David L

Does property exist then? Not if we are all guests. Perhaps it is impudent on our part to think we are not. Have you noticed the latent violence and fear that lurk behind attitudes of ownership? And isn't personal property the underlying attitude of statism? Maybe ownership is not as necessary as we think it is. Maybe a lighter attitude of "letting go" affords us a more free and happy life-experience than mere exclusive clinging to the things and people of this world. If we are truly interested in freedom, we can experiment to see if existence DOES provide and take care of us in surprising and delightful ways we could never contrive for ourselves through burdensome, propertied relationships which, after all, only tend to keep us at odds with one another. Maybe this earth was meant to be freely shared and celebrated together, not rigidly divided and exclusively possessed. Maybe the concept of personal property is just a fear-based defense mechanism that's no longer working and needs to be left behind. What say you?

Guests who are invited to a dinner typically do not feel they need to own anything there. Any attempts to do so would be considered bad manners indeed. Perhaps the issue of ownership has arisen because we've lost all awareness that we are just guests here on this planet, not permanent occupants.

Why not? If I establish ownership over something by creating it with my labor, wouldn't this apply to my children? Yes, children grow into adults, but is the parents who make this possible. The same principle that allows a farmer to own the yeild of his crops apparently turns children into property if we universalize it. Thanks for the perceptive insight. Here's a previously related thread on this theme for anyone interested.... http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/35703.aspx?PageIndex=1

Just an aside here... As you don't own the air you breathe, you can't reasonably own your physical body which completely depends upon it. It simply makes no sense to try to do so, except as a temporary defense mechanism against those who would claim to own your body for themselves. Thus the concept of physical self-ownership cannot stand on its own as a life principle. It is a defense mechanism only.

Good thing I bring my own re-usable bags to the store. Wouldn't want to become a "check-out" slave. Chuckles. I'm guessing you don't throw your garbage out without using a bag. Which means, instead of using the bags they offer at the check-out, you purchase them instead. If so, good for you! They're applauding your conservative, ethical, and financial intelligence. :-)

Just a comment here: Giving a choice can be a deliberate strategy to get you to assume you are free. I believe that's why the Universal Grocery Checkout began a decade or so ago imposing a choice upon you without first asking the obvious question of whether it even mattered to you or not: "Paper or Plastic"? They are trying to unconsciously pound into you on a very regular basis the illusion that you are free, forcing you to make this superficial "choice", while they are actually taking away truly meaningful freedoms every day. It's a deliberate conditioning agenda based upon the technique of reinforced hypnotic suggestion. "Republican or Democrat"? A person who believes he's free won't rebel against the fact that he is not.

Apparently most Americans are ok with being spied on and treated as untrustworthy by their "government". But if "we the people" are untrustworthy, how can the people who claim to "represent us" be trusted? By definition, they must represent our untrustworthiness. It's not only insane but truly weird that people would trust people that don't trust them.

Yes, and it tends to corrupt the parents because they know in the back of their mind that they always have an unconditional bailout coming every year from their children, so there's little incentive in earning their child's TRUE respect toward them (by way of practicing truly sensitive and authentic caregiving). How convenient for the state, which potentially gains further allegience the more the children feel unloved by their own parents. I wonder if anyone has ever done a study to see if there's a correlation between the progressive breakdown of the American family, and the advent of Parent's Day. The state decreed Mother's Day in 1914 (a year after passing the Federal Reserve Act) and Father's Day shortly thereafter. Maybe there's some connection, I wouldn't at all be surprised.

Also, we could make mention that Parent's Day is a product of the State, right? You can bet if it didn't serve the State, the State wouldn't have sanctioned it and made it a permanent fixture of the national calendar. Just another foray into the take over of our children, by destroying their authentic bond with their parents and replacing it with a government made decree. Thus, whose the real parent here?

Parent's Day (Mother's Day/Father's Day). Shouldn't our past be left behind so that we can fully grow up? Why should we be saddled with an endless debt to the past? Doesn't that bog down everybody, former parents and their offspring alike?

Mishelle, I suspect you may relate to the work of Timothy Freke...? Here's a brief taste... http://www.themysteryexperience.com/lucid-philosophy/

Does Mother's Day and Father's Day keep us from growing up? It seems like we have a debt that can never be repaid here, and it constantly forces us to remain in the role of a subordinate child until our parents finally pass on. What do you think?

Mishelle...I don't know. IMO, if they haven't accepted the appearance of darkness in some measure then they haven't begun the needed work of integration of their shadow side, along with the shadow side of society as a whole. That would make their "light" phony and fabricated at best. In my experience, being real is what gets you closer to light. Of course it's scary to be real, especially in this lying society, but it's personally worth the risk in the long run. Why? Because we don't kid anyone but ourselves in the end. In esotericism it's called "dying daily". Dying daily to our false sense of self. Dying to our ego-self, which makes room for our true self. David

Thanks for sharing the article. It just goes to show that empircal sense evidence alone is insufficient for establishing an absolute foundation for the discernment of reality, yes? The very fact that we must access another mode of knowing than sense data alone (i.e., access our logistical mental cognition in order to free ourselves of these particular illusions of sense) indicates this must be so.

The best of the radical artists of literature always hide their message within the story, "for those with eyes to see". :-) King Aragorn to the hobbits: "My friends, you bow to no one"

Yes, they are Pagans, the true natural anarchists. It has been said that children should be allowed to be completely wild up to their seventh year, allowed to be the total pagans that they naturally are, innocent and uncorrupted by organized religion, secularism, and all other manner of dogmatic belief. Then they will have deep roots planted in the earth, and thus will be able to truly grow up. The view that evil is overcome, not by power, but by the little things in life---in small acts of kindness--- is totally right on. The whole challenge is for us to become a society of nobodies, where nobody is considered more special or important than anybody else. That's true anarchism, true happiness and true freedom.

Here's a question I'll throw into this thread, that may add some perspective on the topic... What's more essential to you, your country or your humanity?

Mishelle, I just came across a passage in Paul Ferrini's book The Bridge to Reality that made me think of your association with the New Age community and some of the issues you've struggled with regarding it, so thought I'd share. Perhaps it may bring further clarity...? Here's the quote: "When we accept darkness and light together, we move into an awareness of light that is non-physical. This is the light of truth, of compassion, the eternal light"

This other realm fascinates me, but how is it different from watching a TV show? A TV show can only give you a superficial, exterior view of existence, while going within yourself gives you direct experience of the immeasurable interiority of life and consciousness itself. It is the difference between having always experienced your house merely from the outside, vs actually coming to reside in it yourself for the first time---but with an astonishing surprise: the interiority of your house turns out to have limitless expanse, like an indescribable mansion providing endless spaces and adventures to explore! As sages throughout the ages have often enjoined us, Come home to yourself!

Thanks Mishelle, I find the esoteric dimension richer and deeper than the exoteric, but you do need balance while you are still in material form. What you may find though, is that the more you taste the inner, the less you need to worry about the outer---the inner has a way of taking care of it for you, which frees you to develop even more inwardly. That makes esoterism the most practical way to live on earth! Of course we are taught that materialism is the most practical way, but that's obviously proved to be false, as evidenced by the state of the modern world which is based on that ideology. That doesn't mean we should reject empiricism, it simply means that for empiricism to truly have meaning and sustainability, it has to be grounded in a deeper philosophy and experience which puts it in its rightful place. "Transcend and include" is the name of the game here :-) I think we can really have a paradise on earth if we become open enough to exploring all the realms that existence bequeaths us and how they ultimately relate to each other. In general, those realms are matter, body, mind, soul, and Spirit. There is of course a tradiltion to this integral approach, called The Perennial Philosophy. When modernity came in, though, the world lost the esoteric dimension, the world of interiors. Everything became an objective "it", an exterior, a "thing". Subjectivity and soul were marginalized and colonized to the point of near banishment.They became taboo subjects. We've thus lost an awareness of the depths of who and what we truly are. For me it's those depths that really give life its full meaning, not the surfaces, though the surfaces are of course essential aspects of the whole picture, and have to be included as just as important as the other realms. Of course we're really talking here about a wholistic, integral philosophy that is all inclusive of existence. My view on it, at least. David

Hi Mishelle, I'm not left handed, but I do meditate daily. If I may be so bold, people who don't meditate don't know what they are missing, they are living on the surface of life only. Your mentioning of left-handededness being discouraged throughout history is something I wasn't aware of. I've got to learn more about this, that's fascinating! It makes perfect sense that the PTSB would want to discourage the feeling of oneness, that's why they call it "divide" and conquer. :-)

Hi Mishelle, I interpret what you're saying as the frustration that occurs when one mode of knowing tries to speak for another mode of knowing, which is known epistemologically as a "category error". In my studies, I have come to understand three general modes of knowing reality. Knowing by way of the eye of flesh. Knowing by way of the eye of mind. Knowing by way of the eye of Spirit. The eye of flesh sees of course the world of form, the visible world seen through our eyes. Science has restricted itself almost totally to this empirical realm, although to my way of thinking it doesn't have to. In fact when it does this, it is called "scientism", because it has reduced its explorations of the universe to reductionist, dogmatic thinking---that is, it believes that any other way of knowing reality than through physical sense perception is mere superstition and "pseudo-science". But think about it---there is a world of mind that can't been seen with the eye of flesh. Take the Non-Aggression Priniciple, as but one example. You can't see it with your physical eyes, but you can see it with your reasoning, logic, and understanding. It is an invisible mental principle that has no physical form, yet definitely exists in the mental realm. And then there is the realm of Spirit, which cannot be perceived by either the eye of flesh, or the eye of mind, but can only be seen by the eye of Spirit, typically through meditation. This is the realm where the OBE takes place. But again, just like the eye of flesh is unable to perceive the world of logic and reason and principles, so the eye of mind is unable to think and reason properly about what lies outside of the bodymind. If it doesn't acknowledge its limitations in this regard, and tries to speak fully for the spiritual realm, it's making a category error. As I see it, this is the source of the frustration then. Confusing the different modes of knowing with each other, instead of knowing their proper places in the overall scheme of the knowledge quest. Does this make any sense? David

I probably should have posted this link on this thread, instead of on the alien invasion thread (though they are ultimately related), apologies. White House: Asteroid 'poses no threat' to Earth' http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/52060441/#52060441

Why do you call them many different expressions of one rather than just one expression of one? The one ultimately becomes conscious of its oneness through the expression of itself as many.

Also as I mention in one of my later posts, there is the question that arises again and again. You claim everything is primarily one and the many are just expressions of this one, rather than all the other options, like the exact opposite being the case, that the many are primary or that both are equally primary: How do you know?! Once again, try "separating" yourself from the universe, from the One.