Ken wrote:

Getting physical change through awareness/consciousness is going to be the roughest row any of us have ever hoed. The mass's lack imagination, laziness, mental inertia, unawareness of the world any further than 100 feet away is just absolutely overwhelming.

Is it necessary to activate the mass? Lot of people don't like t.v., I figure while folks are watching they are not out hacking and hewing at the woodwork.

If it is necessary, what choice is there except a consciousness transform, even if driven by physical sturcture. Fuller pointed out that most people will stay on and follow a path if you give them one. I think there is a transformation underway, we just do it poorly. Roll-over could have been a major graphic demonstration of the terminator sweeping around the world but the placing of timezones on a graphic seems beyond the media.

-- Anonymous, March 21, 2000

Answers

Hi Dave,

...Thought I'd pitch this in for grins...

Looks like we may be "peaking", even as we speak...

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Wow Ken, How'd you get it to make the picture. You do know this stuff don't you. Is it hard to do/code?

New fuel cell that runs on hydrocarbons at only 600C reported in Science News.

BTW your so cute when your running in circles, lather flying. You know I'm up for it if the damage can be contained to the human environment and preferably the idiots.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Well I will agree with Fuller's point about people staying on a given path (homeostasis but at a different level) but I'm less optimistic that anyone is looking for handouts.

How many therapists does it take to change a lightbulb? Only one - but the lightbulb has got to want to change...

If the rationale/necessity for change isn't inside the other's structure, then there's not a lot of persuasive leverage to invoke, even independent of coercion/manipulation issues.

I'm more of the sense that Ken is right about not sufficient staff to begin a course of intervention - consider the Catholic church and its missionary zeal - and its rate of success.

My sense is that you follow your own bliss and work out your own fate - amor fati. If it is given to you to do something "heroic" then the calling will be manifest - your own structure will push you into it (and "heroic" is in the tragic genre, so its not something you have to rush towards). Carlos Castenada reported don Juan telling him that to be a man of power he had to (as well as all the other stuff he was supposed to do...) be on the lookout for that cubic centimeter of chance (a allusion I've always regarded with fondness). Strikes me that if you're working out what you think is called for - then you will be in a position to grab it when it comes by.

It strikes me that we are in the middle of a disaster and its going to get worse (probably for both the planet and humankind) - but this is a destiny that has to be worked out, not rescued from. The rescuing scenario requires a rescuer and a victim -- and that is not a good relational pair to elaborate a future from.

With respect to a graphic demonstration of the terminator sweeping around the world -- I'm not sure that its a just a lack of understanding that is at work here. Lots of times good communications skills lets you accelerate the understanding of the true value and conceptual differences that are at play, and then you find out that its not "...a failure to communicate."

The people on the list that Dave and I were members of had no trouble demanding the allowances of a plural culture to advance the agenda of their monotheic culture, and saw/felt no shame in doing so. This is not a failure of understanding. An authoritarian sorts the world on their terms, and it normally takes a "crisis" which is a failure of all you know to work - to precipitate a search for an alternative scheme. Remember on Jaws I? Quint didn't access the marine biologist's skills until his own had failed to kill the shark.

So -- I'm not feeling very godlike in terms of steering things to a "happy" ending, and in fact am not even sure how to assess how such a thing should be evaluated (happiness from the point of view of people? whales, trees, ???)

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

If the rationale/necessity for change isn't inside the other's structure, then there's not a lot of persuasive leverage to invoke, even independent of coercion/manipulation issues. --------- I don't agree. Seems to me that physical change can be a driver. Look at airplane and change of world, radio/electromagnetics and change of world. Environmental pressure need not be negative even if coercive. A well built path and keeping most people on it is ever more important in a crowded world. The path is a metaphore for puting a bell jar over the human environment and demanding energy/matter flows in and out meet certain conditons. ---------- I'm more of the sense that Ken is right about not sufficient staff to begin a course of intervention -consider the Catholic church and its missionary zeal - and its rate of success. ------ Consider the adoption of walk around headphones and associated hearing loss. How about adoption of tobacco? --------

It strikes me that we are in the middle of a disaster and its going to get worse (probably for both the planet and humankind) - but this is a destiny that has to be worked out, not rescued from. ------------- Would not a working out be a rescuing from? I don't have any heroic tendencies, sorry if it sounds that way. I've mostly given up. 'Just that hope keeps springing up, well, wishful thinking anyhow. ------------- it normally takes a"crisis" which is a failure of all you know to work - to precipitate a search for an alternative scheme. ---------------- What if you just get run over by an alternative scheme? What if you don't even know an alternative has been adopted? Become pervasive? What happens when the disonance between schema becomes large? ----------------

So -- I'm not feeling very godlike in terms of steering things to a "happy" ending, and in fact am noteven sure how to assess how such a thing should be evaluated (happiness from the point of view of people? whales, trees, ???) ---------

All of the above, though right now duration in time would be fine. "Sustainability" might be a term some would use.Retaining a high diversity of life forms would be on my list.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

"I don't agree. Seems to me that physical change can be a driver. Look at airplane and change of world, radio/electromagnetics and change of world." And this is where my sense of people being autonomous cuts in. Physical change/opportunities set up an external context change wherein people respond in terms of internal motivations. Lots of times technology develops out of someone's curiosity and is an artifact looking for a use. Then the artifact fits a need by a person - they use it to solve a particular personally relevant problem. Then the groundswell for other people to get on board begins. As near as I can tell the latter motivations are either fashion ("we can't be seen not using this" latest example is that you're seen as business-serious if you're carrying a cell phone) or competitive ("all our competitors have web pages, we'd better too."). It's a function of most people cueing off the behaviors of other people as opposed to someone like you cueing off more conceptual relationships.

"Environmental pressure need not be negative even if coercive." Hmmm strikes me as oxymoronic. There is another class other than voluntary or coercive -- traffic lights are typically used as an example. (Sure there's a social sanction for running lights, but the motivational aspect is what I'm getting at.) It's the class of impersonal regulatory type agreements that some sort of >>>consensus<<< has been reached on. Agreement about driving on the left or the right hand side of the road works - as long as there is consistency. My sense is that the rate of change of the issues we are concerned about is happening too fast for this to be that viable an alternative, not to mention that the elimination of certain practices will be fought like mad by present institutions invested in them.

"A well built path and keeping most people on it is ever more important in a crowded world." I always liked the story of the new university that didn't pave the paths between the buildings for the first year. It let the campus population stamp them out, and then paved them. As a result they don't have the problem of people taking "shortcuts" and the whole arrangement of greensward and paths stays stable.

"The path is a metaphor for putting a bell jar over the human environment and demanding energy/matter flows in and out meet certain conditions." The bell jar, the hermetic circle separating the sacred from the profane Do you know the economic term "external costs"? These are costs incurred by the economic institution (say a business) that it doesn't have to pay. Take pollution as an example. Or depletion of fish stocks/forests/ As soon as you establish a context barrier the value of what is on the other side of the barrier seems to go up. In Canada we are constantly involved in a dance as governments change between putting aside areas (as say parks or wilderness reserves) and then moving in to "exploit" them for employment purposes. It struck me long ago that for a community if their elected representative did not serve their employment interests - then they'd elect someone who would. As the "environment" doesn't get to vote it will always lose over the medium term (in the long term the culture fails, but a Sahara desert outcome is definitely a drag). The rule at work seems to me to be that people will not work against their perceived self-interest ("The master's tools will never be used to dismantle the master's house."). The only possible stable intervention point is to change what is perceived as self interest AND ensure that the daily workings do not frustrate this (as in teaching cooperation and setting up a competitive context). Along this vein - maybe there should be two domains of activity: Infrastructure domains where long term stability is the primary value, and elaboration domains where competitive flux is the best guarantee of choice and efficiency?

"Consider the adoption of walk around headphones and associated hearing loss. How about adoption of tobacco?" Again the motivations within the purchasers triggered the acquisition - lots of people don't do the "Walkman" route or smoke. (And nicotine has that other neat aspect of shifting your physiology so you need a recurrent hit, a shift "below" conscious level and not amenable to "will power".)

"Would not a working out be a rescuing from?" Sure, but the starting point changes from "There's a problem here and I'm here to help you fix it." To "Why does it make sense that things are this way? How can this be shifted >>from within<< to a more sustainable future." The latter yields stable changes because the motivations of the participants constantly provide an in situ reason. It's just very slow.

"What if you just get run over by an alternative scheme?" That's typically what happens. Then you finally engage. However, you engage based on what's important to you and cycle through those 7 stages that Kubler-Ross named (what were they? denial-anger-bargaining- .- despair-acceptance?) Anyway, until there is a comprehension that the old way won't work, that something new is required, then the old way will keep pulling, never mind the even further effect when the "old ways" go mythic as per the sort of romantic reminiscing that was going on the DC-Y2k list just last week.

"What if you don't even know an alternative has been adopted? Become pervasive?" If this were the case, then it strikes me that "your" involvement is pretty limited. If "your" behaving is part of the problem there will be a relevance (think SUV's).

"What happens when the dissonance between schema becomes large?" The usual - culture war. Terms like "femi-nazi" and "spawn of the devil" start to appear in the dialog.

"All of the above, though right now duration in time would be fine. "Sustainability" might be a term some would use. Retaining a high diversity of life forms would be on my list."

Ditto. And a respect for (not just a tolerance of) diversity.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Tom says...

If the rationale/necessity for change isn't inside the other's structure, then there's not a lot of persuasive leverage to invoke, ...

Uh, not so, IMHO.

Sometimes the potential pathway (i.e. probable reality) shared by the amalgamation of collective choices, is shifted or nudged by an outside intervening force... or directed conscious intention... by those who know how.

As for the existence of apparently outside forces (depending upon your personal perspective of what constitutes inside), one can look to both the overwhelming evidence of visitation from both the Angel communities and oddly enough, the UFO community. (Thats another conversation).

Sometimes, choices made by a planetary collective have wider ripples when one accepts borders beyond what we think we know or even beyond our local solar system. I would even surmise that some destructive pathways of choice could have untold repercussions upon other dimensions and awareness systems, to the effect that denizens of those realms may elect to guide a transformation in consciousness of a lesser evolved system, in order to deflect negative potential impact on their own future frequencies of experience.

As a former high school teacher, mid-seventies, learned early on that most people learn by efforting, struggle, pain and hard knocks... rather than flow. In fact, our prevailing educational system is set up that way. If we are every going to transform our substance abuse of our combined planetary resources and exercise our rights to live freely in a non-polluted world, its wont be an easy conversion, nor will we be alone in the endeavor to shift.

In my experience, were already in the middle of planetary transformation. Its just that chaos energy and lessons learned... aint pretty... nor linear... nor obvious.

Expect the unexpected, becomes words to live by, when a primordial pot is being stirred. (Along with the ability to dance on shift sands).

Tom also mentioned...

The rule at work seems to me to be that people will not work against their perceived self-interest ... The only possible stable intervention point is to change what is perceived as self interest AND ensure that the daily workings do not frustrate this...

In order for this to occur, often this has to become personally painful so people will be open to other possibilities. Many who were involved in following the unfolding Y2k story were not only concerned that the unexpected uncertainties could become radically painful to an entire population, without focusing global fix-it-or-delay-it- attention on the collective problem, but we also had some hope that faced with a crisis situation, people could rise to the occasion, choose to learn more about their interconnected fragility, and make different choices, moving into the future. That didnt happen... at least obviously.

However, under the surface, those paying attention, will be forever changed. They comprise a large global group and I have every confidence that many of them are already looking at their lives and lifestyles differently. In fact, whether Y2K happened the way we expected it to, or not, some valuable lessons were learned that will accent future choices. The rising oil/gas price crisis-in-the-making appears to be icing on the alternatives cake.

Id be willing to bet that over the next decade sustainability will become a growth industry and has the potential to slide us into a win- win situation for our planetary future.

At least... thats my hope, coupled with a gut-level feeling.

Diane

(We are NOT alone in this).

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

"Id be willing to bet that over the next decade sustainability will become a growth industry and has the potential to slide us into a win- win situation for our planetary future.

At least... thats my hope, coupled with a gut-level feeling."

I salute your positive sense of the future and hope you're correct. Although skeptical I'm not a nihilist. I like "happy" endings. And my gut feelings regarding people are not very reliable -- hells bells -- my gut feelings regarding technical systems aren't even reliable (still wondering about Y2K fizzle!).

As regards the possibilities of change work maybe my views are being too strongly framed by the tools I have. You know that old expression - to a person with a hammer everything starts looking like a nail.

So what is your thumbnail sketch on the bigger picture as regards both UFO's and angels? I've read enough science fiction to come up with a dozen rationales for non-intervention, but I've also read enough psychological explanations as to why it would make sense to have an experience that is other-worldly but wholly interior. Maybe I need a contact? (Next time you're interacting with one of the angels please pass on that I'd like a visit. And yes - I'm not being flip.)

As regards energy guardians I don't know what to say. They may be here but they don't seem to have slowed down the technology juggernaut up here. The Mona Lisa smile and twinkle are de rigueur for trancework, so I don't know what to say. For sure if I do a bit of trancework (we get into rapport, I make certain proposals that make sense to you, your visual field starts to make manifestations) then what you're seeing is going to move in concert with my voice. On the other hand, although Milton Ericson wrote a paper on how to do trance induction with someone who didn't speak your language, I wouldn't know how to begin (I gather that the words of power and the other parts of the chant were not in a language you know.) And I know that going into altered states also allows for noticing stuff you'd otherwise be oblivious to...

I get lost at this point. When I tell a story (therapeutic metaphor) in order to do some changework with someone, and at the end they ask me if its true - that's when I do my Mona Lisa smile. So maybe I'm missing the point. Lot's of times while watching demonstrations I find that I have the choice of entering into the experience, or staying in a different state and watching instead how the demonstrator is managing the context. So what I "see" depends on what I'm doing.

Maybe its the malleability of experiencing that makes me place more weight on explanations.

One of the distinctions made in one of the role playing games was the difference between magic being worked by a magician in a direct sense (usually attributed to some sort of impersonal power) and magic being worked by special entities that the magician invoked to do the work. Do you have a sense that "words of power" are one or the other? Or maybe that the world is so constituted that this question doesn't fit?

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Tom,

Don't think that question fits. (Not sure what the question is, either).

Humm. How to explain.

If I was hinging my experiences of the para/supra normal on one or two events, perhaps I would suspect cognitive manipulation. However, I was in a kind of jump-started "training period" over 12-and-a-half-years. The angels (et. al.) provided hundreds of quite convincing "evidential experiences." Many stories to relate. Must mention... I was pretty darned dense and skeptical, so their patience was gracefully unlimited. (Slow learner? That or just a "Yeah... prove it to me!" kind'a woman).

It's not my job to convince anyone of the existence of Angels. I can only share my personal experinces and you can "chew on it." Or not. My job was to drop my old paradimes (-1 sp), become self-convinced over time, and choose to shift my own concept of reality, and thereby open up to the reality of other dimensions. That is each person's journey... highly personal.

Someday, I'll finish my book (have 3 chapters), which should help in * some* of the communications. Working title: "Beyond The Other Side."

As to the Angels 'n UFO's... I'll save that discussion for later.

*Engaging Grin* (Huh, David?)

Diane

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

This snippet seems relevant to our thread -- certainly relates to what you are saying Diane about external influences being relevant to social change:

============(begin snip)

In his later work Maturana has emphasised that social systems are conservative systems in which power relations operate through obediance.

"The normal interactions of a human being in a social system to which he or she belongs are confirmatory of it and of his or her membership in it, and contribute to the production of members that confirm it. Social systems are constitutively conservative systems; due to this, human social systems can only change if their members have experiences that trigger in them changes in bodyhood that result in them no longer participating in its constitutive network of conversations. For this to happen in any particular human social system, its members must have experiences outside the network of conversations that constitute it". (Maturana, 1988, 69-70).

We are born into a society or collective assemblage in which change occurs through acts which are not confirmatory of it. Dissensus generates change, not consensuality. Social creativity is necessarily antisocial.

===========(end snip)

link is at: http://jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU/~mplanet/submit/spacing/autocop. htm

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Humm Tom,

Yes that about sums it up.

(Can't take a look at that link... it reads... No Dice The page you've asked for can't be found on Jefferson.village.virginia.edu*. ).

There is another lecturer whom I especially admire, Caroline Myss http://www.myss.com/. In two of her videos... http:// www.myss.com/video.html... which I highly recommend...

 "Why People Don't Heal and How They Can"
 "The Three Levels of Power and How to Use Them"

...She talks about how people are raised to agree with tribal thinking, which is a contibutor to their shared past baggage/illnesses. Once a person can break out of need validation from others, either by choosing to honor themsleves and their dreams and wishes (irrespective of others expectations) or by experiencing a catalytic event, they are on their journey to the next spiral of awareness.

The angel hug late 1987 sure kick-started me, then my Dad's death, in April 1988, set the new uncharted pathway. (But then... I was always more a maverick from the get go).

;-D

Diane

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2000

Me too!

Ingo Swann made a similar statement, that a person will adjust the result of their thinking to conform to the society they desire to be a part of. In otherwords, it's not necessary to think clearly, nor linearly, nor logically as long as you reach the "right" conclusion... and if the evidence does not support the desired conclusion, well, either ignore or alter the perception of the evidence.

So - how do the great unwashed find the desire to become a part of a society of parasites that doesn't kill the host?

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2000

Diane - sorry about the lame link. There is an extra space prior to the "htm" file suffix. I snipped it out and the link worked fine for me. Correct link is href="http://jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU/~mplanet/submit/spacing/au tocop.htm/">http://jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU/~mplanet/submit/spac ing/autocop.htm/

It looks like I'll have to minimize my use of angle brackets, I think I truncated some of my previous post...

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000

Hmmm... that looks atrocious. Back to the instructions. Meanwhile, here it is in naked text:

http://jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU/~mplanet/submit/spacing/autocop. htm

Cheers,

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000

Nope - it stuck that pesky space in again...

snip it, paste it, delete the space just before "htm"

fin

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000

I like mavericks.

Parasites normally coevolve to non-lethality with their hosts or they self extinguish. This little piece of natural science unfortunately doesn't help us.

I think that there are two broad avenues: force and appealing to something within the other. I'd say we've tried force...

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000