On the contrary, my point was that your utilitarian approach to evaluating ideas obscures reality by making truth a matter of personal convenience and historical circumstance rather than objective reason and observation, since as you said, "If no body believes it then it has no power ,it is as good as if it didnt exist, despite it being abstractly true." The truthfulness of an idea is separate from its mass appeal -- one cannot and should not override the other -- therefore each deserves its own discussion.

One cannot ignore or dismiss a truth simply because it lacks mass appeal, but that seems to be the basis of your argument in marginalizing such topics as aliens. It would be more objective to say, "based on my research aliens do exist and certain ones have demonic inclinations, but the public won't accept this so let's not include this in our appeal to the masses to combat global warming." This is more objective than saying, "the public won't accept this, so let's dismiss the idea altogether because it might as well not be true."

The other point to emphasize is something Andy brought up as well, which is that addressing the deeper causes leads to deeper solutions. Ignoring the deeper stuff simply because it lacks mass appeal prevents one from accessing and applying those deeper solutions. And again, weak solutions applied by the majority may end up being equivalent to strong solutions applied by the minority, so why not allow for both? There is a place for unpopular truths because a minority of truth seekers exist who can make effective use of it.

---

Trinity, that was a great excerpt from The Alchemist. The bigger the truth, the less it is believed; the bigger the lie, the more it is believed. Talk about irony!

Last edited: 17-05-2007 12:11:53 AM

Quote

Hi Montalk .

I find words an imperfect tool to use . It is always fraught with an inevitable linearity to it and sometimes it is very difficult to express the paradox .Ie that the opposite is also true.One also has to be careful of setting up logical propositions which are not strictly accurate despite the then convincing arguments we aspouse .This is true of me as much as anyone else. Also when we penetrate our written words we are so caught up in generalities and ambiguity that it is often a very crude instrument.

Yes as you quite rightly say .."The truthfulness of an idea is separate from its mass appeal -- one cannot and should not override the other -- therefore each deserves its own discussion. ..."and I think you'll find that is there already in my earlier reply......and its the latter I was really wanting to discuss .(However we must not set these up as seperate in an absolute sense as there is interpenetration between them.)
I think the fact that others ie Neil thought the injection of aliens into it albeit via the link kind of confirms my point, that often we don,t need to clutter the issue regardless of greater truths.So I think we really sort of agree as I cant see what your saying here is fundamentally at odds with what I said earlier .

I have no problem with mass or secular , with the mystic or the scientific . The world does not reduce its self to little old me nor do I have a King Canut complex.
There are many roads to Rome and actually I think the future is much more laid out than we think...but with a sprinkle of windows on the way.
We all have our positions as we are all only a facet of the bigger picture .But I dont need to bring a sledge hammer to crack a nut.

Perhaps the most important thing is Spirit ... .. and there is lots of it here on this site ...many good people ...and really I dont care too much what they think...as for me their actions speak loader than words.....It is very hard to loose this word thing which we all get caught up in. Let us connect where we connect and the rest is ....what it is ....life .

Yours in kind Spirit

John

Last edited: 18-05-2007 01:53:44 PM

Quote

i was curious to see what would come of my comments.

firstly, i am not dismissing anything out of hand - in fact, i am not dismissing anything. john - you have a habit of interpreting what you read without taking the time to comprehend it. further, rather than responding to the one who speaks, you respond to what is spoken.

take the time to understand the people you are communicating with, and you may find that rather than being adversarial, there may be more value in recognising that we're all here because, in some way or other, we are interested in similar things [and may, in fact, have read many of the same things, and share many of the same views - and taken as much time as you have to research things before feeling sufficiently informed to comment].

i, for one, do not express an opinion without being certain that there is something to back it up.

my suggestion was that to assume we are completely responsible for the state of the physical environment, when there are factors beyond our control is arrogant. there was no dismissal of scientific studies - despite the lack of veracity and consistency in many scientific claims specifically in regards to global warming and climate change.

my point is that REALITY is BIGGER than we are. there is no doubt human activity is having an impact. there is also no doubt that there is NO ABSOLUTE AGREEMENT on what the nature of that impact is.

yes - when we stop using cfc's we notice, over time, changes in the ozone layer. can that be DIRECTLY attributed to the phasing out of cfc's? a rational mind could only say that there appears to be a correlation, but with infinite variables, who can really be certain.

yet we continue to phase them out because, according to our understandings, we are all better off without them.

there are things we CAN do, to be certain. and with better and better understandings of the nature of reality, we come up with more sustainable ways of living.

but there IS NO ULTIMATE TRUTH in subjective reailty - just useful ideas that we work with until a better and more useful idea comes along.

and as andy has pointed out, what we call 'negative' is a completely subjective view. i thought we might be past negative and positive by now, and recognise that for reality, things simply are as they are.

how do we know that this is not some deep evolution? how do we know that humans aren't going to go the way of the dinosaurs? and who can say if that is a good thing or a bad thing?

who can really be certain about anything?

the great human arrogance, john, is the belief in our own importance. if there is a god [and i am under no illusions that there is] then he / she / it really doesn't care.

he / she / it has more things to worry about than the extinction of a single species because to he / she / it there is only ONE REALITY and infinite expressions of it.

when there is nothing to lose, nothing is lost.

Quote

Hi Cameron

Im sorry , but for me you are all over the show , to the point I can't help feeling your a little confused .

I can,t be responsible for what you might mean to say but don,t say.You infer one thing rather than another I find your logic all a bit topsy turvy. The written word is a dog at the best of times I know.... but I think your just trying to cover your tracks with me now........sorry.

John

Quote

Namaste all,

I must say I'm a bit confused by all that has been said in this line of discussion. I'm struggling to get a clear handle on what people are actually trying to say. The discussion seems, to me, to have become excessively convoluted.

Am I wrong in thinking that nobody, besides from John, is speaking about taking action on GW? Be that on a personal or a larger level?

From what I can make out either people think that this is:

a. not manmade and therefore not man fixable and therefore we should do nothing.
b. the result of hyperdimensional aliens and therefore we should do nothing.
c. part of the divine plan and therefore we should do nothing.

There has been so much talk in this discussion thread and yet I can't seem to find people talking about making their thoughts and words into a physical reality. Just from going on what has been said people seem largely full of windy talk and nothing much more. I read this and so much of what has been said feels to me as being rather hollow and empty.

In my last posting in this discussion I asked a series of question to everyone, yet nobody came forth with any attempts at answering them with what they thought. So while there is a bunch of fairly vocal people here, once proactive questions are put to them they seem to back off. It would seem that people are happy to endlessly yak away, but not get the finger out their arse.

I know a discussion like this could literally go on for years, especially with an ever increasing wealth of data coming out. So I expect no definitive conclusion to this discussion, so instead I at least hope for some direction. I do think we should be able to express to each other ideas and suggestions in how to tackle what we perceive to be the problem, both at a physical level and at subtler levels, and on varying scales. To me it seems if we don't do this then our words are just words and this discussion is by and large a fruitless wasteful exercise.

Om Shanti
Neil

Quote

These really are good questions, and since Neill has asked for specific responses I am happy to give them.

1. firstly, there needs to be a consensus on what is REALLY going on, without the spin. provide unfiltered, uninterpreted facts and let people make up their own minds about the nature of reality, and whether or not there is a crisis. for those who believe change is necessary, they can move to step 2 - for those who don't, they can move on.

In short, setup a space, or provide links to an existing space, where the facts are presented. this should NOT be moderated by either skeptics or climate change advocates - and unsupportedm undocumented statements should be marked as such [kind of like a wiki - in fact, a climate change wiki would be very useful if one doesn't already exist]

2. in as much as possible, individual change is necessary to ensure we are acting out our values, yet the power of collective voices and collective action has been proven over time

3. strategically, the first step is providing a forum for the presentation of the facts; next is interpreting the facts; third is developing an action plan for educating about the facts, fourth is developing an action plan for lobbying to address the facts. ultimately, this is a political battle - if 'government exists to represent the will of the people' then it's about time it was used in this manner

4. there are more than enough separate organisations and movements established for the purpose of generating change. if we really want to make a change, let's embed it in every day life. start an eco-retreat if you like, but recognise that high-density housing is less resource intensive than any other form of housing and that, ultimately, cities will be our salvation [there is not enough land to support everyone living on an eco-retreat - like it or not we need intensive agriculture and vast tracts of arable land to feed the world's population]

the bottom line as i see it is that individuals need to feel empowered by using their intelligence and interpreting the facts for themselves without distortion.

if we believe in evolution, and we are really so stupid as a species to not take action in the face of incontrovertible evidence, then Darwin's case will be proven.

i am not yet convinced that we have incontrovertible evidence, but the balance of the debate seems to be pointing in favour of humanity's ability to respond in a way that may allow for the continuation of our species.

Last edited: 19-05-2007 09:21:11 PM

Quote

thanks john - your response, for me, supports my previously articulated impressions. on to more interesting things

Last edited: 19-05-2007 09:22:01 PM

Quote

Hi Neil,
:/


I can't speak for anyone else. I'll speak from my personal perspective.

If you were to look at the way I lived and the work that I do, you would see that every moment is intimately linked to the state of the planet. Action is part of my every moment.

The key question for me is the motivation behind which people act.
i.e. are we acting out of fear of what will happen if we don't act
or
from a sincere place of the heart whereby divine inspiration is taking the lead?
To me, unless we are acting from a place of authenticity guided by universal life energy, then efforts are nothing more than side stepping in world where evolution only happens if we move beyond.

If I knew the world were to end tomorrow, I wouldn't do anything differently. I honour Mother Earth as my dearest friend and have harmonised increasingly over the years with her. Before I considered myself to be a 'spiritual' person... (my atheist days) I would receive visions of the destruction of the planet and consequent collapse of society. I felt helpless. After years of pain and suffering at watching the brutalisation of Mother Earth, I surrendered to the realisation that all I could do was be myself, knowing that change will authentically arise as and when it is meant to. Knowing that when we are authentically ourselves that we are guided into 'right action'. Over the years I have lead environmental conservation groups, helped people realise their innate healing potential and worked toward self-sufficient lifestyle (infact the list is endless).

Some times, whether we like it our not 'right action' might even mean that our job is to be singing in the band as the ship goes down. Who are we to question the reason and logic behind divine guidance?

Mother Earth is a living entity and in my experience is ready to shake of the human invasion. With all my heart I understand and honour that. Why would I convince that we were worthy of her hospitality? Anyone who thinks that mankind as a whole (all six billion of us!!!) is suddenly going to stop the destruction is sadly blinkered. Do you honestly think that humanity is sustainable? Even if we kid ourselves that we can be environmentally friendly with all our green and eco goods! It's just a veil keeping us from what is really going on on an energetic level. I support her fully.

So, yes I believe that we are indeed to act. We are to hold a changing landscape of events and synchronicities in our awareness with which we are then to act as guided as each new moment arises.

Trinity

"Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree"
- Martin Luther King Jr

Last edited: 20-05-2007 07:20:41 AM

Quote

Neil, it really surprises me that you're completely mispresenting almost everything that's been said in this thread, and it shouldn't take more than a cursory look over peoples actual comments to realise that.

First, nobody here has ever said or even implied that hyperdimensional aliens are responsible for global warming. My original point in linking to Montalk's material was in response to the title to the thread "We are being fooled over global warming reduction figures". I was just simply trying to say that we are being fooled about a whole lot of things, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that global warming figures are one of them. If you go back and read my comments I don't see how they could ever have been interpreted as "Hey guys, I believe aliens are responsible for global warming". If that's how it did come across then I apologise and take those comments back.

Second, I don't think a single person here has said 'we should do nothing'. I thought I made it quite clear that believing that a 'divine' plan might be at work here does NOT mean we should sit on our arses and do nothing.

As I said, I haven't spent two years and a lot of hard work developing Holistic Local, as a way of connecting people who are pasionate about finding solutions to our problems, for nothing. Believe me, there are much easier ways of 'doing nothing' And I know you're not directly accusing me of doing nothing but your comments above do generally refer to things that I said.

Anyway, in answer to your questions:

> What should we (for example the members here who more or less share a similar understanding) be doing to help bring about change?

Two things, we should educate others and we should set an example. We need to demonstrate that conscious living is actually fun. Scaring the shit out of people isn't going to have the right affect I don't believe.

Personally it doesn't matter to me whether global warming is manmade, alienmade or completely natural. I think we should all be living a more positive and conscious life, and treading lightly on our Mother Earth.

> Should we be attempting this individually or collectively?

Does it have to be one or the other? Surely it can be both. Different strokes for different folks and all that. Some people work far more effectively on their own and some more effectively as part of a group. Ultimately I think it will be more of a collective effort but often it's individuals that are needed to get thing started and make things happen.

> How do we think we should be doing what we feel is right e.g. public talks & meetings, literature, politics, etc.

By utilising our own unique skills. People who love public speaking should do more of that, people who love writing but hate public speaking shoud write. There's no one thing that any one person should do. People should just look inside themselves to discover what their passion is and what they're own skills are and then see how they can use that to help bring about change in their own unique way.

> To what extent should we be doing what we think we should be doing? e.g. is setting up an eco village a good idea or is it too removed from "normal" life to have any significant effect on it? Would an organisation be a good way to go?

I don't think there is any easy one-size fits all answer to that. It really does depend on the individual or the small collective they are part of. I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with setting up an eco-village. I think that would be a good idea for some people particularly if they planned to share the knowledge they gained with the rest of the world.

For others an organisation would be the best way. For others it will be something completely different.

Again it comes down to each individual utilising their unique skills and knowledge and also the resources that are available to them. I wouldn't know the first thing about trying to setup an organisation so that wouldn't be an affective use of my time. I'm also pretty crap when it comes to building and DIY so I personally wouldn't want to build and eco-village but I would love to see others do it and hopefully I'll move into one someday!

However, I do know quite a few things about creating a website and other forms of digital media so that's why I'm doing what I'm doing.

Andy

Last edited: 20-05-2007 06:30:02 AM

Quote

676 hits!...well at least its been entertaining.

Interesting how its kind of revealed subtle but fundamental differences in the way we all think about things, but much of that is really mis communication.

I think on the whole we are all joined....( even you Nuovon) under the banner of respect for Mother Earth and that we cannot control our collective journey under one banner .

If we miss any window of opportunity on this issue ( which is really what this is about) then we can always do the age old thing of select a scapegoat and string him up....At least we,ll feel a lot better! .......( just joking there Trinity)

However lets not fallout amongst friends . If we here are about anything ,its about sharing ideas ,but at the end of the day knowing we are all more than the sum of our thoughts and so appreciate the need to reflect the sentientness of our lives in living together in a changing world and not "loosing it"!

This is my final post on this subject........ drinks ( of a virtual kind ) are on me ..

Last edited: 21-05-2007 07:07:18 AM

Quote

Namaste all,

I would like to say thank you to Cameron, Trinity & Andy for responding to my recent posting (and for also addressing the questions in my previous post). I enjoyed reading what you had to say and found your responses food for reflection.

I’d like to make it clear that I wasn't specifically getting at anyone or wish to question the merits of any single individual. My intent was to try to move this discussion in a positive direction that pointed towards addressing both ends of the spectrum of this matter, namely the subtle causes of this problem and also the physical side of it.

However, I do admit to being surprised by the responses here. They haven’t been what I anticipated, which reflects more upon what I was thinking about the individuals here rather than upon the individuals themselves. I was thinking there would have been far stronger positive proactive and compassionate responses, and I don’t think this has came forth from the discussion. The most alarming aspect of this discussion for me though has been just how few people have engaged in this discussion. It affects everyone, yet so few have engaged.

Speaking personally, I’m still searching for answers on this topic. On a personal level I have the early stages of a life long plan in action, but answers (if there are any!) to the broader problems still elude me. I feel the steps commonly suggested in wider society, such as change your light bulbs and use public transport, etc. don’t approach even a tenth of what is necessary. So I think I’m looking for answers to what extent changes need to take place in the broader context and how they could be achieved.

Projections for the next 20 years are really starting to paint a radical picture of what is to come and most of these don’t even hit the mainstream media. With the broader implications of GW taking effect over the next 20 years and if the energy crisis we are facing is not solved (if the world doesn’t go nuclear), then we are potentially looking at a very different picture of daily living than what we are currently experiencing. Fundamental matters such as transport, water, food, income are likely to be greatly reduced and greatly altered from as they are at present. The article posted by Trinity, Ten Ways to Prepare for a Post-Oil Society, seems an ever increasing likely outcome. But I’m not content to condemn X % of the global population to death like an end timer waiting on the arrival of the second coming after Armageddon. Yet at present I can’t see the masses being willing to significantly change even if they knew how.

Don’t get me wrong, I think so much of society and how we live is awful. Even in the smallest of day to day things so much of society just seems barbaric to me and I’m actually very strongly drawn to the monastic life and would like to have little to do with the wider world. However, that is not where I find myself. So while I’d be happy to see so much of our culture and ways be wiped of the face of the earth the amount of suffering this would involve (as the people went with it) is too great to stand by and simply watch. Granted, such outcomes might be inevitable, but I still feel we have to play our part in being active for the greater good until that time comes. For me the questions of how still remain.

What Andy said about showing that conscious living is fun and an enjoyable thing is a good point and a good place to start, and I agree that fear tactics won’t change the nature of the beast. At the heart of the problem, as I presently see it, is that generally speaking we have lost reverence for the earth. The earth has become a commodity to be exploited for profit and any sense of it being sacred seems lost. I don’t know if at present we could reclaim this, at least in the sense we once held it, especially since this perspective was largely tied in with now widely lost religious beliefs. But perhaps it might be possible to forge a new post-modern kind of reverence and respect for the earth, through which we might at the same time reclaim the awareness of our dependence and inherent connection with her, rather than thinking we are above and outside of nature.

We can but try...

Om Shanti
Neil

Quote

Hi Neil,

I always read your posts appreciate your honest and sincere sharing.

Warmly
Trinity

Quote