How a transcendent social structure might function

[hilary]

I suppose a lot depends on what kind of thing you mean by a 'function'. I find the word grates a bit because I think of a 'function' as something a component in a large machine has.

And serving the whole is no threat... but starting thinking about individuals first and foremost in terms of what service they should be giving to the whole - again, I don't like the feel of it. Purely my gut reaction, this - and only to the 'cells with functions' vocabulary, not to the original article.

 

[hilary]

(And a lot more depends on who is allowed to decide what my function is, and when/whether I'm performing it!)

 

[candid]

Demitra,

I disagree, so I must not understand. I resist your model of utopia, so I must be acting out of unreasonable fear. I have a different ideal model, so I must have your model explained to me in a step-by-step fashion, as though I'm a child. This is exactly the kind of condescension that seems inseparable from proponents of new age philosophy. If someone disagrees, they are stuck in conventional thinking. There must be some deeply rooted psychological reason, causing the breakdown of an otherwise perfect social order.

From the original article you?ve presented:

The Aquarius personality is certainly idealistic and socially minded ? but it may also be overzealous, self-righteous, and given to sweeping visions of social reform that the Aquarian is only too ready to impose on everyone else.

 

[demitramn]

Hilary,
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

(And a lot more depends on who is allowed to decide what my function is, and when/whether I'm performing it!)<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE> no one other than you decides what your purpose here is and when and where you will perform it

<BLOCKQUOTE>.....</BLOCKQUOTE>
Candid,
no one's talking down to you. you yourself asked for an explanation further up, so this is why i expressed myself the way i did

but that's how it always goes with you. instead of simply explaining and clarifying your point of view, you drag your feelings and your pride into the discussion and the relevent points that you should have addressed (because these were the points that you made an issue about to begin with) don't get covered because you shift the discussion into the arena of feelings

if you're willing to keep the discussion on track then i'm willing to keep this going on my end otherwise i'll busy myself with other matters

 

[megabbobby]

rev hazy sunrise:

like to best serve the universe is to have an ego so huge and selfish that it is bigger than the universe...so that youre so egotistical that you can just chill

pure untainted selfishness as the most selfless yoga

 

[candid]

Demitra,

Maybe you just don?t read what you write, or read it as another might.

?i don't think you do or you would not subscribe to the belief that you need to isolate yourself lest you be contaminated?

I said nothing about personally being an isolationist. I said nothing about myself at all.

?if you took the time to read this whole thread with care you would come away with a new and different perspective.?

I did take the time to read this whole thread, and the whole article. You assume that if I did read it I?d naturally come away seeing everything as you do.

?you are being very literal in your understanding of the subject here and are therefore sticking to the old and tired top-to-bottom social organization of government?

This is your evaluation of my reasons for maintaining my own beliefs, which according to you are old and tired. Yes, I am being literal in order to bring the practical into the ideological. I don?t consider it old or tired.

?it seems that because the detailed internal workings of a transcendent social organization is not being explained to you in a step-by-step fashion that you invalidate the whole concept. too bad?

I?m disagreeing because I see things differently from your way, not because I need your ideas broken down step by step. I never discounted your ideas wholesale, I just don?t buy into them wholesale, and clearly I point out why. It?s not ?too bad? at all.

?anyway, this type of resistance is not so different from the proof that scientists have demanded from err... people of faith over the years?

This type of ?resistance?? It?s not resistance, it?s individuality. It isn?t out of lack of scientific evidence or that I?m a follower of some dogmatic faith that I have a different ideal model than yourself. Can you accept that?

I?m keeping my part of this discussion completely on topic. I haven?t tried to psychoanalyze you in the process as way of diminishing your points. I addressed points according to how I honestly perceive them. I am guilty, however, of making a couple of generalizations which I?ve observed about new age philosophers, as you have done regarding those who are not; those who ?resist?.

Feelings and pride? Sure, I have them. This is a bad thing? But my points were based not on feelings or pride. They were based on what I think is real and true. Can you accept that without seeing me as resisting, or being emotional and prideful? I honestly have felt little emotion throughout this thread.

 

[jeanystar]

I think semantics separate us at times
Hilary.... Consider how you took your love of the YI and developed this site. You are being inherently you, and in doing what you obviously love and do well, you provide a valuable focal point for many all over the world. In fulfilling yourself, you serve the whole. And if tomorrow you said you were folding up your tent, and were off to another heart's calling, that would be well and good too. It is not about self-sacrifice but about "becoming alive" as the unique individuals we are.
I totally agree with that and i think you and Demitra say the same thing.

Candid, I respect your viewpoint . May I say this though?... I sense a kind of "disillusionment" coming thru your words at times......almost as if you have been disappointed in some way...perhaps by the bright hopes of a "new age." ? I could be wrong. Forgive me if I am.

In the early seventies, there was a song by graham nash :YES, We Can CHange The World.
And what happened? A lot of the former hippies are now capitalists and CEOs, or maybe dead from drug use, alot of people traded "their tired wings" in .... and it looks like "nuttin" happened... Existential depression. "Is this all there is?" Maybe it is? Maybe we should just accept it? Business as usual? Shouldn't we be practical and accept history?

BUt, like the old song said, this is only the DAWNING of the age of Aquarius, not the end...just maybe we aint seen nothin yet. And that is why when I read an article like the one Demetra posted here, I get excited. Remembering that there is a greater purpose..and that it is not going to be fulfilled by the head, but from the collective heart, from the bottom up. Hexagram 12, line 1.

I refuse to minimize as "new age philosophy" the faith that the spiritual heart of mankind is capable of something much larger than what we have heretofore seen and experienced.

 

[candid]

Hi Jeanystar,

Of course you may say whatever you wish to me. I don't bite. I just give my honest feedback. But if you address my person rather than my ideas, then you can expect my personal response, emotions and all.

Ok. First, you're correct, in that I've danced with the Aquarian dream before. Thank you for crediting me with having personal experience with it. It isn't anything I haven't held as the answer to all human woes before. I was a radical, and was radical about my radical-ness. I held views to the far left of Hilary Clinton, and saw communism as "the way" to free the people. I went to B-ins, love-ins, anti-war demonstrations and women's lib rallies. I understand the concept of equality and unity.

But here is where you're incorrect. I never was disillusioned from those things, I learned from them. I didn't give them up, I gave them a realistic place to live. I didn't destroy them, I refined them. I didn't grow out of them, I grew out from them. In the evolutionary process, I embraced other ideologies, including yuppie materialism, religious and political conservatism. And eventually I found myself walking the middle path. The middle doesn't exclude any one theology for another. Neither is it wishy-washy. Test me and see if I'll take a stand. I am exactly where I am supposed to be for this time.

I don't begrudge the Christians, just keep your Gospel your own. I don't begrudge the new age beliefs or followers, just provide room for me to live my life according to my convictions. Sing to the choir for the support you need, but don't sing for my salvation.

During the time of my Christian path, my eldest son, a sincere Buddhist, said something to me which changed my life. "As long as you treat me as a soul in need of salvation, I can never fully trust you as my equal." He was right, and I changed my whole outlook as a result of that one statement. (Thank you, David.)

Proud and feeling,
Candid

 

[demitramn]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

Maybe you just don?t read what you write, or read it as another might.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>i do believe that i actually read what i write Candid, yet it is probably fair to say that i can't possibly know what someone else will read into it. this is why i try my best to stay on topic by explaining my point-of-view, when my intentions are clearly being misunderstood, as well as stating how i am interpreting what another is saying to me, so that they may know where i stand with their words. one cannot realistically do more than that. trying to figure out in advance how others will interpret me or my words is an impractical way to live -i'd never write another word or walk out the door

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

I said nothing about personally being an isolationist. I said nothing about myself at all.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE> who are you talking about then, how do you know this, and how is it relevant to the to the discussion? when you toss something like this out there without clarification how can i assume that this is NOT about you or that it doesn't have something to do with a personal experience?

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

I did take the time to read this whole thread, and the whole article. You assume that if I did read it I?d naturally come away seeing everything as you do.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE> i do not expect you to change your standpoint. but if you're going to take an opposing stance then clarify your position. don't assume that i know or even remember what your life story may be simply because you are of a certain age or because you've talked about yourself in the past

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

This is your evaluation of my reasons for maintaining my own beliefs, which according to you are old and tired. Yes, I am being literal in order to bring the practical into the ideological. I don?t consider it old or tired.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE> of course this is your option but it is not mine. it is old and tired - having been worked and reworked in so many ways, it has always proven itself to be damaging and destructive in the long run to the individual spirit as well as the collective spirit. in the end, i still don't understand your need to defend a social system that is still so firmly entrenched anyway

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

I?m disagreeing because I see things differently from your way, not because I need your ideas broken down step by step. I never discounted your ideas wholesale, I just don?t buy into them wholesale, and clearly I point out why. It?s not ?too bad? at all.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE> again, i am not looking for your approval. and, you say that you clearly pointed out everything yet as far as i'm concerned you didn't really go to any trouble to explain your earlier comments until your last two posts

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

This type of ?resistance?? It?s not resistance, it?s individuality. It isn?t out of lack of scientific evidence or that I?m a follower of some dogmatic faith that I have a different ideal model than yourself. Can you accept that?<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE> you can have whatever you want and you can be an individual in all your glory, as i personally would not have it any other way. therefore, when your opposition to the topic of this thread comes across like you really believe that i NEED you to agree with me, then i'm convinced that something else is driving your opposition, and IMO it's not objectivity

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

Feelings and pride? Sure, I have them. This is a bad thing?<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE> if it derails the discussion then it has no usefulness. the value in a discussion lies in clarifying ideas not getting me to feel your feelings

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

But my points were based not on feelings or pride. They were based on what I think is real and true. Can you accept that without seeing me as resisting, or being emotional and prideful? I honestly have felt little emotion throughout this thread.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE> if this is true then the misunderstanding truly stems from insufficient involvement on your part. it so often happens that when we don't fully engage every level of our being to our discussions, we perceive in others what we are not putting out and others sense something amiss with us as well. in this case, i was perceived as being overly passionate about the subject -when really i was not- while i interpreted your response as a resistance in general

 

[candid]

Glad you hung in there, Demitra. No matter what else goes down between us, I still admire your spirit.

I'll address your first question, and let the rest slide, because nothing will be resolved through belaboring it further.

RE: isolation:

"Fortunately, each human possesses a self-governing system of its own, whereby we can choose the influences we emulate. In this sense, each is their own body, though living within a collective universe. Individual systems develop a posture of defense against intruding cells, which is positive in protection against collective disease, but which is negative against healthy cells that are drawn to cooperate. But sometimes isolation is better than contamination. It?s a sad alternative to collective wellness, however."

This isn't about me. It's about my idea of how the human system operates, physically, mentally and emotionally. It's logical thinking, to my mind. I later clarified and elaborated a bit by responding to Jeanystar:

"Addictions and the like do introduce toxic influence to the whole system, I agree. And if we don't isolate from them we might at least insulate from them, for the wellness of our whole body."

Examples of this are: the banning of smoking in public areas, using condoms in sexual relations, building a kid-fence around an unguarded swimming pool, or using a sun block to prevent skin cancer. If I was well versed in human anatomy, I'd be able to apply it practically to cellular structure, and their internal defensive mechanisms.

Why even mention it? I used it as an example of how the head/brain is in charge of the rest of the body's functions, and why it's so important for healthy leadership in human civilization.

Anyway, now we really are way off topic, instead, bantering about you and me. I've tried to make my points clear and easy to understand. There?s no point in repeating them. Misunderstandings be damned, it's still a good topic, and I'm glad you brought it up. It's up to anyone who reads this thread to draw their own conclusions.

Take care,
Candid

 

[demitramn]

Candid,
great, i understand where you were coming from with the isolation bit, though you have to admit that it serves to explain matters as viewed from the old system set-up, rather than from the one that heads this thread, and also explains why i didn't quite understand how it fit in into the overall discussion

your concern seems to be (correct me if i'm wrong)that any prevailing 'rulership' can corrupt and cause the citizens to suffer just as much as they do now. yet what i have been trying to say all along is that should everyone within a given system be happily doing their thing, then this would be the mentality that drives /heads the prevailing 'rulership' of that system. from that type of 'head' or prevailing mentality, corruption seems to me to be a non-issue. of course, this is all speculation on my part and may prove to hold huge gapping holes in practice, still, it seems to me like the better alternative; attempting to continually work the old system when it has proven to be 'disfunctional', even when applied to the small family unit, seems redundant at best

<BLOCKQUOTE>.....</BLOCKQUOTE> finally, Meggabobby, in a convoluted way you make perfect sense to me - if you have a newsletter i'd like to opt-in

 

[Sparhawk]

Candid, et al,

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

Why even mention it? I used it as an example of how the head/brain is in charge of the rest of the body's functions, and why it's so important for healthy leadership in human civilization.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

The discussion seems to be getting too passionate and personal and in those I rather stay away. However, I must point out something that's so obvious that is very easy to miss:

A brain <FONT SIZE="+2">is</FONT> a collection of cells working in harmony (or at least is what I hope for in my case)

For the rest, I really liked your son's reply to you. Words to live by.

Luis

 

[demitramn]

here's a link to a page that i thought some of you might find of interest:

http://ascension2000.com/09.28.03.htm

(note: it would probably be interesting to discuss the particulars of this article one-on-one, but i am not open to doing so on the board) enjoy!

 

[candid]

Luis, they are words I do try to live by.

Demitra, yes, it could be applied to withdrawing from political participation, or at least not getting sucked up into the hype and corruption, from either side. It could also mean shutting the windows to obvious propaganda. I am disturbed by the Presidential campaigns presently flooding the airwaves, from both sides. There?s a point where I have to shut it out to maintain my peace. Same with the fear initiated by terrorists. I can make room to be aware, give some thought to it, and form beliefs about it. But there?s not much I am able to do about it; prayer notwithstanding.

You know I'm prone to hopping onto the other side of the net when someone presents an interpretable idea with absolute certainty. But know that I do understand the concepts you speak of. Perhaps a dream I had might illustrate this:

I was flying in loose formation with a flock of souls. We were all singing a new song in perfect, spontaneous harmony. Far beneath us was a golden field of wheat, softly waving in the wind. In the distance I could see workers in the field, toiling. The flock descended upon the workers, and they all joined in singing. Everything was perfect and spontaneous, nothing from memory, for there was no remembrance. The feeling was beyond what my words could describe, but unspeakable joy comes the closest. I recall looking to the horizon and wondering, but where is the savior? (was Christian at the time) My mind drifted away from the crowd, as I pondered the absence of the giver of all this joy. I remember thinking, he's probably in Zion - I'll meet him eventually. And then in spirit, I rejoined the group with no aims or home of my own.

Though the dream was within the landscape of Christian faith, the ideals were no different than man?s loftiest ideals in any religion: unity with nature, unity with souls, and unity with God, even when unseen.

If I argue with you, it is only to resolve uncertainties within myself. I have to believe it?s not much different with you. Why else bother to talk about it? How we get there isn?t as important as getting there. Wherever there is.

later