Hope, fear and the future

[Keit]

"...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." - That seems rather hedonistic and STS, an attitude that is imprinted on our epigenetics, especially in the west.

I think "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" actually makes a pretty good rough set of values. "Happiness" can be defined more broadly as something like "wellbeing" or "eudaemonia" rather than "pleasure" or "instant gratification".

My favorite definition of happiness is as was described by JFK:

"Happiness, as defined by the Greeks, is "the exercise of vital powers along lines of excellence in a life affording them scope."

 

[herondancer]

"...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." - That seems rather hedonistic and STS, an attitude that is imprinted on our epigenetics, especially in the west.

I think "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" actually makes a pretty good rough set of values. "Happiness" can be defined more broadly as something like "wellbeing" or "eudaemonia" rather than "pleasure" or "instant gratification".

My favorite definition of happiness is as was described by JFK:

"Happiness, as defined by the Greeks, is "the exercise of vital powers along lines of excellence in a life affording them scope."

That's a good definition, but then the next question would be to what end? George Soros is "exercising his vital powers", and doing very well at it on a global scale, but bringing misery to untold millions. Given JFK's outlook, it's likely he assumed that such activity would be on behalf of one's fellow man, but that's not how it generally goes. Does Soros count himself as happy? Probably, but only because the consequences of his actions are of no concern to him. If he had a conscience, he could still apply his talents, but his activities would play out differently with respect to those affected by them.

 

[Mr. Premise]

"...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." - That seems rather hedonistic and STS, an attitude that is imprinted on our epigenetics, especially in the west.

I think "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" actually makes a pretty good rough set of values. "Happiness" can be defined more broadly as something like "wellbeing" or "eudaemonia" rather than "pleasure" or "instant gratification".

My favorite definition of happiness is as was described by JFK:

"Happiness, as defined by the Greeks, is "the exercise of vital powers along lines of excellence in a life affording them scope."

That's a good definition, but then the next question would be to what end? George Soros is "exercising his vital powers", and doing very well at it on a global scale, but bringing misery to untold millions. Given JFK's outlook, it's likely he assumed that such activity would be on behalf of one's fellow man, but that's not how it generally goes. Does Soros count himself as happy? Probably, but only because the consequences of his actions are of no concern to him. If he had a conscience, he could still apply his talents, but his activities would play out differently with respect to those affected by them.

Well the STS orientation is valid, too. If there's liberty and the pursuit of happiness then the STS types are going to do it their way. Balance and all that.

 

[Buddy]

Well the STS orientation is valid, too. If there's liberty and the pursuit of happiness then the STS types are going to do it their way. Balance and all that.

When I was reading in the subject area of General Semantics I couldn't help but wonder something like: if this information is available and has been in the public arena for so long, why don't people know it and agree on definitions of abstract words and phrases like, "liberty and the pursuit of happiness?"

I think I pretty much figured out that you have to take into account a person's orientation at the same time that you read or hear their use of language. For example, among people who might consciously see each other as benevolent and exchange oriented, words like liberty and happiness can be used with general agreement about what is meant even without strict, rigorous definitions. The same words used by a Machiavellian, sociopath, or sado-masochist might mean totally different - even opposite - things, yet be completely understood by those of that ilk.

I don't know if I'm making the point correctly. I'm not meaning to be preaching to the choir here, just trying to say I'd sure like to see general education on that topic in every school from kindergarten on up. If ever in doubt about meanings among a particular group of people, I suppose an appeal can always be made to basic human values that everyone shares and that can be shown to exist without any doubt.

 

[herondancer]

Well the STS orientation is valid, too. If there's liberty and the pursuit of happiness then the STS types are going to do it their way. Balance and all that.

Fair point. Soros is free to exercise his abilities as he chooses, even if it includes infringing mightily on the welfare of others. The others learn the lesson (hopefully) of how not to allow his ilk to infringe on their welfare. Easier said than done of course, since this world is stacked in favour of STS. 3D 101 so to speak.

When I was reading in the subject area of General Semantics I couldn't help but wonder something like: if this information is available and has been in the public arena for so long, why don't people know it and agree on definitions of abstract words and phrases like, "liberty and the pursuit of happiness?"

I think I pretty much figured out that you have to take into account a person's orientation at the same time that you read or hear their use of language. For example, among people who might consciously see each other as benevolent and exchange oriented, words like liberty and happiness can be used with general agreement about what is meant even without strict, rigorous definitions. The same words used by a Machiavellian, sociopath, or sado-masochist might mean totally different - even opposite - things, yet be completely understood by those of that ilk.

I don't know if I'm making the point correctly. I'm not meaning to be preaching to the choir here, just trying to say I'd sure like to see general education on that topic in every school from kindergarten on up. If ever in doubt about meanings among a particular group of people, I suppose an appeal can always be made to basic human values that everyone shares and that can be shown to exist without any doubt.

You've made your point very well. Ponerology talks about the 'hollowing out' of an ideology and the covert shift in the meanings of the group's vocabulary as psychopaths infiltrate a well-meaning organization. G. also talked about how terminology is precisely defined in the inner circles of Work, and that everyone understands the same way. The exoteric world was described as a Tower of Babel, where no one understands anyone else, because the same word means different things to different people.

 

[Gwenllian]

Lately I just wish that what we do and the choices we have made had some clear effect on the world at large and don't turn out to be just for the benefit of a few of us (those of us who have obviously benefited from the shared knowledge and experiences), like the Cs have suggested many times (that this group is somehow important in the bigger picture). Otherwise what would be the point? And I reply to myself that whatever the effect is, it's probably not something that we are going to see on this lifetime, that it will be for future generations. So, faith is what keeps me: in that this is meaningful even if we don't see it.

That's how I see the work and influence of Caesar, JFK, RK, MLK, some African leaders, and many others. It looks as if they have disappeared from the face of the earth, but that is not true. Their ideas have lived on and they still give meaning to our lives, 50, even 2,000 years later. That is probably the butterfly wings effect? I only came to appreciate the work of Hugo Chávez and Gaddafi after their death, but somehow they are part of me in a way I could never have imagined.

What you and others say here Windmill knight greatly reminds me of the selflessness of the Valerie character in the film 'V for Vendetta'. Having lost all of her freedom and being on the edge of death because of how the pathocratic regime has experimented on her, Valerie writes and shares her life story to V on scraps of toilet paper. V is no one to her personally. He's another victim on the other side of a cell wall where they are both held captive. Valerie shares her incredible losses and life's trials with V; the loss of her creative outlets, her parents disowning her, the snatching away of the love of her life at the hands of the police state. And finally, the loss of her liberty and her health at the hands of the same forces that stole her love and happiness away from her. But what she doesn't lose is her dignity and her being. In the face of horrific treatment that would and should break anyone, she gives V all that she has left: her love and appreciation of life despite all its pain, and her love and support of V; a total stranger.

The tragedy is that Valerie dies a terrible diseased death, but her words and her message live on in V. And later, V tries to convey this same message to Evey by recreating the experience for her that gave V the strength, love and conviction to go on and commit to facing reality - and attempt to respond to it. That's what I take from the film, and it gets me every time. I don't think I've been so touched by anything I've ever seen in a film as I have from those scenes in 'V for Vendetta'.

We can be so attached and identified with receiving a payoff - and wanting to see the outcome of things right away, that the faith in something far greater and far better has been programmed right out of most people. But that's certainly where hope and faith come in. And doing something about it too. Today we had journalist Joachim Hagopian as a guest on the radio show. I don't think he's delved much into the forum here or read the books that have formed the basis of what we know, and yet he was giving voice to so many things that seemed right on the money. I should add that the guy knows well how dire the geopolitical situation is. More than most I would say. Anyway, one of the things he said towards the end was that even if he doesn't live through what's coming, at least he would be able to go into the next world with his head high and having done what he could. I think that's a very laudable goal and something of a responsibility that many of us are choosing to take on in our own ways; for others and for ourselves.

Hagopian's comments and the fictional Valerie's selflessness are just a couple of things that can be used to inspire us. What we do doesn't have to look like their examples, but their spirit and good will exists here in some form. And it exists, too, in the world of people who don't know this place. We can also be inspired by the truly massive amounts of hard work that have gone into creating a space for us to communicate these things to each other. And can honor it by doing our best to be very brave and active in the face of things to come.

These are inspirational examples, Ennio and I very much agree. V for Vendatta touches me deeply every time, too, probably also on levels I do not even comprehend. There are also a few scenes in Lord of the Rings and a German movie about the life of Sophie and Hans Scholl that have moved me a great deal.

Added: I think I read a quote on SOTT or here somewhere about true leadership. A great leader does his thing and the people who benefit from his skills and leadership think that their accomplishments are entirely of their own doing! Not realising it would not have been possible without his guidance.
I tend to forget sometimes what Laura and her family (because they sustain her) have done for us. So, thanks Joe, for reminding us.

 

[David]

Well the STS orientation is valid, too. If there's liberty and the pursuit of happiness then the STS types are going to do it their way. Balance and all that.

Fair point. Soros is free to exercise his abilities as he chooses, even if it includes infringing mightily on the welfare of others. The others learn the lesson (hopefully) of how not to allow his ilk to infringe on their welfare. Easier said than done of course, since this world is stacked in favour of STS. 3D 101 so to speak.

Well the world seems quiet out of balance.... and some say there’s more knowledge about, if that is the case, and knowledge is not applied as if one had a dressing for a festering wound and didn’t apply it, its unlikely to get any better... just more out of balance.

And in America the guys who are entrusted with the welfare of its people, can say something like “... if it were fact then it wouldn’t be intelligence” what hope is there for the future. (SOTT.net)

Maybe were done as a species... hope of consciousness, Hmmm

Perhaps in such a world a “Man must use what he has, not hope for what is not.” G.I Gurdjieff

I guess even misery is useful, could hope in the usual way, but just seems like wallowing in it... instead of just doing something constructive with it, within it.

 

[sitting]

And in America the guys who are entrusted with the welfare of its people, can say something like “... if it were fact then it wouldn’t be intelligence” what hope is there for the future.

The guy who made that remark, is in for some serious soul smashing I think.

Rehabilitation, or reincarnation is likely off the table for these types. His smugness by itself -- is enough to turn one's stomach. Not to mention the arrogance.

My guess is some of it springs from his likely in-depth knowledge & involvement in the earthly handling of the ET presence. Knowing what he knows, having control & access ... is perhaps a contributing factor to his demeanor. I realize this ET challenge to humanity, is not a simple issue, but he sure has made a mess of things in the world. Causing massive suffering -- to masses of people. With zero accountability.

No matter how highly he thinks of himself (now an app developer no less!) he's but a speck (a dirty speck) in the eyes of the universe. And soul smashing is likely to be his fate.

I could be wrong.

FWIW.

 

[Windmill knight]

And in America the guys who are entrusted with the welfare of its people, can say something like “... if it were fact then it wouldn’t be intelligence” what hope is there for the future.

The guy who made that remark, is in for some serious soul smashing I think.

That would be Donald Rumsfeld:

http://www.sott.net/article/311051-Watch-Stephen-Colbert-extract-stunning-answer-from-Donald-Rumsfeld-on-case-for-Iraq-War-VIDEO

But then again you would need to think that he's got a soul in the first place for it to be smashed.

 

[Joe]

And in America the guys who are entrusted with the welfare of its people, can say something like “... if it were fact then it wouldn’t be intelligence” what hope is there for the future.

The guy who made that remark, is in for some serious soul smashing I think.

That would be Donald Rumsfeld:

http://www.sott.net/article/311051-Watch-Stephen-Colbert-extract-stunning-answer-from-Donald-Rumsfeld-on-case-for-Iraq-War-VIDEO

But then again you would need to think that he's got a soul in the first place for it to be smashed.

Indeed. That creature has nothing to lose by being the embodiment of evil.

 

[sitting]

But then again you would need to think that he's got a soul in the first place for it to be smashed.

I believe if it isn't soul smashing, it'll be something else. Even more dire perhaps.

Karma is ALL pervasive (with no easy outs or exceptions.) Karma is I think the fundamental algorithm for universe construction ... and our experiential part in it. It's what drives the mosaic structure, of which the butterfly effect is one metaphor. Everything affects everything else.

This guy is unlikely to escape paying his due. I like to see him take a few drops of iodine.

But I could be wrong.

FWIW.

 

[sitting]

Indeed. That creature has nothing to lose by being the embodiment of evil.

C's once gave revealing glimpses, into the dynamics of the ET challenge to humanity.

They said GHW Bush at one time tried to get details on the Philadelphia experiment ... but was denied. (This implied the experiment itself was real.) They then said cattle mutilations were done by the gov't sometimes, so as to throw researchers off track.

The C's explained the gov't felt this necessary in order to prevent human society from exploding -- if the truth came out. Vietnam, the Cold War (for ex.) were essentially wars of deception. To distract. Wow!

It's quite possible those dealing with this challenge (Rumsfeld?) -- face what are essentially hellish choices. Like the death of millions being preferable to the destruction of billions? It's a dilemma in the extreme ... and perhaps one that cannot be avoided. (It is a dilemma that C A Fitts had once alluded to -- though not in great detail.)

Now this in no way absolves these people of their guilt. But it is something to think about.

Here I could be very very wrong.

FWIW.

 

[Windmill knight]

It's quite possible those dealing with this challenge (Rumsfeld?) -- face what are essentially hellish choices. Like the death of millions being preferable to the destruction of billions? It's a dilemma in the extreme ... and perhaps one that cannot be avoided. (It is a dilemma that C A Fitts had once alluded to -- though not in great detail.)

Now this in no way absolves these people of their guilt. But it is something to think about.

I think that when these types of people are faced with such dilemmas what crosses their mind is saving their own skins. The Cs also commented that Tony Blair's drive for war had to do with him being promised a place in 'the rapture' when the real catastrophes come.

 

[sitting]

The Cs also commented that Tony Blair's drive for war had to do with him being promised a place in 'the rapture' when the real catastrophes come.

Yes.

Bribery is one means of getting compliance. If not, then threats. If not still, assassination. I think we've seen cases of all three.

The underground bases (the human kind) are most likely intended for that purpose. But if the C's are to be believed, that's a false hope. A wrong ticket -- if it doesn't say "conduit express."

The real solution (they've emphasized) is through the mind ... as in achieving higher & more refined frequency vibrations. So as to make that quantum jump into the 4th level of density. This is a ticket no money can buy. And no one can give. Obtainable only through one's own desire, intent, effort -- and within the framework of knowledge - love - and compassion.

To me, this is one of the truly great revelations from Laura's work. And if this doesn't give hope & inspiration, then I don't know what else can.

I could be wrong.

FWIW.

 

[T.C.]

I discussed the "shoulds" against the "wants" with my therapist, and she mentioned that using imperatives such as "should, have to" etc - takes away our power in a way that we forget that we DO have a choice. It is a choice to make, rather than feeling compelled to do something, so replacing it with I want is a really good idea.

I think this is a really important thing from the view of growing up. If we're running on 'shoulds' all the time, it's almost like our motivations are ruled by an internalised parent. A 'chores' example fits nicely: I should clean the house is like our parent saying to us, "you've got to clean your room"; there's a sense of negative outside consequence to it, as well; whereas, I want to clean the house comes from a more self-actualised and self-knowing, more grown-up place - I have self-respect and I want to live in a clean and tidy house that reflects a care for myself, and I'll feel great for having done something constructive and useful.