This is probably the first presentation I've made of this nature
because the majority of my work surrounds the Zeitgeist Movement
or things that are related to my film series
but I've tailored this very carefully to
what I felt the audience of this event would find interesting.
The working title as noted in the program is:
'When Normality Becomes Distortion: Reflections on a World Gone Mad'
but as the talk developed I experimented with a few other
less sensationalized titles to see what would work better.
The 2nd one I came up with was
'When Intuition Fails: The Inevitable Breakdown of Human Assumption
and its Social Consequences'.
Not bad, a bit too wordy, though
so when I finished the presentation
it struck me to have a little more intellectual one
'Limited Dimensional Thought in a Multi-Dimensional Reality'.
All right, annoyingly intellectual but still OK.
Regardless, I point this out so you can make your own decision
which title you think is more applicable
because they cognitively highlight different context
of what I am going to present here.
As far as myself, as introduced, it's usually at this point
I might say something about who I am, my credentials and experience
as though frankly, any of us should care.
One of the great failures of critical thought
is the assumption of authority around a given data set.
People might think "This person's considered an expert in a given field
due to the standard set forth by culture, so therefore
I can just trust blindly anything they say
without critical evaluation."
A rather ominous perspective and I think most would agree
a large number of atrocities historically can be found
sourced to this blind dedication to the statements
of supposed authority.
Who am I? I'm just like you.
I'm a compiler and a messenger.
You should have no faith in anything I say here
and rather be prepared to critically assess
whatever issues noted on your own accord
within the bounds of your logical reasoning and training.
As I will expand upon later in this talk
there is actually no such thing as the origin of any information.
I view knowledge as a life form in and of itself.
There is no empirical source
and it evolves and multiplies just like any other organism
utilizing the vehicle of our collective human experience: transference
and like biological evolution it is self-correcting.
Any false thought will eventually
(even after long struggles) be seen by the environment and
selected out by the collective awareness
or what could also be called 'The Group Mind'
which I will talk about again a little bit later.
Furthermore, the premise of this talk regards
not the specifics of any discipline of knowledge or understanding
but the mechanics of it
specifically the nature of its change.
I'm less interested in what people think and more interested in
how they came to think it, and how they maintain it as valid.
This talk will not only consider such frames of reference
as they're often called
frames of reference individual people utilize
to generate and support their decisions and beliefs
but also the larger order institutions
that arise from those referential assumptions
once they are shared by a large enough group of people
to define social normality
which is the status quo that we all know.
Then the status quo practices will be qualified or even quantified
against what we could haphazardly call 'Our Objective Reality'
which will draw its assumptions from a completely different referential benchmark
than most of the population of the world is familiar with
a frame of reference we have come to know as 'The Scientific Method'.
You'll notice I said haphazardly termed an objective reality. Why?
Because the concept of objective can only be hyperbole, right?
How could we possibly be so arrogant to assume
at any point in time in human history
that we have ever been empirically right?
It simply hasn't happened yet, if you take the broad view.
It wasn't until the past couple of hundred years
that The Scientific Method has barely been taken seriously
with respect to human affairs and society.
What is the core mechanism of the Scientific Method, really?
Self-correction.
Self-correction through testing and logical calculation and hypothesis.
The self-correction attribute of science is what enables its evolution.
There is no recognized phenomenon
that isn't undergoing a constant change of definition
as the evolution of knowledge continues.
Truth itself is an emergent distinction.
It's not a noun; it's more of a verb
which constitutes an approach towards reality
but never, ever, getting there.
That said
it's obvious that we're doing something right.
The fact that this building we're in hasn't collapsed upon us means
we have been able to come in harmony with some kind of
natural physical law that exists beyond our control.
The fact that we understand to a certain degree how our bodies work
creating medicines that can help us
in positive ways over statistical time
shows that we are indeed in some kind of alignment
with what we call nature
as opposed to blaming our sickness on gods and demons
as we did in the past
as this organism of knowledge continues to evolve.
There does seem to be a pre-existing logic
(this is important to note because people take this for granted)
a logic which dictates our reality
doesn't give a damn what we think of it and impose upon it.
It appears we can either be vulnerable and align as best we can
and engage this harmony, or we can walk against it
fight it, to our personal and social disadvantage.
The unfortunate thing is
(as I will continue to address later in detail)
our basic social construct
as a whole, top to bottom
along with the dominant human values inherent to it that support it
appear to be firmly walking against
the natural order that exists (that we are slowly discovering)
becoming more and more decoupled from reality as it were
and hence, really, our life support.
For the sake of argument, I would like to quickly reduce human perception
into two basic modes of operations: emergent and traditional.
Today the traditional element is clearly the most dominant.
The cultural zeitgeist (no pun intended) is always based on
institutions that are tending to perpetuate themselves
non-emergent thought processes and their consequences.
Why? Because they're forms of psychological security, aren't they?
They're also forms of financial security.
Our whole society is actually based upon
institutional self-perpetuation
whether it's the preservation of a political administration
a corporation's market share and dominance
or even a religious demographic.
The traditional notion is so powerful
that the very act of questioning
is often met with disdain in the culture today.
Some, in their defense, have even gone so far to suggest
that all beliefs and values must be equal and respected
and they must be tolerated in the same element of quality.
Is that true? Are all values equal?
Does everyone have the right to believe
and act upon whatever they choose?
Are we all to respect everything others want us to?
If I put a gun to your head and have the value and belief
that you should die, is that acceptable to you?
Are you a bigot for not allowing me
to express my freedom of belief?
Obviously, values are not equal.
Some work and some don't
or more specifically, some represent a closer approximation
to reality and others do not.
The farther those values are from this natural order
the more destructive they often become
not just to the individual or group
but to all of us as a collective society.
There rests a distinct, social imperative
that is often ignored or feared.
The taboo associated with challenging what others think
under the still convenient notion that all values are equal
is simply not tenable.
You are partially responsible
for the thoughts and values of others
and they are responsible for yours.
There is nowhere to hide from the collective consciousness
and an underlying thesis of this presentation
is that until human society is able to
find and share a basic, common
working, responsible, near-empirical value set
we're basically doomed.
My hope here is to generate
a personal and social reflection
with respect to what you believe and why
eventually to be framed within the social context I keep alluding to.
It will be argued that the failure of emergent perception
to be open and listen to the world we live in
rather than impose upon it
with these traditional assumptions we blindly hold as empirical
is the psychological root of the problems we see in the world today:
environmental, social.
It is a value system disorder
that is continually created and reinforced
by the social system we inhabit and share ideologically
and if uncorrected, it could lead
to the collapse of human society as we know it today.
A collapse which (if you're paying attention)
is accelerating right now across the world
fueled again by a set of detrimental
perspectives that go largely unrecognized
like cancer cells go unrecognized to an immune system.
In 1884, a unique book was published called 'Flatland'
and apart of some very clever social commentary
the work gave a perspective of
what it would be like to live in a 2-dimensional reality
as opposed to the 3-dimensional one that we share.
One can go left and right, forward and back
but there was no such thing as up and down.
Perspective was hence restricted.
If something from the 3rd dimension was to come
and visit this 2-dimensional reality
the perception of that object would be confined
to the properties enabled by the 2-dimensional view.
A 3-dimensional object moving up and down
through the 2-dimensional plane, would be perceived by the inhabitants
as this mysterious mutating 2-dimensional line.
I would like to use this abstract notion
as a very loose metaphor with respect to cultural perception.
What if those in the 2-dimensional flatland
had actually always been in the 3-dimensional space
but their frame of reference was so limited
by the tools of measurement they had
their experience so consistent with the 2-dimensional world
their associated values so ingrained and stubborn as generations past
that they were simply unable to reconcile its presence
even though it was obviously there?
They might have even established whole philosophies
and institutions based on the appearance of their world
perhaps 'The Church of Squares'
or 'Linear Economics' or the party 'Line of Politics'.
But as time went on and their tools and education grew
the consequences of their perceptual folly started to manifest
and the beliefs and institutions they had created
started to draw a confusion and disorder as a natural evolution.
They might have thought "How could the very fabric
of our assumptions that we all share of this reality
that seem correct and almost provable over long periods of time
how could they actually be wrong?"
Around 200 BC a Greek mathematician named Eratosthenes
estimated the circumference of the planet Earth
likely the first mathematically to solidify that it was truly round and not flat
a rather dramatic finding since, it certainly looks flat, doesn't it?
In Psalm 93 of the Bible it states "The world is firmly established.
It cannot be moved." In another passage it states
"The sun rises and the sun sets and then hurries to rise again."
That would make sense too, wouldn't it?
After all, when you look at the sky it appears to be moving around us.
We still use that premise of thought in our language:
We still say 'up and down' when it's really 'out and in'.
We even still say 'sunrise' and 'sunset', interestingly enough.
It wasn't until Galileo
really introduced our now obvious heliocentric universe
solar system, excuse me
and it was confirmed, obviously
among much traditional controversy.
Since we're on the subject of the stars
(to continue this type of example as I inch into value systems that
might be shared in the common community)
one of the most persistent pastimes
of human indulgence since the beginning of recorded history
a practice that has generated a flourishing economic industry to this day
spreading across virtually all cultures
is the practice of astrology.
In Western astrology, the signs of the zodiac
depending on their positions at a certain time
are thought to have predictive power in some interpretive form
horoscopes, etc.
Astrology is so popular today across the world
that you can't really read a newspaper without finding a column on it.
I even tend myself to be asked what my sign is a few times a month
when I engage in different conferences. It's very, very common.
But what is the basic perceptual source of this belief
especially Western tradition?
It might as well be straight out of the book 'Flatland'.
First of all, the view of all constellations are seen as 2-dimensional
yet the luminance of those celestial bodies that make up those forms
are actually distributed across vast distances
in 3-dimensional space.
Constellations as we know them simply do not exist
outside of the prima facie pictures we see in the night sky.
Second, stars are not fixed as we came to understand.
They are born and they die like us.
It is the illusion of permanence given a
very short duration on this planet
in regards to human evolution in cosmic time
that we think these 2D pictures will be the same for eternity
holding empirical value.
Third, to reintegrate the 2D flaw:
It's only a fixed perception from the planet Earth.
If we are viewing these same stars from another side
of the Milky Way galaxy from a different angle
they would not represent anything close to the forms we see from here.
Despite the popular culture's interest
which is actually quite romantic given the deep yearning
to understand our place and relationship to the universe
(relationship by the way
is the most common definition of spirituality)
we are only left to realize that
in what I will call the 'Expanded Dimensional Reality'
debunking the limited dimensional perception
no different than thinking the world was flat or
that the sun moved around the Earth
most today won't argue those facts
as adamantly as they will argue their belief in astrology.
Another example of this limited dimensional perception
comes from the cultural characteristics
of the period of origin of certain ideas.
Just as the constellations still today
are recognized for their names after spoons
and oxcarts and scales and common animals
as opposed to space shuttles and TVs, laptops and smartphones
the projections of thought of any point in time
can only reflect the state of knowledge at that point in time.
It's a dead give-away.
The traditional religious systems of belief
contain the rhetoric, not of an advanced technological society
or a society of advancements in civil rights
or advanced medical treatments, no.
It contains the period-based, cultural values
that occurred thousands of years in the past.
Did God invent man or did man invent God?
Do the depictions of monotheistic gods appear like us?
Why do they? Why do they appear like us?
Why do they have tempers like man? Why are they emotional
and judgmental and volatile and retributive?
Why is it that monotheism is common to desolate, desert cultures
while polytheism is common to lush, diverse, rainforest cultures?
Is it random chance that nearly all the early gods of Greece and Egypt
actually related to natural phenomenon?
The sun, the moon, the stars, the ocean, water...
It's almost as though the minds of
those who created these stories and ideas
were trying to figure out what the natural world was and what it was doing
and they could only impose their culturally specific ideas upon them
as the organism of knowledge continued its evolution.
Why are the gods in traditional African religions black
and the gods in the West white? Why are the gods
of patriarchal societies always male?
And why is it that people born in the cultures
that support these beliefs tend to perpetuate them?
How often do you hear of an Arab person born in the Muslim culture
magically becoming Jewish as a child?
I'm sorry to stand in what could be a controversial opposition
to the beliefs of what are really billions of people
that ascribe to say astrology or theistic religious belief
but when the perceptual context of origin of these belief systems
are taken into account
we find a clear, limited, dimensional perception
cloaked as relevant through traditional perpetuation
denying the emergent nature of our reality.
This leads me to the true focus of this talk (believe it or not)
for the limited dimensional perception (and I apologize
for the annoying techno jargon but it's the best I come up with)...
This limited dimensional perception
is not limited to these obvious examples.
In the very fabric of modern society with respect to
our economic, legal and political system, is no different
not to mention the vast number of contemporary value distortions
that continue to masquerade as viable, applicable and normal.
How many people here are Republicans?
How many people here are Democrats?
How many people here are Independents?
How many people here reject all political parties
and find the political concept itself as outdated
unscientific and detrimental to social progress?
Wow!
How many people here are Capitalists?
How many people here are Socialists?
How many people here find such notions
to be equally as outdated, arbitrary and useless
with respect to truly efficient economic management? Thank you!
Just as people were born into a culture
that supports traditional, religious belief
tend to conform their values
and perpetuate those values without critical thought
so do almost all of us when it comes to
our modern social institutions
which we think are intellectually viable
and separate from the religious dogma.
Let's take government and politics.
Politics in Greek means of, for, or relating to citizens.
It's essentially a decision-making method of social operation
and while variance does exist, the most dominant form today
is that some kind of representative government
where the interests of the people are said to have some expression
through the representation.
In the United States
we are said to have a constitutional republic.
This is basically a form of representative democracy
which must govern within the confines of existing constitutional law
which is a fairly rigid set of preconceived declarations
that apply not only to the conduct of government
but also to the people.
Why not pure democracy?
Because pure democracy is 100 white men hanging one black man.
The originators of this country had a decent intuition
about the dangers of crowd mentality.
In the words of Thomas Jefferson "A democracy
is nothing more than mob rule where 51% of people
may take away the rights of the other 49%."
Democracy, to be applicable, is really contingent upon
the masses being educated about their environment
so their votes have quality.
Since that's very hard to qualify
a benchmark of 'rights'
hence the Constitution had to be created
to enable some form of regulation.
I hope that makes sense
because this train of thought is going to carry farther.
It's a benchmark.
The issue of a benchmark
as I'd like to present in this exercise
doesn't just occur with democracy.
It's also applicable to the monetary system
or the market system of monetary economics to be specific.
Today we have what is called a 'Free Market'.
It has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?
It seems to feed the same value association
we have regarding democracy
the so-called 'Freedom of Choice'.
The 'Free Market' means that through the movement of money
power and property can be bought and sold
the only limitation being the state of your wealth
your purchasing power, the actions of your competitors
and the laws created to maintain order within the system
and it's the law attribute that I find the most interesting.
This is the benchmark: the legislation
or the regulatory 'game rules' because it's just a game.
This benchmark regulation is inherent in both
the Free Market and democracy
two ideas based upon the broad, romantic view of free choice.
This to me is really interesting
for these benchmarks basically imply
some type of third party, external, empirical reality
an empirical reality that
would have to inherently be absent of some form of choice
and freedom for them to exist as they do.
Think about that for a moment.
It's a contradiction
and this contradiction can be seen as an influence
coming from the new emergent understandings
that arise to the evolution of knowledge
new experience-driven information
trying to self-correct prior beliefs
through trial-and-error or intuitive, step-by-step adaptation.
The very foundational premise
of democracy and the Free Market as far as theory
is intrinsically flawed. Obviously
something is missing, or many things are missing
because it can't work on its own.
It requires influence of a third-party decision process.
Democracy is contingent upon an informed public
along with certain ever-present rights
which are essentially there because it is assumed
that the public doesn't know them, but they should.
The Free Market requires third-party rules to maintain order
rules which often demand certain environmental safeties:
pollution and basic-efficiency protocols.
We all know that the system as it stands in the Free Market
left to its own devices would use up just about everything
as I will allude to here in a little while.
The system can't stand on its own; it will self-destruct.
These rules are needed
to protect the Free Market and democracy from itself
otherwise, they will self-destruct.
As an extended example, if it wasn't for the regulations existing
against corporate monopoly
the world would've been taken over by one corporation
a long, long time ago.
Despite the statistically void
utterly false notions perpetuated by economists
that the more 'free' the market, the more efficient
free market competition is one of the most hegemonic concepts
ever invented.
While mob-rule democracy (again, continuing our comparison)
can generate mass irrationality with no basis in reality
if not properly collared through rights and education.
I'm sorry to drill this in but it's very important.
By the way, I suggest a book called
'The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind'
if you want to read about how crowd mentality
can override independent thought in a very caustic way.
It's well documented that people lose their objectivity
and lose their sense of control when involved in mass-appeal.
That isn't just for a soccer riot. It happens through the media.
It happens through many different forms.
So, then...
What is this benchmark that we keep seeing?
What is really being referenced in the broad view? Using the example
of rights for democracy and regulation for the Free Market
what do those two issues really reach for?
It reaches for the natural order
or more operationally, Scientific Causality.
That is what is breaching through the concrete.
The most dangerous value we can have floating around the culture today...
(I hope everyone can really listen carefully to this)
most dangerous value we have floating around the culture today
is the idea that any of us have freedom of choice
or the right to our own opinion
especially when it comes to issues of human survival
and sustainability.
We cannot choose; we can only align
if we wish to survive and prosper, period.
There is simply no such thing as freedom
when the benchmark of Scientific Causality
is brought into the equation with respect to any action or goal.
The only caveat is the emergent uncertainty
of the evolution of knowledge
which does require a threshold of flexibility.
Why? Because we don't know everything
but we do seem to get closer and closer
to more empirical understandings as time moves forward.
Is there really any freedom
to how we organize our economy on a finite planet
if the goal is to create the most
efficient, sustainable means of production
distribution and regeneration?
No, there isn't.
Industry is a technical process, a calculation problem
where the variables of human needs
physical science and earthly resources
are brought into a single, regulatory equation.
The properties of our resources can be scientifically quantified now
strategically assessed as far as their purpose
strategically oriented as far as the design
and the most logical manner
distributed through the exact same logic of pure efficiency.
We have globalization on this planet! What the hell are we doing?
We're taking stuff from all over the world
exploiting labor, moving it around, wasting tons of energy
when we could easily develop production methods in local communities
where you'd save X-fold amount of energy.
The distance between elements moving is X-fold less...
It's insane
but yet, the system perpetuates that. That's for a larger order subject
that I've not enough time to go into).
We could strategically orient industry, in itself evident as we do
based on the physics of our reality in where things are.
We could enable in a efficiency never known before.
It becomes self-evident, and why would we possibly
with regard to sustainability, want to do anything less?
As counter-intuitive and culturally obtuse as it may seem
there is no freedom or opinion in our technical reality.
There is only the most efficient way up until now
and the rest, is simply, inefficient.
The definition of economy in Greek means: management of a household.
A reduction of waste and maximized efficiency is inherent
in this premise.
Is this the way our current free market system is operating?
Let's take a step back again. What drives the global economy?
Consumption, and the more the better.
More consumption means more jobs, better GDP
and hence enabling more consumption
through purchasing power that's enabled. Is that efficient?
Shouldn't preservation and reducing waste
be the basis of an economy of a finite planet by definition?
How can an economy based on the need for constant growth and turnover
and even an economy based on constant need of employment
be 'economizing' anything at all?
Then there's this thing called 'cost efficiency'.
Cost efficiency demands cutting expenses
to remain competitive in the market place.
Every single product created by any corporation today
without exception, is immediately inferior by design
for the market requirement to cut creation costs
in favor of lowering the output purchasing price
to maintain a competitive edge
automatically reduces the quality of any given item by default.
It is impossible to create the strategically best
long-lasting 'anything' in our society
and this translates into outrageous amounts of wasted resources.
Likewise, the same mechanism is also reinforcing
environmental disregard, depletion and pollution.
Everyone is trying to save money.
Why do you think they are really going to care about the environment?
The logic is against it.
We see this constant in the world today
among many other issues I could list.
If you take a moment to really step back and think about this
not only is this inefficiency a characteristic of the market model
it's actually the fundamental driver.
Having clean, unpolluted water in your home
might seem like a nice thing in gesture
but the fact that money is not being exchanged for that
is anathema to the economic sustainability that we've come to understand.
More pollution means more profit. More disease means more jobs
ad infinitum.
I would go so far to say as pointed out here that
sustainability, efficiency and preservation
empirically are the enemies of our economic system
and that's unfortunately, the firm reality.
Those out there who talk about a green economy
as though there is such a thing that could possibly exist in this system
posing solutions within this structural order
such as renewable energies, energy credits
carbon footprint stuff
they are not understanding what's actually at work here.
You cannot have a true green, or even close to
whatever you consider a sustainable economy
in the market model of economics.
It is technically impossible. The system would fail
if we ever wanted to operate on a truly technical, sustainable level
for the system is fueled
by the exact opposite set of mechanics.
I would even go so far to challenge
for those out there that basically
are not in favor of the complete abolition of the market economy
as the solution to the destruction of our environment not to mention
the collapse of the social order itself we are seeing
while working to replace this system with a truly technical approach
for resource management: proper scientific allocation
seeking the highest level of efficiency possible
at every turn in production and distribution
for maximum sustainability which is a technical distinction
including proper allocation of labor and everything else
really, we're just engaging in patchwork.
It's not going to do anything in the long run
and we're wasting time because time is literally running out.
This again, coming back to my premise
is the result of our limited dimensional perception.
We have based our economy on outdated notions of human behavior
and convoluted notions of supposed freedom
and ignored the true technical reality, true environmental reality
that actually supports and sustains our lives
and creates good public health.
This realization that our true economic benchmark
is science, and hence the self-evident
calculation requirement needed to streamline our efficiency
inherently voids the entire basis
of free market economics itself. I can't reiterate that enough
for it simply makes zero technical sense scientifically
and is provably
now working against our survival and accelerating.
Coming back to politics, let's take a quantum leap
outside of our traditional assumptions for a moment.
What does the political institution and government really do?
Why do we even have it?
They work to compensate for the inefficiency of the economy.
That's it! That's the only reason they're there.
When people are not getting their needs met
they often resort to so-called 'crime'
so, government invents laws to silence
those victims of the economic efficiency.
Likewise, if we need resources being held in another sovereign nation
aka region of the planet
and we are not economically getting along with them
we engage in war to steal those resources
not to mention protect ourselves
from others who might want to steal ours.
There is no war in history
that has not been based upon resource acquisition or protection.
Likewise, the world's divided into gangs, ever noticed that?
We still have these things called countries.
We still assume a socially Darwinistic pretense
with the very existence of these nation states
not to mention the divisive, patriotic value distortions
that are born out of it.
Here once again, we have the limited, dimensional perspective
clashing with an emergent, multi-dimensional reality.
Are countries relevant in technical terms?
How could we possibly define them outside of our opinions?
a) All humans share the same basic needs
and b) the resources that we all need
have no idea what a country is
and they are dispersed everywhere on this planet
in one single, unified ecosystem.
If there's anything positive that came out of the US and Russian
Cold War that almost triggered complete nuclear disaster decades ago
it was the realization that radiation fallout in nuclear winter
never heard of countries, flags or sovereignty.
Just as the pollution from the Japanese power plants
that melted down a while back
it didn't need passports to cross over to other countries' atmospheres.
I hope my point is clear. The fact is
there is only and can only be one global economy
and there is only one, and can only be one global society
for our economic premise is what defines us
and that's what our survival is.
The socioeconomic system of our time is
as archaic, dogmatically religious and pseudo scientific
as any dogmatic religious belief.
They are completely decoupled from the benchmark of
our scientific emergent reality which is being denied
held in place by traditional, non-emergent institutions
which, mark my words
will be what destroys life on this planet as we know it
if the multi-dimensional reality that is springing up
is not realized and brought to the surface quickly.
The central problem we face is that the economic system is actually
still systematically reinforcing itself
continuing to hold this paradigm in place
by the ongoing values and actions of the masses
who do not see the true source of the problem
because they're trapped inside of it
and they are accelerating its effects.
If anyone out there frames their sense of leadership
or success, based on money or a claim
you have a rude awakening coming to you.
I couldn't help but notice reading the pamphlet
of all the well-meaning presentations in this event
and they seem to frame things in a very similar way
as far as the way they orient themselves in this system.
I don't blame them and I don't put them down
but I hope this definition can eventually change.
What is true success?
Is success how well you manage your company
sell a book, gain a profit
or anything that engages the current socioeconomic paradigm?
If you agree with what I have just described
with respect to the economic system
those focusing on short term material success
might very well be assisting
in their own long term failure and demise
for they're only perpetuating a detrimental social system in the end
that will get the best of all of us if it isn't stopped.
Shouldn't true success be your ability to
adapt to the emergence of new information
improving your relationship with the natural order benchmark
that we've spoken of?
Is there really anything else that that can possibly
define success in the broadest possible terms?
Proper alignment with whatever reality happens to be
advancing itself and you being with it.
Do our relationships and marriages and bank accounts
and even our children, our status, our acclaim
really mean anything when it's stepped back to a larger order
of what it means to relate to the world that you live in?
There's a common term we frequently hear these days: corruption.
It seems to be all over the news and you can't possibly escape it.
How would you define corruption, broadly?
I would define it
as the initiation or support of deprivation
exploitation and/or abuse
either social or environmental.
If this definition is accepted
then it is logically correct to say
that all acts of commerce are inherently corrupt.
If you define corruption as deprivation, exploitation or abuse
every time you mark up a value on a good you sell
or cut corners to save money
you are engaging in deprivation, exploitation and abuse
by its systemic causal effect and intrinsic rationale.
That is the behavior our social system requires to continue
and that distortion is currently masked as normality.
In conclusion
and as a final rogue example of this
limited, dimensional perspective
meaning an emergent, multi-dimensional reality
that is forcing its hand
there is no 'you' and there is no 'me'.
We live in a world which assumes division, why?
Because that is what we perceive with our five senses
limited sense organs
but molecular study has proven the opposite.
It doesn't see it that way.
There is a perpetual ebb and flow and exchange in the molecular data
constantly happening within you and outside of you
interweaving with your environment at all times on many levels.
Concurrently, our life support is explicitly symbiotic as well.
We need resources to live and
the connection to our evolutionarily adapted habitat
that basically created us over generational time.
There's absolutely no disconnect.
In the words of Jacque Fresco
"You don't see the plug up our ass
but it happens to be there."
And then we have...
Then we have the knowledge level as well
as I alluded to before.
We exist in a group mind.
Newton did not invent gravity
just as Einstein did not invent relativity.
For him to do so, he would have had to invent
the whole of mathematical development since the beginning of time
along with all the tools and supporting provisions
and everything else that comprised his state of knowledge
naturally, at that point in history.
Every word coming out of my mouth has been learned.
We only have the illusion of novelty
because each of us appear
to originate in seemingly separate pockets of experience
in this connected unison that we share.
Our supposed creations seem unique and original
and novel but they're only expansions.
As stated at the beginning, there's nowhere to hide
from the collective consciousness and we're all responsible for each other.
The underlining meaning of this presentation
is that, until human society again is able to find
a basic, common, working, responsible value set
which we can basically agree upon
which is consistently pinged against the emerging benchmark
of our scientific reality
we have a very difficult road ahead.
Within this context, as we listen to the world around us
I consider the most active value orientation we can have
which almost guarantees an empathetic reaction
which hopefully can maintain this social diligence that's required
I consider the acceptance of our intrinsic unification
to be the most powerful form of expression of these ideas:
an acknowledgment of the oneness as it is poetically termed.
This oneness over division value
seems to be the ultimate example (at least in this point in time)
of our limited dimensional perception
being overcome by the multi-dimensional reality
and if properly understood
there could be no basis for war.
There could be no logic for greed.
There could be no such thing as inefficiency and waste
no basis for poverty. There can't possibly be class
and as abstract and misunderstood as it might sound
there could be no basis to define you
and there could be no basis to define me.
Thank you.