MMMark's Whycandoo Room: Different Worlds Continued    
 Different Worlds Continued10 comments
26 Feb 2002 @ 13:47, by Mark Smollin


Ming thank you for maintaining this thread of topic because it needs to be ironed out. At the same time I would mention the benefit of using some other part of NCN to discuss "heavy" subjects like this to keep the logs less encumbered, but that is another topic for another time.

When has anyone argued that there are not different viewpoints? But different viewpoints do not change Cosmic reality in any fundamental way. What Ming described is how freedom of will functions in a constant reality that supports life well enough for sentient beings to exercise diversity of consciousness. That does not change truth, consciousness is a truth in itself. Thoughts are real, "imagination is real." Our thoughts affect our actions and so we evolve ourselves slowly, modifying the species and our environment according to personal philosophy.

The title of this piece is "Different Worlds" yet we live on one world, part of a bigger system that governs Earth as a sub-system, subject to all the scientific descriptions of Cosmic Mechanics, to include physical and metaphysical facts no matter what names we use for labeling them. The discussion of type X (temporal view) vs type Y (absolute view), appears to be the scope of the viewer. One does not invalidate the other, but they are inconsistent frames of reference to the same phenomenon. This difference is often exaggerated with sloppy use of language, so when we use those big words like, "world," we are not usually referring to the world, we are referring to our society living on the Earth. Eg: The "world" is in trouble politically. The fact that there is political trouble does indicate that the whole world is affected by it, but it misdirects the intellect to believe a lie as to the source of that trouble. Respectful language would be written in the following manner: Human society is in trouble politically. -or- The human political system is in trouble. When expressed clearly there is little room for misinterpretation of these statements.

Now for guy like me who wants to find out about all the lies we have been fed and why humanity suffers at its own hands, the first intelligent questions to ask are things like: What do I know that is true? How can I know for sure? What is the ultimate authority on life? Who will not look for the underpinnings of all existence in the entity of the Universe? The reason we might look there is because it is our Mother Goddess – the setter of the rules we all must follow. How is success made in the Universe?

Ming has been contenting that there are multiple realities and I do not believe that. His example of persons x versus persons y, does not focus on truth, but tries to describe different intellectual beliefs as thought they could be categorized so neatly for the purpose of establishing a prejudice of sorts. The Earth is gripped in a global free-for-all of people bent on maintaining their personal view points oblivious to truth, without making a distinction between what is Universally true in contrast to what is limited truth, and they care not to learn responsibility. This sense of false independence is ignorant to our interdependence, the source of global conflict, old style thinking that is polarized in a way that prevents dialog to form a unified humanity through a statement of philosophy which applies to everyone. "If he is right then I am wrong," is a polarized formula of thinking that has no room for subtlety, shades of hue. or understanding for the foundation of our diversity. What makes all things possible?

It may not be obvious, but I have contained all my posts to focus on learning Principles Of Truth and not on differences of opinion. Conscious Evolution is not a personal thing, it is a group thing. We should work on and discuss group truth, if we are not merely socializing, but respectfully trying to better ourselves. The Cosmos is here whether we agree on how it is here or not. One says the Earth is flat, one says the Earth is round and I say the Earth is spherical. This forum on "Different Worlds" does not seem important to learning what a successful society does, or provide enlightenment about how we can share with a smile. I’m talking about success for any society, any time, and any place in the Cosmos while it is expanding. In my book, in my opinion, based on my sense of external reality, my inner intuition, my manifestation of God, identifying and agreeing on a unified field of fundamental beliefs is imperative if humanity going to have a future. Any serious debate must be focused on that goal alone – all others are irrelevant to knowing success. Unless we find restraint and discipline to remove matters of personal preference and selfishness from the table, we will be having the last supper during a very lively conversation.

"Tear down the wall."-- Pink Floyd

[< Back] [MMMark's Whycandoo Room]



26 Feb 2002 @ 19:38 by tdeane : Not Alone
Mark, you are not alone in your thinking, although my agreeing with you sure as hell isn't going to win you any praise. Elitism is elitism is elitism no matter what century it is carried into. Much love ~ Tricia  

26 Feb 2002 @ 23:59 by ming :
Mark, thanks for that. Now, the first thing I notice is that that you actually validate the distinctions I postulated, by speaking the way I'd have projected that you would, to fit my stereotypical type casting. But also, in noticing that, I recognize in myself that it removes the need to argue about anything. Your intentions and aspirations are noble and deserve to come to fruition.  

27 Feb 2002 @ 00:33 by mmmark : Confusion
You seem to be confusing my advocacy for social science, with what I am in character, and yet you are not saying how we can all become united behind a central purpose that doesn’t involve having an enemy, or selfish motive.  

27 Feb 2002 @ 00:57 by ming : More confusion
Eh, I'm not quite sure how you arrived at that. But let me see .."how we can all become united behind a central purpose that doesn’t involve having an enemy, or selfish motive". Just reading that makes it sound like a noble project I could support. But it also turns on my warning lights. Are you talking about humanity, or about the people who're currently logged into NCN, or about you and I, or are you talking in the abstract? Are you talking about a purpose that is put into words? To me, if we're talking about humanity, it would be more of an outcome than a starting point. I.e. if we succeed in our work, humanity will start functioning as one organism. If we're looking at right now, then the only things all of humanity will agree on would be that we're on the same planet and maybe to share some common infra-structure, such as a mail system and a phone system. And its at that level that I see NCN as having leverage. Not by converting everybody to principles of truth, but by providing something that serves our needs better in certain areas.  

27 Feb 2002 @ 02:13 by mmmark : Emphasis
Ming my friend, I think you misplace the emphasis. I will write more later. We rally ourselves in the real world by holding up an enemy to hate together, what can we hold up that is wholesome to love together?  

27 Feb 2002 @ 04:32 by ming : What we want to do
We'd all love to be able to do what we want to do. Which for some people are very altruistic and noble things, and for other people are very selfish and recreational things. But I think everybody will agree that they ought to be able to do those things. They're not going to all agree that everybody else ought to have such a right too, but pretty much everybody will agree to get their own "thing" manifested. I don't think you'll get anything of a much higher level that everybody would agree to love.  

27 Feb 2002 @ 12:26 by mmmark : Love
I bet we will agree with anything that is loving and inherently good if we present it to ourselves, a little piece at a time. Selfishness is the greater social problem and we must say so. There is no forfeiture of personal freedom of expression in protecting the common interest for a healthy environment and healthy social system. Without a healthy system we will lose all freedoms worth mentioning, just like we have lost them here on NCN, through selfish mindsets.  

27 Feb 2002 @ 22:38 by magical_melody : Principles of Truth/Divergent Realities
People have been burned and crucified arguing principles of truth. Whatever meets us in conflict, I feel, is calling us to meet ourselves. Projections are at the root of internal conflict and outer wars. I see that each of us have our own perspectives based upon experiences, just as we have our own unique access to Source. I perceive that as we move towards expanding our evolutionary consciousness, we will naturally grow the compassion necessary to build bridges that can link divergent ideologies and realities within a field of complexity. These varying perspectives can come to balance as we establish some sense of connection at the heart where simplicity resides. The heart is the telepathic bridge to the soul and can be our guide. There are many of us humans living here now experiencing life in multiple versions of REALITY, and yet trying to co-create ONE, that allows the multiple threads to weave some sense of congruence. Is it possible to co-create a loving field where all can co-exist and enhance the collective tapestry? My truth says we are being called to create heart spaces that can hold polarities, ie: glad/sorrow, peace/conflict, complexity/simplicity - at the center of our hearts, where we can experience them simultaneously and yet not polarize in judgment or react in contractions. I believe this heart space has been depicted in religious art as the "Sacred Heart."

Peace, I am another yourself, Alana  

27 Feb 2002 @ 23:49 by mmmark : Alana
You took my breath away. I will follow you anywhere as Namasté links us all.  

28 Feb 2002 @ 00:25 by ming : Transcending Polarity
Oh, wonderful stuff, Alana. I love this one: "I perceive that as we move towards expanding our evolutionary consciousness, we will naturally grow the compassion necessary to build bridges that can link divergent ideologies and realities within a field of complexity".  

Other entries in
3 Oct 2008 @ 02:43: What 4
31 May 2004 @ 00:13: Memorial For America
24 Dec 2003 @ 18:22: Seasons Greetings
2 Dec 2003 @ 15:12: Shared Purpose
8 Jun 2003 @ 00:27: Namasté = Respect
22 Jan 2003 @ 20:59: Doers & Democracy
10 Jan 2003 @ 14:47: NEW STYLE THINKING
22 Dec 2002 @ 13:22: Wonderful Winter Holidays To You
4 Jun 2002 @ 02:13: Relationships
16 May 2002 @ 04:02: Thanks For Telling Me

[< Back] [MMMark's Whycandoo Room] [PermaLink]?