Language is not a static medium – it changes and the meanings of words and even their spelling change constantly; gay, wicked, cool mean different things depending how old you are.
My editor is older than me and American, she finds some of my ‘English’ difficult. I find her difficult but that’s her role to tame my prose so that other people can understand me. She does that very well and my idiosyncrasies become intelligible. We are all herded to believe what words mean often by constant repetition. The control systems steer us in their direction. They want confrontation and division. We are steered constantly and meanings are imposed.
I notice some amusing juxtapositions that are starting to occur in America. The old one eighty degree turn. Liberals are now the bad guys. A liberal attitude toward anything means more tolerance for change. There are many meanings for liberal, but they mostly have to do with freedom and openness. But that isn’t so in America at the moment. Conservatives and right wingers are the good guys? Conservatives are averse to change or innovation and hold traditional values. The change has crept in over the years. It used to be the communists but communism was killed. The radical idea of sharing resources equally isn’t in the plan. America won and yet it is no longer powerful although strangely the Russian’s are and are bad guys again, that is if you believe the propaganda.
It’s actually very funny if you old enough to have the perspective to observe it. It doesn’t really mean anything – well nothing important. It is just a reversal required to prevent an unpalatable philosophy for those still in charge. They still believe the sheeple don’t even notice and are led by the nose. That is no longer the case. Neither viewpoint is perfect, they are both exclusive rather than inclusive and only there to create sides. We should be on one or the other even though they are both controlled by the same people and only the visible players actually change.
Our attitude to politics is very important to those in charge. It is argued that we are irresponsible if we aren’t choosing sides. It reminds me of the excuses for war and its projected positive values; protecting our freedom. The warmongers fail to mention you aren’t actually free, which is not the same as having free will. If you think you are free then perhaps you have some more to learn. When we engage we don’t notice that the game is fixed. We also give our tacit agreement for the game to be played. We let it happen and our will is subverted.
This applies to most things – if it works why change it. It is why there usually only a small number of choices because too many makes it harder to control. None of the sides solve the problem. They are the problem. At the visible top those who appear to control do as they are told by an invisible authority. The top level is often shuffled around but as I said only the visible players change.
Engaging at the level of this problem is dangerous as many have discovered, most are now dead. Even Gandhi the epitome of non violence was gunned down. That is not how you deal with the situation. His playing their game ethically and honestly led to partition. Engaging at their level then doesn’t work. If Gandhi in spite of his integrity still couldn’t do it then who can. What he managed very well was to hi-light the situation but essentially very little changed. The British were kicked out of India and it looked like he’d won but in actuality the divisions were made wider and is still there today. We encounter this problem globally. You cannot solve a problem at the level of the problem, you need to engage at the level of its solution.
To change everything profoundly requires a very different approach. We need to go above any kind of interaction and work at a more profound level. Gandhi did that too to a certain extent but the time wasn’t ready for ahimsa. It’s actually easier now partly because of him, I still revere him, mainly for his honesty more than for what he did. We have grown and our awareness has changed. It doesn’t require any physical intervention. That is an illusion we are fed. At the gross level it will change naturally once the change has been implemented at a more profound level. It is very much a case of do less and accomplish more.
It is not easy to define what the process is but it uses the ability we possess to create harmony using our consciousness. It is our true nature – that is pure love. It is not really using the mind other than we make a decision to participate. We are capable of creating coherence that effects all of creation simply by merging and aligning with all that is. We do that at a level that transcends our normal world. We reach the right place usually through meditation. The more people that are involved the better but it doesn’t require large numbers. Coherence is powerful. A small number of magnetised particles can effect a huge number that aren’t – they will all align because the magnetism induces a field that turns them all into magnets. We can do that. The actual number of people required is very small considering our worlds population, just over a hundred thousand. We are not all capable of clear focus so it will need a few more but compared to the billions of people alive it is a very small number. Our power is in our awareness focused as one. If we all desire it peace and advancement will happen.
You can join in every week, to do this go here.
You don’t need to know how to meditate; for a Guided Youtube meditation go here. You can observe your breath to allow your awareness to settle when told to do so at the start.