Dagney

I'm listening to this podcast, and am not an expert in either topic, but am familiar to some degree my own experiences in the economy, with the State, with the market. Peter is missing (at this point in the podcast) the point, in my opinion, that the "structural violence" he speaks of truly must be considered as a direct outcome of the State's interference with the free market. His continued attempt at belittling Stefan, even after being told over and over again, quite respectfully, mind you, feels to me like an intellectual mind run amuck in the keyword dictionary mentality of his own mind. He is insulting, and I am feeling a little frustration at his style of speaking. On the other hand, Stefan is so calm and patient, I find it almost laughable the longer I listen to Peter's voice, so much to say without really saying what is sort of provable, he is what is the word...pompous? I don't mean to be insulting. It is an interesting discussion, but the discussion part is difficult to follow at times due to the lack of a breath moment by Peter. People can certainly pause and take a moment without having to spew forth without pause in order to communicate the points within. Now I'm doing it. Taking a breath. Anyway, thank you for the podcast, you really are inspiring to me, Stefan.

...even when they have become adults? This question has been on my mind since listening to the last show, (I think it was). I have noticed the behavior first hand and was hoping to get a broader understanding of the concept.

Hello everybody, introducing myself and saying hello. "Higherself" isn't eluding to me being high, it is about being in the moment and more toward meditation.

The key to talking to nature is to know its harmonic language. Language as information can travel at the speed of light and beyond, and yes, entangling itself with more subtle energies, causing it to be even more powerful as a consciousness, a collective energy, which could change things like a storm - to misdirect to another location - instead of geoengineering, say with chemicals - you would not be open to that?

http://youtu.be/VjpCKZ7cEoY Yes, pseudoscience it is, to some degree, but I did find some of the points made interesting. Like the heart having it's own kind of mind, that kind of thing. Other than that, I understand the skepticism and have since grown a bit from this post.

The "always, never" kinds of statements are what I call "universal" statements, and are key indicators of not only over-generalizations, but tend to be false statements as well. Often used when emotions are high...