Feelings about social media

•19 September 2014 • Leave a Comment

August 26, 2014 at 0331AM
Some people say they are opposed to social media and similar media in general. Think Facebook, Twitter, Skype and other such places. They can give you a variety of explanations, such as fear of viruses, getting their computer hacked, falling into the clutches of people who use false identities for nefarious purposes, there’s too much garbage circulating…….

But I think it has to do with fear of having their beliefs challenged. Some people build a small space for themselves that they think is safe and where they feel protected from the noise and commotion in the rest of the world. They don’t want their complacency disturbed by news of collapsing paradigms and destruction of the environment. They don’t want to be told that they can’t blame somebody else for the current situation in the world, that each of us has to assume our share of the collective responsibility for it, that maybe we’re living on borrowed time and need to react ASAP.

People who have allowed social media into their lives after a time learn discernment in dealing with a mass of information, how to keep some distance from it all. In short, they learn to think for themselves, understand that it’s time for change and we can only change ourselves.

It’s not an easy process, and if you’re reading this you know that. But the world keeps turning and it’s the people who accept the change and learn to flow with it who will find it easier to handle. Those who have tried to protect themselves from the change by closing themselves off will find themselves one day standing in the rubble of their castles and ivory towers and thrust into a world they don’t understand.


Tapestries of life

•7 September 2014 • Leave a Comment

Has someone new recently come into your life, and is now a part of your life in some way? A friend, an acquaintance, a professional associate? Think about it. From the time both of you were born your life paths have been converging to this point where they finally meet, and are now moving together, in parallel, crossing and recrossing…..

Now think about another person who came into your life earlier, in the past few weeks, or months. Your life path has also converged with that person’s and is now moving in some kind of synchronicity with theirs.

tapestryThink about how many years you have been on this planet and how many people have come into your life in all these years. Can you imagine how many directions your life path has been following throughout all this? And how many directions all those other life paths have been following to meet yours? Twisting and winding along hundreds of trajectories all at the same time, moving toward that magical moment and place when they come together to merge with your life.

Or maybe your life path is really hundreds of life paths, all moving in many directions at the same time. Maybe each of those paths is a different part of you, swimming in a sea of selves that make you who you are in your interactions with all those other persons/selves that are part of your life.

Sounds a bit crazy, but it’s late in a quiet night and your mind is untangling itself from the events of the day. So let your mind be boggled and enjoy the ride.

Scientists and spirituality

•23 August 2014 • Leave a Comment

I can’t agree with Richard Dawkins’s view of life in general, but now and then he says something that makes one think.

“I think there are always paths not taken but if a different path is taken, I think there is a magnetic pull. There is a sort of something that pulls you back to the pathway having taken a fork in the road.”

But then I wonder. Is he saying there is only one path that is the right one? And taking a fork is a mistake, so you get pulled back to the right path? But that sounds a bit like predeterminism, which the scientific mind supposedly rejects.

And what about free will? If you come to a fork in the road, you make a choice: continue along the same path or take the fork, and you assume the consequences of your choice.

Needless to say, this comment stirred quite a storm in the cloud, especially because Dawkins then went on to call himself a “secular Christian”. Is Mr. Dawkins a bit confused? Did he take a wrong fork, or has he now been pulled back to his pathway? Or maybe he’s discovering, like many people, that rejecting standard organized religion does not mean rejecting spirituality.


New thinking in science

•26 May 2014 • Leave a Comment

The evidence keeps pouring in and more scientists are starting to take it seriously. Will the study of paranormal/supranormal phenomena (whatever you choose to call them) lead to immediate benefits of the sort we value today? Maybe not, but someday it surely will. That’s the history of what we call “science”.

When I was a student we were told there were two kinds of scientific disciplines: applied and theoretical.

Theoretical means just that — studying something purely to understand it, without being concerned about whether or not it is useful in the conventional sense. This is basic science, and is the foundation of the next step: applied science.

Applied science takes the knowledge of basic science and uses it in ways that are closer to the everyday lives of people. It’s where many of the fantastic technologies we have today come from.

The problem today is that applied science has been co-opted by big business, with the result that there is less money available for pure, theoretical science because big business wants immediate, monetary results.

Another interesting facet of scientific study is that it sometimes takes basic concepts in different directions that may conflict with earlier ideas or conventional wisdom. Other times it simply expands on previous thinking to take it in new and unsuspected directions that people find uncomfortable or that require learning something new. In other words, a bend in the road that annoys people in a society that likes nice straight, predictable roads.

Today more than ever it’s time for scientists and society to be aware that movement is the nature of life and the universe. And if you stop the flow, you have death. In the way death is conventionally defined. But that’s another topic for discussion.


On safety

•13 April 2014 • Leave a Comment

Humans long for safety because they fear what will happen in the future. If we have an accident or something goes wrong, we think it’s because we didn’t plan correctly or we didn’t have the right information. So we start thinking about planning better or how to find the right information to keep us safe in the future.

If you live in the present, fearing what might happen in the future makes no sense. If something has already happened to you or has gone wrong, worrying about safety makes no sense because it’s already happened. What’s important is to deal with the present situation.

The future is unknown and it’s not possible to plan for safety in the unknown.

If we are going into a situation that we know may be difficult or even dangerous, true safety lies in being alert, aware, conscious of what is going on at each moment. Being aware and conscious of our surroundings means being in the present, not thinking about what might happen down the road and how we can be safe.

Being alert, and cautious if we are in a difficult situation, is not the same as fear. Alertness is a state of consciousness; fear is an emotion. If anything, fear and worry can diminish our capacity for alertness and observation and awareness.

Awareness in the present may even tell us not to go into a situation that could be inadvisable. What better safety than that?

So worrying about safety will actually make us less safe as we move forward into the unknown in life.

Fear and the ego

•15 August 2012 • Leave a Comment

The source of fear is identification with the external realm and denial/rejection of the internal. The external is the realm of the ego. It is the ego that feels fear, not the deeper self. The ego feeds on control to keep itself “alive” and fears Instability because instability means change, and the ego can’t control change because it doesn’t know where change may lead. The ego fears being taken into a situation it can’t control and will therefore “die”.

Where is humanity now?

•15 July 2012 • Leave a Comment

At its present stage of development, some humans still observe violence in the world around them and consider it “natural” because they project their linear thought trends into the future. But human DNA is changing now and babies are born with the new DNA that tends toward less competition, which is based on conflict and violence.

If this is so, why does there seem to be more conflict in the world today?

It’s because believers in the competitive model (sanctifying conflict) are clashing with growing numbers of believers in cooperation and community. This situation will continue until one side prevails over the other.

I think the cooperative model will come out ahead because the competitive model (“I need to get rid of you so I can succeed”) is based on destruction and will eventually destroy itself.

There is nothing wrong with bringing to light all the negativities in our world, even though many people find this frightening. Revealing the dark side doesn’t mean creating more violence; it only reveals what has been going on for years (more like centuries), often without public knowledge, and the people being exposed are fighting back to preserve their privileged situation.

This period of exposing the dark side is only a step on the path. The next step is to find a new way forward more in line with the Earth’s rising vibration. I think that’s where humanity is now.