Part 2 of 2: ... so, one's living those changes informs their choices of what those changes should and could be, naturally; reality, itself teaching each changer so they only become more accurate in their choosing which changes- directing their change, ship (instead of allowing many others to do it instead). "Change the story and you change perception; change perception...", Houston. Wanting to change someone else's perception is a thought crime against them. Why would anyone want someone else to think like them? Is one going to live in a (fake) Mars Colony and is so enthralled by their own thoughts that they want to change a vital human being, evolving as they direct, into a replicant machine part, regurgitating what one thinks and perceives so Earth will still have a replicant of them? Of course, there's not a thing wrong with sharing, informing, exchanging ideas, even teaching, yet, never limiting another's perception by having them perceive as you do. Isn't it just too easy to "...change the story...", especially nowadays, with everybody unbecoming a 'news source', 'pundit', 'brand', 'marketing strategy', etc.? Yet, what has it valued life and the Earth itself, that people have been convinced that it's of value to all have their own realities; projecting that there actually isn't one? Professor Memesy and his Memes defining that life is definable, therefore everyone can make their own world up? Looking around, we see exigency having replaced humanity, etc., by the supposed magic of lying, and supposedly more powerful magic of pathological lying, and most powerful, supposedly, of extreme pathological lying? These projections of intellects are the height of the corporate structure's convolutionary thought, yet, "...we(e),..." know that the intellect can't lead, as the life does not follow. It will take each one reaching one and teaching them, being part of the wonder of the normal day for all, to turn 360 degrees around, back to the evolution and future, humanity will only have if we do; walking in nature's balance, giving back to her abundance- to stop the premeditated murder of 7.5 billion people, which is the results, in reality, of most of what every technocracy's citizenry does daily. Great struggling against humancentricity (and their criminal insanity) in this workshop; thanx for all you All do. Perspective is very important in art, including the art of living (Fromm). If you're not taking bullets you're making them. That perspective evolving within one, is growing in the evolution. The ways are like staircases to heaven, not the rock kind, rather, actual. Remembering that heart's like the wind moves, only everything and nothing at all, also nowhere as well as everywhere, at once, on a daily basis during our normal days, enlivens as well :)
Part 1 of 2: Indeed, all life are needed threads in the fabric of life; which we can't allow the republicans to tear asunder. Just a thought or two on Jean Houston's quote, intellectualization, above. Of course, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it even once. The fruits of traditional 'organizing' have been over-rated; and we see this in the decades long backsliding away from democracy, etc., in the usa. People aren't files and don't necessarily grow through being 'organized'. Every cause has numerous effects, most of which aren't even of interest to most people; yet, those effects usually determine, in unison, the opposite of what the person 'intended'. Why is this, a lack of critical thinking and/or the ability to, for the most part. So, it's a fine fairytale, "...you change the world.", everything changes every millisecond regardless of anything anyone will do, or won't. So, the inference is that it's a great desire to "change the world", and this is true; as well as many other desires. The question is, should it be a desire at all? For desires usually realize the opposite of the intended result; not because of lack of intention, rather, due to the intent being unproportional, not wholistic, organic, etc.. Also, almost everybody "wants to change the world", and many of them to "rule it" as well. A babe's cry, for example. Now, with a trillion ton ice cube being dropped in the drink at our North Pole 6 months ago, etc., the results of humanity's wanting to change the world are extremely evident to most everyone; and most of them agree that they don't want the extremes of the climate crisis changes that all have premeditatedly determined. Yes, the adage is accurate, 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions', yet, that has nothing to do with the wonders of change; everything to do with the choices, and lack thereof, of each person. A mundane example would be a politician declaring "a revolution" in 2015, and the exact polar opposite of anything that person would project as revolutionary actually took place; and still is in a determinedly compounded way. Ergo, Gandhi taught, "be the changes you want to see in the world",... Rest in the following comment:
Part 2 of 2: ... so, one's living those changes informs their choices of what those changes should and could be, naturally; reality, itself teaching each changer so they only become more accurate in their choosing which changes- directing their change, ship (instead of allowing many others to do it instead). "Change the story and you change perception; change perception...", Houston. Wanting to change someone else's perception is a thought crime against them. Why would anyone want someone else to think like them? Is one going to live in a (fake) Mars Colony and is so enthralled by their own thoughts that they want to change a vital human being, evolving as they direct, into a replicant machine part, regurgitating what one thinks and perceives so Earth will still have a replicant of them? Of course, there's not a thing wrong with sharing, informing, exchanging ideas, even teaching, yet, never limiting another's perception by having them perceive as you do. Isn't it just too easy to "...change the story...", especially nowadays, with everybody unbecoming a 'news source', 'pundit', 'brand', 'marketing strategy', etc.? Yet, what has it valued life and the Earth itself, that people have been convinced that it's of value to all have their own realities; projecting that there actually isn't one? Professor Memesy and his Memes defining that life is definable, therefore everyone can make their own world up? Looking around, we see exigency having replaced humanity, etc., by the supposed magic of lying, and supposedly more powerful magic of pathological lying, and most powerful, supposedly, of extreme pathological lying? These projections of intellects are the height of the corporate structure's convolutionary thought, yet, "...we(e),..." know that the intellect can't lead, as the life does not follow. It will take each one reaching one and teaching them, being part of the wonder of the normal day for all, to turn 360 degrees around, back to the evolution and future, humanity will only have if we do; walking in nature's balance, giving back to her abundance- to stop the premeditated murder of 7.5 billion people, which is the results, in reality, of most of what every technocracy's citizenry does daily. Great struggling against humancentricity (and their criminal insanity) in this workshop; thanx for all you All do. Perspective is very important in art, including the art of living (Fromm). If you're not taking bullets you're making them. That perspective evolving within one, is growing in the evolution. The ways are like staircases to heaven, not the rock kind, rather, actual. Remembering that heart's like the wind moves, only everything and nothing at all, also nowhere as well as everywhere, at once, on a daily basis during our normal days, enlivens as well :)
ReplyDeleteLeann Womack, 'I hope you dance':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV-Z1YwaOiw
:) reality
Part 1 of 2: Indeed, all life are needed threads in the fabric of life; which we can't allow the republicans to tear asunder. Just a thought or two on Jean Houston's quote, intellectualization, above. Of course, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it even once. The fruits of traditional 'organizing' have been over-rated; and we see this in the decades long backsliding away from democracy, etc., in the usa. People aren't files and don't necessarily grow through being 'organized'. Every cause has numerous effects, most of which aren't even of interest to most people; yet, those effects usually determine, in unison, the opposite of what the person 'intended'. Why is this, a lack of critical thinking and/or the ability to, for the most part. So, it's a fine fairytale, "...you change the world.", everything changes every millisecond regardless of anything anyone will do, or won't. So, the inference is that it's a great desire to "change the world", and this is true; as well as many other desires. The question is, should it be a desire at all? For desires usually realize the opposite of the intended result; not because of lack of intention, rather, due to the intent being unproportional, not wholistic, organic, etc.. Also, almost everybody "wants to change the world", and many of them to "rule it" as well. A babe's cry, for example. Now, with a trillion ton ice cube being dropped in the drink at our North Pole 6 months ago, etc., the results of humanity's wanting to change the world are extremely evident to most everyone; and most of them agree that they don't want the extremes of the climate crisis changes that all have premeditatedly determined. Yes, the adage is accurate, 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions', yet, that has nothing to do with the wonders of change; everything to do with the choices, and lack thereof, of each person. A mundane example would be a politician declaring "a revolution" in 2015, and the exact polar opposite of anything that person would project as revolutionary actually took place; and still is in a determinedly compounded way. Ergo, Gandhi taught, "be the changes you want to see in the world",... Rest in the following comment:
ReplyDelete