|
|
 20 Oct 2004 @ 20:44, by jhs. Systems Thinking
[note: my computer broke down last Friday. I am using Valerio's laptop (mille grazie!). I received all my NEW e-mail be now, but I lost the e-mail that was on my old laptop. Pls e-mail again, if needed. Thanks mucho!]
Well, three (3!) mad days and nights of doing a little translation... Actually I started out many years ago but I never dared formulating it...
For this translation, I worked like this: first I threw away all copies of exisiting translations I had (they were in German, 3 different English ones, and in Italian). Then, after every translation, I removed the text of the new translation from my computer (after backing up, just in case). Then I meditated until I was sure I forgot everything I thought I knew (quite painful). Then I made me a fresh coffee and translated from scratch to a point where I was sure I had made a serious mistake in the prior sections. I restarted the way I described it for 53 times until I arrived at the last sentence (which contains quite a paradox!).
The first day I listened to 2 audio recitations of the text in an audio loop. But I found that some of it was leading me to a bias in separating the words and I stopped listening.
For a few names of classes of Superbeings there are just no English names that I know of and I left them untranslated. For some I know the Ifa names but it doesn't make sense to replace one strange name with yet another strange name. I used some words that are sure to confuse the reader, for example 'earth' for 'aretz'. It is meant to refer to the 'element of earth', not to our planet but it is too clumsy to use it every time. There are many other formulations for which better names can be found. For example: the mechanism to 'copy oneself' is called 'seeds' like in most other translations. It could be translated as 'DNA' but somehow I felt this is not appropriate because then one should translate the other items with names of modern Science as well, using the names from the 'particle/wave' model 'frequency/modulation', 'clones', etc. Perhaps a nice project for the future???
Just in case to not come too close to the actual truth of it, I deliberately introduced 3 errors and omitted 3 verses in the center. These three, although holding the key, cannot be possibly understood without understanding the rest first. I was advised that, for my own protection, it would not be good to publish it. That I publish this at all, may not seem to be a smart idea. But I was so advised and I honor the source of this advice.
My sincere gratitudes go to the Rabbi who opened this chapter for me many years ago. I am very, very sure that he does not want his name mentioned in this context.
Thanks also to Francesco, Luciano, Valerio and Matej who called me on the cellular! You cheered me up considerably!!!
So, here it is, my humble gift to mankind, to quote yet another madman, and then I have to seriously catch up on my sleep:
'The Unfolding' (The 53. Attempt of a Translation) More >
|
|
|
|
 20 Oct 2004 @ 16:39, by ming. Politics
Article in the N.Y.Times by Ron Suskind: Without a Doubt (registration required). A sober and brilliant analysis of what I would agree is the most disturbing and dangerous aspect of George Bush's presidency. Essentially that the major program points are based on his personal "messages" from God and that there's nothing to talk about, nobody else to listen to, and no room for new facts, or old facts, or differing opinions.This is one key feature of the faith-based presidency: open dialogue, based on facts, is not seen as something of inherent value. It may, in fact, create doubt, which undercuts faith. It could result in a loss of confidence in the decision-maker and, just as important, by the decision-maker. Nothing could be more vital, whether staying on message with the voters or the terrorists or a California congressman in a meeting about one of the world's most nagging problems. As Bush himself has said any number of times on the campaign trail, "By remaining resolute and firm and strong, this world will be peaceful". Personally, I'd much prefer *anybody* starting out with *any* kind of outrageous program points, as long as they would adhere to a principle of examining the facts and talking with those who need to be talked with, and then make decisions based on that. Open dialogue. Listen to what people have to say. Be willing to learn about the things you don't know. Well, the article is full of horrifying inside stories documenting that what is there now is a totally different scenario. For probably the first time in U.S. history. It is also puzzling what the hell happened. Apparently Bush used to be quite a different man, a pragmatic down-to-earth kind of guy, quite able to improvise and have a free-flowing dialogue and debate the issues. It used to be one of his strong points. Something changed, suddenly no dissent was tolerated, and he became the Messiah. And a Zombie. Now, listen to this part: In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." Now, that's disturbing. Also because it is right. They directly aim for creating a particular reality. And, yes, then they can move "ahead" much faster than anybody who has to stop and examine facts and ask people what they want. It works. It is an amazing piece of work. Brilliant piece of mass manipulation. The trouble is just that the reality they're manifesting is a pretty horrible one. And since it wasn't really based on what the world needed, or on any actual situation in our reality, for that matter, it probably won't work at all. But it can all stick together for a surprising amount of time, if you have confidence. George W. Bush, clearly, is one of history's great confidence men. That is not meant in the huckster's sense, though many critics claim that on the war in Iraq, the economy and a few other matters he has engaged in some manner of bait-and-switch. No, I mean it in the sense that he's a believer in the power of confidence. At a time when constituents are uneasy and enemies are probing for weaknesses, he clearly feels that unflinching confidence has an almost mystical power. It can all but create reality.
Whether you can run the world on faith, it's clear you can run one hell of a campaign on it. Apparently it speaks to quite a large percentage of the U.S. population. The ones in the middle. Hardworking, simple, churchgoing folks who don't read the New York Time, and who wouldn't dream of reading alternative news sources on the net, and who don't care much about facts. But they care about faith. And the right buttons have been pushed, and they believe Bush has been chosen by God. Scary. Very scary. More >
|
|
|
|
 20 Oct 2004 @ 12:57, by jobrown. Spirituality
Life's challenges come in many forms, but I remain convinced of this: that anyone, regardless of social, economic, or educational background, can come to the same discovery that I did. All it takes is a deep longing to find the truth, to find the inner freedom that does not depend on words, beliefs, experiences, or circumstances. It takes a burning desire to not settle for anything less. If, so far in the course of humanity's evolution, only a relatively few people in any given era have awakened fully, it is because the journey demands a total commitment. Nothing less will satisfy.
I invite you to the challenge. More >
|
|
|
|
 19 Oct 2004 @ 22:48, by ming. Philosophy
Since a long time, one of the subjects I'd like to delve more into and write about is the subject of making realities. That could be addressed from many angles. Personal Reality. Shared Reality. Virtual Reality.
Now, that's starting off with an assumption that each of us have a hand in what reality we're experiencing. Some people don't believe that. Even some of those people who're best at constructing realities that they get others to live in. Many people will insist that reality just is some kind of objective finite thing which one can establish and prove and that's it. Ironically, some of those people probably live more in a reality inside their skull than outside it. But that wasn't my point.
The way I use reality here is as that which we can perceive ourselves to be living in, and which we actually can live in. There can be several or many of those. One might live in one without being conscious of it, or one might willingly step in or out of different realities at different times.
You can think about a movie, for example. If it is well-made and you enjoy it and you're watching it in a movie theatre, you can live yourself into it and believe it while it is playing. Oh, you're still aware that you're watching a movie, but if it is made well enough, you'll forget it to a considerable degree and it will be real, and you have some kind of relation or response to the characters and situations in it. Even if what you're watching is really photos of a plastic model and actors pretending to be other people than they are, you might go along with the whole thing.
Good film makers and good actors know a bunch of things about making convincing realities. For example, a method actor would work hard at developing a lot of invisible things that are part of the character they're asked to portray. Like, what is their past history? What are their feelings and actions rooted in? What is really motivating them? What do they feel? What happened to them before? Where are they going afterwards? Even though you see none of those things directly, if the actor has chosen for himself what they are, his character will appear more real to him and to you.
A very simple example: If a character is supposed to say a sentence that gets interrupted in the middle, like "But why do ...", and then something happens. If the actor only practices saying "But why do .." and then stopping, it will look and sound kind of fake. It will work much better if he worked out for himself what the whole sentence should be and why he's saing it, even if he never gets to do so. The fabric of the reality he's presenting is more coherent and complete. And you notice that, even if you only get to see a corner of it.
Realistic realities have a number of perceptions to them, and they have depth. It is not just that the right words are said. They sound right, they look right, they smell right, they feel right. The periphery seems right.
If you say the word toothbrush, it doesn't count for much. But if you can hold it in your hand, and put toothpaste on it, and put it in your mouth, and clean your teeth with it, and your mouth feels nice and fresh, then it is a convincing reality. It doesn't matter if somebody else thinks it is a hairy-nosed wombat. If you can brush your teeth with it every day, and have a minimum of cavities, you're fine.
No, it doesn't quite mean that it is just as good to live in a delusion as to live in a reality. A delusion would be when you exist in a certain reality and you deny it, and maintain the abstract idea that it is different than it is. A functional reality is made of perceptions, not just of a concept. Perceptions are abstractions too, in relation to what the universe REALLY is, but they're much more solid than recooked abstract concepts that are based on denying perceptions. Important difference. If you sit by a table and you tell yourself you're flying a spaceship, you probably won't be doing anything very sensible. If you can actually operate the controls and land on another planet and pick fruits off the trees, then you might actually have something. If you're only thinking: "This is not a table, it is a spaceship", and you convince yourself, then you're probably just a human who'll have difficulties functioning.
Affirmations are a common newagey way of getting something you want to happen. Nothing wrong with that. Prayers are in the same category. It can be quite useful to affirm or ask for that which you want. You might get it. Better than not to ask for it, or to ask for that which you don't want. But it is also very flimsy as far as realities are concerned. Just a concept and some words. To really get something different, you need to feel it, see it, hear it, taste it. You gotta be able to get into it and drive away. If you only have a movie prop facade, like from Universal Studios, you can't live in it. Workable realities have a whole range of dimensions to it. You can't eat a picture of a cheese. It needs to have a certain consistency, it needs to taste right, and it needs to be nutritious. There's a whole bunch of perceptions and details that need to be there. Realities have a lot of detail, and detail that is not just on the surface, but which sticks quite deep.
However, if we don't need to eat it or live in it, we can be persuaded to accept realities that really are rather flimsy, and which aren't much more than props. But they're detailed enough that we'll accept tham as real without actually inspecting them. You'll probably accept the news and the state of politics in that manner. You don't really go and double-check the news for yourself, to see if it is real. You might check some other sources, but you'll probably stop when you feel you have a picture that is sufficiently self-consistent. It is still just a concept, and has the real substance missing. It is pictures and words and opinions. But it is impractical to get the real thing, so you've become used to accepting a prop. And you're just looking for a certain coherence of the picture, rather than whether it really is edible. And most likely you vote for political candidates the same way. You haven't met any of them. You've just seen them on TV.
So, the people who design mass realities for us have a much easier time than what would be required to design livable realities. You don't have time to receive much more than a cardboard cutout, so their job is simply to provide a cardboard cutout that seems to suit you, and which will survive its journey through the news media, and which will fool you sufficiently. It doesn't have to be the truth and it doesn't have to add up.
But the same rules still apply. You just need less of them. For example, if a certain political character is presented as taking a certain stand, you'll want to hear the history that let up to that. I.e. you want to hear about a background that is consistent with what they're presenting. And you want them to sincerely look like they're playing that part. And you want other people to confirm it. Whether it is the truth doesn't matter. It is obvious that you can't add up everything, so you'll settle for accepting things as more real if you've heard them enough time from people who look like they know what they're talking about. And their story makes sense to you.
You'd want to know about how realities are made in order to protect yourself from mass manipulation.
And for your own sanity you'd want to know how to make your reality that which you prefer. Personal realities are on one hand harder to make than mass realities, because they require more detail and self-consistency. On the other hand they're easier, because there's mainly one person involved, and because the things that make the most difference in your life are rather subjective, and don't really need to be validated by anybody else.
Some people accomplish great things and breeze by even the most impossible obstacles. That's not just because they're gifted in that way from the beginning. More importantly it is because they implicitly believe that things work that way. They don't just believe that as a loose and shakey idea. They feel it, see it, hear it, taste it. They have experiences to back it up. They're both coming from somewhere and going to somewhere that is well-defined, self-consistent and in accordance with that which they're accomplishing. And, no, not just because that's what REALLY happened. Mainly because THEIR reality is structured that way.
The reality you're seeing and touching might appear very real, but it is in no way THE reality. It is probably more real than many of the delusions one can have ABOUT the reality. But as far as the universe goes, there's no scarcity of options. The table you're sitting by is probably just one of zillions of possible tables. The sub-atomic particles it is made of could be in any of an unfathomable amount of states, and they probably are, at the same time, depending on who's looking. You could call that parallel dimensions, or the quantum soup, or Reality with a capital R, or whatever. Regardless, any insistence on that table, or your political views, being some kind of only and ultimate reality is laughable on the scale of infinity. Time and space are but somewhat illusory properties of the way you happen to perceive things. The same pieces appear in so many other guises, at the same time, the appearance of which has a whole hell of a lot to do with how you perceive them and interact with them.
Maybe it is a little pretentious to call it "making" or "creating" realities. It is maybe more like choosing. Every possible different perception you might have about anything at any time forms a possible branching point. Nobody forces you to take any one of them. There might be some inertia going on, but you're always free to start branching off in a different direction at any time.
But it helps to know what realities are made of. Detailed perceptions. A coherent and consistent history. Depth. Multiple levels that all work. Systemic synergy. Things fit together. And for us humans: a meta-story, a set of beliefs about how and why it works. And realities have a certain continuity. They don't flicker on and off all the time. They're there even if you look away and look back again.
You could call it a worldview, but, no, I mean it more tangibly and mechanically than that. As well as bigger. Like the structure of the interface between consciousness and an infinite universe. If you don't believe consciousness really exists, half of what I'm saying is probably making no sense. In that case, think of being able to download yourself into a virtual reality. The power will remain plugged in, and you can populate the reality with what you choose, and you can adjust the parameters of the program. I'd bet you'd want as many perceptions as possible, a certain multi-layered systemic coherence, and you want a certain history and consistency, and some good people to hang out with, and a suitable level of surprise and adventure, and the chance to do really well. Just like in real life. More >
|
|
|
|
19 Oct 2004 @ 21:59, by nemue. Communities
I didn't write the following, in fact the author is unknown. Perhaps we should adopt this as the new mantra.... More >
|
|
|
|
19 Oct 2004 @ 18:16, by zutano. Spirituality
I am a new member, and I hope that I can find a few, free thinking and optimistic people who can have a discussion, leaving all of their pre-conceived ideas of what is right or wrong in the shower, to explore new ideas of how to make this world a better place.
We live in exciting times and I am optimistic about the future. I believe that if we look at all of the worlds problems, we see a mountain that appears almost too big to move. But when you break this behemoth down to its smallest parts, all you find is a lot of small rocks. These rocks are easy to move. We can start by solving the problems that we can solve. Today, because of the Internet we have all been empowered with the opportunity and the ability to make change if we work together on specific projects. The list could be endless.
For instance... One of the things that bothers me about this election, and too many others in the recent past, is that no mater who wins, about 50% of the population will be unhappy. Why do we always have to vote for the lesser of two evils. Why can it not be, in each persons opinion....the best of the best.
When a president takes office he must submit his selection of cabinet members to the Senate to be confirmed. And when he submits names for federal judges he must also submit his choices to the same body to be confirmed. This process can take weeks, months or even years in the cases of some judges. These appointees are being judged by men and women who themselves have never had to go through this process. And, I am sure, that some of these men or women who are doing the judging would not be where they are today if they did.
I propose a new system, where we would set up a non-partisan body, perhaps retired judges, that would confirm that each candidate for public office was sound of mind and body, and that there were no flaws in the man or woman's character that would prevent them doing a honorable job, and that all of their skeletons, hidden so well in the closet, were out for the world to see. Can you imagine what a pleasure it would be to be able to listen to both sides of their arguments as to who was best qualified to do the job without having to watch them drag each other through the mud and worse. All, we as voters would have to do was to determine, in our own hearts who we believed was the best of the two good men.
Today, in the age of technology we can search millions of archives and find out almost everything about a man in a few hours. There is no good reason why the voters are fed bits and pieces of a mans past, some important and most not, just weeks or months before an election. I say let it all hang out in the beginning...if a candidate has transcended his past and can live with it...just maybe the voters could live with it too. If they only knew the truth.
This is just an idea...if it has merit let us discuss it. If not let’s pick another. If we can pass a joke around the world in a matter of minutes, we could certainly make the world aware of a better way in the matter of days. You could even have a vote on the idea if it was presented in a way with all of the pros and cons discussed rationally in forums.
The idea of getting feed-back from the masses is now possible. Why don’t we try to take advantage of the technologies.
I would appreciate all of your thoughts.
Roberto More >
|
|
|
|
19 Oct 2004 @ 17:27, by gsosbee. Peace
The next vote should be cast globally, by each and every human being alive on the face of the earth, as though one nation encompasses all ; the issue to be decided may be framed somewhat as follows: Please vote 'Yes' or 'No' to the following proposition:
End by moratorium all war/conflict/violence on earth now and for all times , with no exception, no strings attached, and no room for negotiations.
Each person must let his/her vote be made public and each child is given the vote of "Yes" by the universal recognition that if not corrupted by parents, teachers and governments no child would vote in favor of torture, imprisonment, death, or war.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Please remember that our Maker (& Sons and Daughters of the Holy Spirit)
require that each of us, consistent with our capacity and experience, stand up to and intellectually confront with love in our hearts and with a brave soldier's resolve, those persons who torture, imprison or kill our Brothers and Sisters everywhere on this earth; we may not,for the most part, simply hide under the image of the Great One whom we pretend to worship and thereby presume to live eternally in God's graceful company.
*****************************************************************************
To Billy Graham and others like him :
You are in spiritual and intellectual default as frauds against Humanity/God for sucking up and idolizing the most corrupt and homicidal regime ever known on earth.See this date the following statements by Graham:
Billy Graham on the death of Satan's Own 'Jesse Helms':
11:59 AM Sat, Jul 05, 2008
"Jesse Helms, my friend and long-time senator from my home state of North Carolina, was a man of consistent conviction to conservative ideals and courage to faithfully serve God and country based on principle, not popularity or politics. " More >
|
|
|
|
19 Oct 2004 @ 13:33, by redstar. Space Exploration
Nasa has finally acknowledged that this current Solar Cycle known as cycle 23 is highly irregular and deviates from all known Solar Activity patterns.
Solar Physisist, David Hathaway of NASA's Marshall space flight centre goes as far as to say that "This may be the calm before the storm".
There are indications that this current cycle is not following the normal pattern, with the Solar Minimum activity period expected to be way early and the Maximum period could also be way of the mark.
Combined with the Eclipses of October and the Grand Quintiles that are occuring in October (see Magical Melody) it seems that the Heavens are filled with signs of future changes for those with the eyes to see them.
Who knows what could be next??
See Link: [link]
|
|
|
|
 19 Oct 2004 @ 12:16, by scotty. Counseling, Psychology
and our odd relationship with Truth.
( ~ the Co-Intellegence Inst )
"There is a lot of attention right now on the US government lying to We the People, probably with intention to mislead. In some circles there is also dismay (and cynicism) at the ability (and sometimes apparent eagerness) of We the People to be misled.
There are many political dimensions to this, being reported by many qualified commentators. But here I want to dig a bit into our odd relationship with truth. It is a complex relationship and, I think, an important one to pay attention to." More >
|
|
|
|
 18 Oct 2004 @ 21:58, by i2i. Religion
Theocracy is the name given to political regimes that claim to represent the Divine on earth. Most governments throughout history and across cultures have claimed to be following their gods' designs or to be legitimated by a divine mandate.
More >
|
|
<< Newer entries Page: 1 ... 171 172 173 174 175 ... 279 Older entries >> |
|
These are news items gathered or contributed by NCN members
|
Categories
Activism (97)
Altered States (32)
Alternative Money Systems (17)
Broadcasting, Media (20)
Business (19)
Children, Parenting (28)
Communication (63)
Communities (71)
Conspiracy (34)
Counseling, Psychology (23)
Crime, Policing (7)
Death & Dying (14)
Developing World (19)
Economics, Financing, Banking (51)
Education (34)
Energy Sources (19)
Engineering (1)
Entrepreneurs, Money Making (19)
Environment, Ecology (123)
Exercise, Fitness (1)
Extraterrestrials (27)
Farming (14)
Futurism (13)
Globalization (29)
Government, Public Sector (46)
History, Ancient World (38)
Housing, Building, Architecture (10)
Ideas, Creativity (318)
Internet (49)
Inventions (6)
Investigation, Intelligence (23)
Knowledge Management (21)
Legal, Justice (24)
Liberty, Sovereignty (14)
Medicine, Healthcare (46)
Music (30)
Natural Health & Healing (27)
Neighborhood (12)
Networking (19)
Nutrition, Cooking (7)
Old Age, Retirement (4)
Organizational Development (12)
Paranormal (12)
Peace (35)
Performing Arts (9)
Personal Development (80)
Philosophy (94)
Politics (120)
Poverty (4)
Preparedness, Self-Reliance (12)
Privacy, Security (1)
Publishing (3)
Recreation, Fun (59)
Relationships (19)
Religion (40)
Science (48)
Sexuality (16)
Shared Purpose (30)
Social System Design (47)
Space Exploration (23)
Spirituality (391)
Systems Thinking (31)
Technology (37)
Transportation (9)
Travel (22)
Violence, War (103)
Visual Arts, Graphics (63)
|
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
| 4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
| 11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
| 18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
| 25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
Members can post news items and comments in the member area.
Information and opinions are the responsibility of the posters and do not represent any official position of NCN. Please do your own verification and make up your own mind.
Syndication
|
|
