MMMark's Whycandoo Room: Relationships    
 Relationships11 comments
4 Jun 2002 @ 02:13, by Mark Smollin

Dear Chums . . .

I thought I would get your response to this idea:

If we share in the investment, don't we then share in the rewards?

This is a question of mutual concern that is the practical and actual basis upon which unity is achieved, and it works without distortion on any scale.

If we share the responsibility, then there is rarely an opportunity for conflict or disappointment. Worst case scenario - we suffer and learn together - then quickly decide not to do that shit again! Obviously the incentive to create the most bliss is omnipresent.

The prevalent paradigm has us acting independently with hopes that the divergence will magically overlap to produce harmony in Love. Rather ironic considering how much un-loving we do along the way, maybe moronic is a better description.

Any method of social engagement cannot work when it becomes exclusive in any way, as it will be too disconnected from the reality of a very diverse species to serve itself fairly.

I believe that relationships succeed unconditionally when partners place the union first in all decisions and those discussions are measured by a simple principle - whether the outcome of one's choice will be responsible for the healthy good of everyone. That means we will all be looking out for the health of our associates and partners, in love, business and in politics all the time. My mission in life is to see to it that I help everyone get what they need and want within the realm kindness.

Now I knew most of this by the time I was 6 or 7 years of age, but certainly by age 14. Didn't you? Children are generally better models of spiritually connected people than most adults, so I am trying to recharge my innocence in hope for the awesome potential we fritter away most of the time. I think we should hold Namasté in our hearts at all times - that we respect other's rights to build true spiritual success - and as you know, I don't use the word "spiritual" in a way that would indicate a limit on the where, when, why, how, or how much.

Well, that's my pitch for standard human operating procedure. Show me where there's conflict in humanhood? Come to think of it, I am beginning to detest limiting gender distinctions in words like brotherhood and sisterhood. Is humanhood even a word? How do you talk about the whole hood anyway? Globalhood doesn't sound very personal, even though that's where I come from.

> > > Mark


[< Back] [MMMark's Whycandoo Room]

Category:  

11 comments

4 Jun 2002 @ 02:47 by ming : Rewards
"If we share in the investment, don't we then share in the rewards?"

That's the way it should be, I think. It's not particularly how it works in the old civ world of economics or politics. The prevalent structures seem to mostly be about getting large numbers of people to give their energy and power to the few, who will use it for their own benefit. So, yes, let's change it. People own their own efforts, of course, and nobody owns the efforts of others.  



4 Jun 2002 @ 03:44 by shawa : Globalhood...
...and humanhood sound just fine ! ...Let´s INVENT those words!... :-) And. It´s a hard process to distinguish between intention and reality, especially in the Net. Both are written down in squiggles, with no point of reference at all, except one´s own training and/or intuition. As always, dear Mark, you are right about the words; how they are applied is an entirely different omelet. That´s why keeping a "Namasté" somewhere as a personal starting point is a must. Glad you´re writing again. :-)  


4 Jun 2002 @ 11:02 by swan : Language, what a hang up some times
Humanhood is good! Language can be so limiting at times especially when talking about gender. Masculine/feminine, male/female,Sisterhood/brotherhood, can be so loaded but are terms we are all familiar with. I know I struggle when I am trying to write about creating union among the genders and I have to use the only words we have, knowing they suggest separation. It is time to find new language for what we are trying to create. Some languages have numerous words for "love" depending on what kind it is. So why can't we??
From the age of 0-7 we are most directly connected to Source. It is culture and socialization that pushes spirit into hiding. So, many of us have spent the next 20-30-40 years trying to come back to that place of purity and innocence of a child. If we can return to our childlike (not childish) nature as mature, conscious adults, we can act from the authentic presence we had as children. This would cause a whole new kind of relationship to happen. Fortunately there are enough of us who have return to that place so we can foster it in our children, rather that pushing it underground, so they won't have to spend decades retrieving themselves and they can get on to their mission from the beginning. Whoa, Swan got on a roll on that one!  



4 Jun 2002 @ 13:13 by vaxen : linkage that may help...
Scroll down for some relevent linkage. Ms Klages' ``stuff'' is well worth more than just a cursory examination, as well. Lan-guage is very important as it is from `language' that you 'see' your world. Change your 'language' and you really do change your 'view' of the 'Ver-Ald.' It is within our hands to both examine and create language. Sometimes I think of the word in this way; LAN=Local Area Network Guage=A mechanism which allows us to 'measure' something. Language is every bit a guage to 'experiance' in these lower `frequencied' realms of light.

[link]  



5 Jun 2002 @ 09:51 by magical_melody : Union and Kindness
Mark, I respect your mission of assisting people to get what they want with loving kindness, what a beautiful and important mission that is!

Your 1st part of the sentence: “I believe that relationships succeed unconditionally when partners place the union first in all decisions: Yes! Is that not the foundation of conscious relating? I feel that a support to this process is through attunements. Many communities are working with attunement processes and meditations before making decisions or dealing with conflicts as a process to ground the group into the support of Sacred Heart Space.
I experience that it is those unconscious gaps that show up in communications that interrupts this Union. I have seen people and groups idealistically try to jump those gaps, and deny or avoid the healing opportunities necessary in order to bridge those very gaps. Oftentimes, I have seen that is where the "Gold" hides, is within the gaps, just waiting to be mined! It has also been my experience, as I and others have opened to allow a healing process (re: the stumbling blocks along the way,) we have come to bridge the gaps to Union.
The second part of your sentence is not entirely clear for me:“-those discussions are measured by a simple principle whether the outcome of one's choice will be responsible for the healthy good of everyone.” I take from it: that we can measure in some way how our choices will bring more benefit to the group. Mark, I would appreciate you writing a bit more about the principle part of that sentence, sharing any ideas, or processes that enhance more loving kindness in your world, and here in NCN. Would you be willing to share more specifically what that looks like for YOU? **I needed to add one more thing here: Seems my experience of developing more loving kindness comes as I listen to my own heart, and come to listen to others more deeply, so that I can hear what is needed in a situation next to open the love. Thanks. Peace, Alana  



6 Jun 2002 @ 23:10 by mmmark : Alana's Kindness
To answer Alana I will paraphrase the concept of mutual interdependence. This sentence was a bit too much and probably should have been broken into 2 separate parts. I might read better like this:

I believe that relationships succeed unconditionally when partners place the union first in all decisions. Potential solutions are discussed and measured by a simple principle - whether the outcome of the choice will be responsible for the healthy good of everyone.

Examples of proper choices follow:

Should we build more bombs? No
Should we deceive our children to protect them? No
Should I compromise my ethics to earn money? No
Is it OK to leave the cap off the toothpaste, sitting on the sink? No.

Should we do our regular exercise today? Yes
Should we recycle that paper? Yes
Should we share domestic duties? Yes
Could we alternate who selects the video to watch? Yes

Conflict of desire: I want to do some shopping tonight – You want to go out to dinner.
Solution: Let’s do both!

The most important thing is to share the risk and the reward. In doing things together, all parties are responsible for the result. No one is blameless or needs to be blamed for something beyond their control. Without participation one cannot be a member of any group. I have not been able to think of an example where true human conflict exists naturally, that is, we manufacture conflict in selfish interest and a lack of respect for another’s freedoms. We are most familiar with problems involving water rights, fraud, alcohol abuse, war, and all sorts of unhealthy activity that cannot be justified. There are exceptions in extreme circumstances, but they do not serve us as a general model of success for relationships. If we are loving to others, then we must guide them to make healthy decisions, where remaining silent is an endorsement and critical words will not produce an alternative.  



7 Jun 2002 @ 16:52 by magical_melody : Thanks Mark, Much Clearer!
Yes, I liked the continuing message here, and support more collaborative involvements in decision making that are kind and for the healthy good of everyone!! Love, Alana  


10 Jun 2002 @ 19:44 by cho : I was reading about "universalization"
Habermas' "Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action" ... discourse ethics and all that ... activity s though sentience really mattered? Anyhow, what came to mind just now was his treatment of "resentment" ... the indignation that arises when reasonable expectations and norms are breached. I'd say, what arises when one's fundamental humanity is impugned, or something like that.
Anyhow, I look forward to following this thread. Here's a bit of synchrony I can share. Mark Satin's "New Age Politics" was a big book for me, in the late 70s ... even more than Marilyn Ferguson's "Aquarian Conspiracy" (I met her in Edmonton ... got together with her and some friends from the Hunger Project ... ohhhh my, those _were_ the days!) Anyhow, I followed Flemming's link to that site in Seattle (was going to post it to seattle.indy, but it's already over!), and from there to the site for one of the organizer's, on on that site there was a list of "Benefits of Membership", one of which was a discount on books from OMG! I had searched for Satin years ago, but *I suppose* had given up hope. So anyhow, here's a keen essay from Mark's site: Planetary Humanism: First Cut.

luv ya all

p.s. *sigh* ... just got the callout for street medics for Friday ... *sigh* I hate what tear gas and pepper spray does to people.  



4 Dec 2002 @ 09:02 by jazzolog : Hard To Believe
It's been nearly six months since this Log was a jump-'n-shake center of metaphysical aerobics---and since a description like that one would draw fire from one of the surest shots that side of the Rockies. It's difficult to miss a comrade around here!  


4 Dec 2002 @ 09:28 by spiritseek : Main problem
My main problem I found out very recently is that I was trying to make my partner a figment of my imagination, someone he couldn't stand up to being even if he kept trying. Needless to say I lost both of them.  


4 Dec 2002 @ 09:40 by martha : my comrade
He is very busy these days helping me create my web site and it is actually an enjoyable process considering we are two intense, never afraid to comment, first borns...wore him out so much he is sleeping.
I am keeping him informed about NCN.
Spiritseek- you learned a valuable lesson. Hope runs eternal.
martha  



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
16 May 2002 @ 04:02: Thanks For Telling Me
12 May 2002 @ 23:53: Tell Me About Me



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