as related to such sources of wisdom.

Spirit is a Bridge and bridge builder … the addition of Spirit, that of God's Unconditional Love that has no favorites, that is nonjudgmental, replaces the Gap "/" Voids of Dualism with the Bridge "=" of Spirit, changing the former Duality into a transcendent Trinity of (+=-) !

The Universal Truth is a Trinity … NOT the world (fallen) concept of Duality between Perfection and Sinner only. Via Trinity, the 'Perfection' of God IS available IN the Spirit that IS right IN the middle of everything ! Thus, (+=-) IS, the Basic Equation of Truth, the BET, the Truth that will set us all free !!!


I just had to take this opportunity to apply this transcendent logic and rationality as a wisdom that is needed to be understood associated with 'Bridges' and their use as two way passages to freedom and peace.

I hope all can see the analogy … in Truth everything is about a Balance between ALL aspects of everything. It is time we all began to Balance out our Polarities and find the Spirit of Truth in Bridges … there is no such in divisive Gaps and Voids of separation involving constant conflicts.


Thanks for reading ('again', for most) … further info available at:

Spirit Calls … for Bridges to Peace, j.

Ronald and Geronimo, thanks for reading and following through, I appreciate your opinions.

Bruce, you would not believe how hard of a time I had to overcome my life programming that (+=+) and (-=-) … which reduces to (+/-) (as far as I know, I was never much at math in school or after).

But I see "that" as the result of analytical thinking, that is so popular in dualistic society which is always attempting to 'separate' things into it's essential 'parts' (plural) in order to understand what they cannot otherwise accept at face (whole) value. Often then, the part deemed the 'best' is saved for recombination into other 'best' parts of 'other' ingredients to make something 'new' … while all that is left over is 'discarded' as 'toxic waste' … which it does often become, to the greater detriment in the bigger picture.

That is 'mans' way so far … one of division and subtraction, to 'mine' out the very best parts at the expense of the others. (Good/bad) (+/-). All about preferential 'valuation'. (I rant again).

So when I attempted to make 'rational' sense of what I knew to be the transcendent truth of the Trinity of (+=-), it was pretty hard to do, as that flew in the face of indoctrinated logic of 'normal' truth of (+/-) which is the 'common' basis of mathematical 'fact'.

But back to your question about "1" … a most important distinction … which I attempt to make in my book, that the greatest number in the Uni-verse is ONE (1) … that being what Universe is ALL about, as well as being what God is ALL about … except that the very next aspect of such a ONE is not TWO but THREE as in the TRINITARIAN nature of (+=-) IMnsHO.

Thus God or UNIverse is the Alpha beginning as 1/x/infinity (or some such) where all 'under' (or IN God) is but a Fraction of the whole over IT or Them.

Likewise, the return to Omega at the theoretical End of Time would reunite all of the 'parts' back into the initial ONE (1). (or some such).

I will quit now, probably making my message even more unclear as Deven suggests … :-)


Devin, I very much appreciate your advice and suggestion … I really would like to be able to present my information in a way that it would do the most good overall for the most people … I will have to give that some more serious consideration … not that I have not already struggled with that idea.

Prior to my "awakening" over 13 years ago, I was basically a normal average person with no special understanding or comprehension of anything. But after that time I found I had an extreme interest in learning many things. That led to vast amounts of reading over the following years during which time I was confronted with many 'words' that I had no idea of what they meant. I had to spend a lot of time with a dictionary, something I had tried to avoid before. I still do go there often because it is only there that I can find the best words that define the ideas and concepts that I propose.

I fully realize that my abilities to express all of this could stand a lot of improvement … but at my age and with my limited abilities to do much else … I just do the best that I can in the belief and hope that the few that are ready for the message, will somehow get and understand it … for those NOT ready, it would not matter how I presented it. It has to come from Inspiration I believe, and with that, anything is possible.

But I will renew my search for a better way, thanks for the suggestion, it IS well received. :-)


Carolion, naturally I appreciate all of your comments and suggestions also. I know we have much the same end desire in all of this. The idea of 50/50 does fit well within the theory and concept … as long as Spirit is acknowledged (hopefully, but maybe not necessarily). The bridge being the 3rd aspect to transit the gap or void of conflict being primary by whatever name it may be called.

We ALL must Cooperate more and with Compassion for each other. Come Together (Gather) in Peace !!!

Jerry,

If my old and feeble mind misremembers arithmetic, I apologize. My lighthearted post suggested that dividing by less than one (1) increases the original. Dividing by more than one fractionalizes that with which you started. The philosophic/metaphysical use of mathematical symbolism has always confused me - especially since mataphysicals are, by nature, unmeasurable.

Nevertheless, faith is definitely a one. God is a one, unless some men decide to describe it differently ... probably political. The question of universe(s) is different. Theoretically, it has been said, there ARE an infinite numbers of universes AND a (likewise) infinite number of parallel universes that exist within and adjacent to each. Probably a lot of work keeping up with all that.

Bruce, Thanks for the reply, we are in agreement it seems. As for the additional universes, I will leave that for later. It is too hard to get the world view to climb far enough out of the box to open to the first universe, one step at a time ... :-)

Thanks for sharing, that was a great article!

:-)