An open space for global conversation
IF THERE's ONE THING I'D LIKE TO SEE COME OUT OF THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT ...
... It would be to define it's purpose around a quantum change in the model(s) for money and its role in world economies. With this objective positioned clearly and correctly, we could begin to create alternative money system(s) and have the force of the Occupy people behind it to support it's emergence within varied global economies. Even if the old system is still in play.
Rather than force the one's in power to change their hand, we instead build another system IN PARALLEL with the existing. It is possible to have adjacent money systems and correlating economies actively running at the same time. In fact, this approach of building anew, rather than tearing down the old, is really the only way to allow transformation to happen without overwhelming levels of bloodshed. We need an 'evolution', not another 'revolution'. Let's not try to stop the existing one. Let's spend our energy building a new one.
That said, realize that there are already thousands of alternative currencies trying to make headway around this objective within many communities around the world. They are an outcome of so many of us no longer being able to access the existing money systems. However, what these community currencies do not have is an aligned effort, such as what the Occupy Movement can provide.
To the above end, I want to share a powerful series on youtube called "The Money Masters" which very effectively unveils the story of how money works and the men that manipulate it. If we are to implement new economic systems, as well as new symbols (money) to reflect them, we must first thoroughly understand the existing system in order to create a new one that isn't the same thing with a different cover. Please watch this series and give me your feedback on what you learn. "THE MONEY MASTERS" http://ning.it/vnQq2N
Also I would very much appreciate your feedback on how we could begin an internal movement inside the Occupy movement that 'moves' toward my proposal above.
Who is interested in what I am proposing here?
What are your comments?
"there 'may' be a macro-currency system that allows for exchanges across micro-currencies between each other, but that is very different than the elitist-controlled national set of currencies that exist today."
Cui bono. Who benefits? Some one or ones must control the global exchange system and they become the new defacto elite.
The word money came from the Latin word "moneta" which originally meant, "warning."
"Money is a new form of slavery, and distinguishable from the old simply by the fact that it is impersonal – that there is no human relation between master and slave." - Leo Tolstoy
"Money plays the largest part in determining the course of history" - Karl Marx (Communist Manifesto)
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790
Money was not slavery until people made money from money .. then it became slavery.
When people made money from money it became usury.
When people worked to glean their sustenance, they were free.
When people worked so that someone would pay them in some form of currency, they became slaves.
The American Civil War was not fought to abolish slavery (honest Abe said as much) - it was fought to substitute wage slavery for chattel slavery, and this was called progress.
I agree with all your points except the derivative of slavery. It was not money that created the slavery. It was the money-maker's intent and desire for riches and power that created the slavery. No matter what we put into place, I have yet to see a good enough check-and-balance system that can alter (altar) a greedy man's inexhaustible desire to control and manipulate his/her world ... until each in their own time awakens. We have a longggggg ways to go.
Money - as a symbolic medium of exchange, unit of account and store of value - was not necessary when humans gleaned their sustenance needs directly from the environment and engaged in direct local trade with other tribes.
Money was invented as a means of abstracting the value of work from the function of subsistence, so that it could be controlled and traded by a non-productive elite to who common workers became peasants, serfs, chattel slaves and later tenant farmers and industrial employees.
There is no need for money unless there is surplus value to store and account for. Surplus value = profit. Profit equals control and concentration of wealth, which effectively enslaves the productive class to the non-productive class (elites).
As to your reply: "The one thing that is not in the equations is this >> Consciousness"
You're wrong. Quantum theory requires a conscious observer. No "thing" or "event" manifests in a single, stable quantum state until it is observed by a conscious agent. Quantum superposition (objects being in two places at the same time), entanglement (permanent connectivity irrespective of time and distance) and nonlocality (ability for information to travel instantaneously across vast distances) perfectly explain and require the reality of the consciousness phenomena we have called extra-sensory perception, mind control, out-of-body experience - or psi phenomena.
Quantum science comes closest to mirroring, if not explaining, much of the world's mystical tradition. This has been revealed and examined since Fritjof Capra's seminal book, The Tao of Physics (1975).
It is not possible to have a sustainable economy while the systemic flaws of the old one are still in place. We can address the systemic flaws within the old by forcing it through the development of alternative economies. But I don't see how this is possible either when the worldview that supports the current economic system is so strong.
I believe that we have to address the primal cause of ALL of our social ills, and that doesn't have to do with economics. That has to do with our taking it upon ourselves to learn about what is happening in quantum science and its related field that is now called gnostic science - of the study of consciousness. It turns out that our understanding of what a human being IS and how the mind works is VERY different from what science is showing us about those same things.
By understanding how powerful the individual IS and how to access that power, we bypass the fear that is used by the one percent to manipulate us. This makes the transition easier for the individuals. At the same time, by accessing the power of the group, we have a second level of power at our disposal. Much of this information has been proven with more scientific studies than there are studies verifying that an aspirin will take away headache pain.
I don't want to fight symptoms of the cause of the problems. I want to establish a more sane worldview -- one that is consistent with science. Only from that framework can an economic system be developed.
"I don't see how this is possible either when the worldview that supports the current economic system is so strong."
I couldn't agree more, but the objectified, analytical worldview that is both the basis of and is perpetuated by science, coupled with the faith in science as the only or best approach to truth, is at the very core of the existing paradigm. The scientific endeavor is based on the false premise that all truth or reality is knowable through the logical and empirical power of the mind, and that knowledge gained through any mode not based on logic and controlled experiment is suspect at best if not outright false or fraudulent.
The practical handmaiden of science is technology. Science is the quest for complete intellectual knowledge of the Universe and technology offers the tools for mastery and control of the natural world. This is the paradigm that has brought us to the brink of global destruction.
Long before H. Ron Hubbard, Allen Upward coined "Scientology" In 1901 as a disparaging term to indicate a blind, unthinking acceptance of scientific doctrine. I consider the current, mainstream acceptance of science as the one and only true path to salvation as the modern variant of Scientology - a limiting ideology, rather than open door.
The great innovators in science had a far broader understanding of the nature of reality and of knowledge than the disciples who followed in their wake, and left us some valuable insights. But they did not foolishly worship science as we do today.
Though I agree that science has become a religion for some, it is not for all, and it is in that schism that separates religion and science that I am convinced we will find the solution that we are looking for.
I bring up science in order to introduce logical thought into the conversation. I find too many who are working very hard to keep core systems in place even though it is the core system that is creating all of the symptoms that we are fighting against. I find this rather irrational.
The new science (gnostic science for short) is exploring consciousness and has been successful at quantifying the information that proves that our core assessment of who and what a human being IS, is far different from what most people believe. We've made a mistake. The gnostic science is populated largely, though not exclusively, by quantum physicists who recognize that this information opens doors of opportunity by returning power to the individual.
A religion is merely the institutionalization of a cultural paradigm (which is the accepted filter through which the world is perceived and understood). Human cultural evolution moved from animism to pantheism, to polytheism to monotheism and - more recently - to deism and atheism as the power and effectiveness of the scientific method of rationally considering an objectified world reduced both the need and the willingness to rely on a divine origin or intervention.
Deism (the "clockwork universe") and atheism ("it's just us alone with our own intellectual abilities") are as fundamental to the scientific worldview as is materialism. The scientific perspective is, most assuredly, the currently reigning institutionalized paradigm - and hence the new religion, whether practitioners and acolytes recognize it as such or not. It is worshiped at all the cathedrals of "higher education", it is indoctrinated into every child in their schooling, and even modern theists are forced to assimilate it to various degrees into their theologies - such as through the theory of "intelligent design".
So, in fact, there is no more "schism" between science and religion than there is between Catholicism and Protestantism or between Theism and Deism. It is merely one mindset superseding the previous dominant one. Most of the great scientists were deists, just as were most of America's founders.
Gnostic Science, however, is hardly a "new" science, since it has roots back to the early theosophy of some Neoplatonists and was revived in the 19th century by Helena Blavatsky and her Theosophical Society. And Gnosticism, practiced in the early Christian era, was based on esoteric and intuitive knowledge which the scientific method disallows (and yet is the basis for many of its Eureka discoveries).
Perhaps you're referring to the very new Noetic Science that attempts to apply the scientific method to the study of "paranormal" and spiritual practices and events. The Institute for Noetic Sciences was co-founded in 1973 by Edgar Mitchell, an astronaut who was part of the Apollo 14 mission. During the three-day journey back to Earth aboard Apollo 14, Mitchell had a gnostic epiphany while looking down on the earth from space. "The presence of divinity became almost palpable, and I knew that life in the universe was not just an accident based on random processes ... The knowledge came to me directly."
I know of no quantum physicists, however, who use the term "gnostic science", since that would be considered an oxymoron. But 20th century science - from relativity to quantum mechanics to the new cosmology - has undermined some of the dogma of scientific certainty (at least among a very small number of cutting-edge theorists), and offered perspectives that are remarkably similar to those of many mystical traditions.
The point that I am attempting to make says that there are legitimate and well-known physicists who are quantifying the information that spiritualists and others have been claiming for years. They coined the term gnostic science - also known in another community as noetic science.
Gnostic science is not an oxymoron. Its objective is to quantify information that we assume, thus proving many of our beliefs wrong. Many studies on the ability of the human mind have been accepted as incontrovertable.
Gnostic science doubts any god - including the deist version - other than we are each gods and together we are a god - if you INSIST on inserting a god-concept into the conversation. I am simply saying that you and I are incredibly powerful and there is a HUGE body of information that proves that as a group, we are also powerful.
You say there is no schism between science and religion, but in fact, there is. Any claim to the contrary seems odd to me. When the church brought Galilleo up before the inquisition, forcing him to publish his works on motion in Germany where the Pope had lost control, I would call that a schism. When the current pope calls anything related to New Age (and the gnostic or noetic sciences are errantly referred to as New Age because parts of each are very similar) evil, then I would think that this is a schism.
When you speak of the early Christian era, you must specify which of the many disparate communities that are each referrred to as gnostic even though some of them are very dissimilar and even maintain mutually exclusive ideas.
I am not suggesting that we follow some rigid dogma. As a matter of fact, I suggest the opposite. We are each unique with our own unique talents and interests. I suggest that we free ourselves from dogmatic contraints - not just replace one prison with another.
Either you do not understand me or you disagree with me. I'm not sure which, but when you conflate theosophy (a religion) with science (not a religion), you do not progress the discussion.
Name the physicists, name their organization, offer links to this new "gnostic science" (there's almost nothing from Google on the internet).
Every prevailing paradigm calls a newer, competing one "heresy" and attempts to destroy or marginalize it. But the imagined "schism" between religion as a dogmatic, faith-based superstition and science as a non-dogmatic path to truth is wishful thinking and promoted by those who fail to (or cannot) stand outside of the scientific dogma far enough to see it for what it is.
Science, as all modes of perceiving and conceiving of the universe, is based on a set of unprovable (and often unexamined) assumptions (or axioms). Among the dogmas of science are:
- the world can be objectively examined as a "thing"
- the results of such objective examination are replicable among many different examiners because we have removed our subjective bias from the process
- every thing and event in the universe is quantifiable, and only quantifiable things and events are real or true (this is circular reasoning)
- things can be best examined and understood by analyzing them into their constituent parts and processes and isolating the operative elements (hence drugs rather than plant medicine)
In spite of the fact that much of 20th century science has weakened or undermined these axioms of faith (by relativity, Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and quantum probabilities replacing measurable certainties), 99% of the scientific establishment (it's an enormous and very conservative cultural institution, just as is any church of faith) still operates on the original faith-based axioms or precepts of empirical, mechanistic science.
What does not "progress the discussion" is a refusal or inability to see the forest for the trees. Science is absolutely the modern religion of humanity. It defines how we perceive the world, how we interact with it and what we imagine for the future - and it limits us (as does any dogma) to a very narrow scope of knowledge: that which is quantifiable.
Despite the conceits of early rationalists ("Geometry existed before Creation" - Plato, "Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe"- Galileo), the universe is not composed of numbers and formulas, which are but abstract human inventions created when we began to overly rely upon our neo-cortex and shift the center of gravity from the heart to the head.
Sounds like you have an agenda that i do not understand. I certainlydo not follow what you call as logic. You clearly do not understand what I am saying. This said, there is no need to argue further.