if it is not understood all that have to do something with this forum even the so called lurkers for the sake of the interest they have in reading all of this here are enightened already.
from the moment one begins to participate here direct or not one will change. for good. those people sould not have fears as the above. this is what i ment.
ahhh but I am sure most is well on their journey forward.
The structures of things are a lot larger and complex,
its almost like an organism developing and humans being the cells in its design.
Social systems are designed for creating an efficient workforce.
The ones who control you and implement the systems are removed from the situation.
They can never understand it.
Because they have no wants that cannot be taken care of, (by money)
So their drive is to perfect the workforce.
Which requires the control or management of the vastly wide spectrum of human emotions.
If this was some new rising power trying to upend the natural flow of life, it can be stopped and changed.
This system already exists, most people are just born into it, just by being labelled a citizen of a country.
Personally I have often wondered if people understood how it really looks in a larger scale.
I think like any approach, the outer worlds and inner worlds are seamless.
Might be better to change the system from within.
glad you brought this analogy up.
so the way that a devil operates and by devil i just mean any deeply
selfish organism is that it creates a very narrow circle of concern within infinite consciousness and then it defends that to the death and it basically feeds off of its environment right when you draw that circle.
You’re getting nutrients from the environment you’re leaching those and then you’re excreting literally you’re
out the stuff that’s not useful to you into the environment this is how an organism functions at the highest level.
Well that’s literally how most of our corporations function how most of our religions function how most of our families friends and others function is like this is called externalities.
these are sort of the excrements of life and it’s these externalities end up
on others…
a good example of an externality is a when a bird shits on your windshield that was the bird’s externality and then you’re not happy about it because your windshield got shat upon you got to clean it up. But see this is this is how most humans behave they create these gross externalities whether it’s a company or a religion or a political party or an individual person without being conscious or taking responsibility of the they put out the collateral damage they cause and then this creates a toxic commons for everybody to swim in we’re all swimming in the same pool and everyone’s in it that’s fundamentally our problem as humans.
Takes holism to realize right… because if you lack holistic thinking you can just think you can in the corner of the pool and everything will be okay but when you realize we’re all swimming in the same pool you start to take responsibility for where you and then the pool becomes more enjoyable to swim in for you and for everybody else and it all begins with you because if you say:
“oh i’m going to stop
shooting in the pool only when everybody
else does well …”
then everyone else is going to say that too because they think just like you because they don’t want to take responsibility they don’t want to lead and then we swim in a shit-filled pool for the rest of our lives. So someone has to lead it might as well be you and of course that means you have to be less selfish that’s what leadership is
leadership is nothing other than selflessness.
“The great citizens of a country are not those who bend the knee before authority but rather those who, against authority if need be, are adamant as to the honor and freedom of that country.”
Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death
Instead of respect for reason, open dialogue, freedom of speech and individual and property rights, political systems across the world are becoming increasingly authoritarian. Deceptions and lies, manipulation and propaganda, fear-mongering and psychological operations are all being used to justify political actions and policies that destroy life. How do politicians continue to convince the public to do away with their freedoms in favour of heavy-handed government control? Why are so few people defending liberty when a world absent of it is a world of mass suffering? In this video we are going to examine these questions.
“…if freedom is regressing today throughout such a large part of the world, his is probably because the devices for enslavement have never been so cynically chosen or so effective, but also because her real defenders, through fatigue, through despair, or through a false idea of strategy and efficiency, have turned away from her.”
Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death
It is often said that one cannot solve a problem if one is not even cognizant of it, and herein lies one of the reasons freedom is retreating so rapidly from our world. Many people still believe themselves to be free and as Goethe wrote: “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” Those who believe themselves to be free disregard the fact that to be governed in the modern world is to be
“…watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured [and] commanded, by beings who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.”
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Accepting our lack of freedom is a necessary step to counteract this undesirable condition. For so long as we remain in denial of the chains of servitude that are upon us, we will do nothing to cast them aside. But when we acknowledge our chains we can begin to push back against them and in the process contribute to the creation of a better world, or as Camus noted:
“The task of men…is not to desert historical struggles nor to serve the cruel and inhuman elements in those struggles. It is rather to remain what they are, to help man against what is oppressing him, to favor freedom against the fatalities that close in upon it.…Man’s greatness…lies in his decision to be greater than his condition. And if his condition is unjust, he has only one way of overcoming it, which is to be just himself.”
Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death
But widespread ignorance as to the lack of freedom is not the only reason why freedom is retreating from the world. Rather, there is also an idea that has infected many minds and this idea, if not defeated, could prove to be the kiss of death for freedom in our generation. This idea is promoted by most politicians, indoctrinated into the youth at school and via popular culture, and championed by the vast majority of talking heads in the mainstream media. This idea is collectivism. To understand what collectivism is we must consider the question: “Does the individual exist for the sake of society? Or does society exist for the sake of individuals?” Those who adhere to collectivism believe that the individual exists for the sake of society and therefore that:
…the individual has to subordinate himself to, and conduct himself for, the benefit of society and to sacrifice his selfish private interests to the common good.”
Ludwig von Mises, Epistemological Problems of Economics
This collectivist mindset is foundational to communism, fascism and socialism: “The common good before the individual good.” proclaimed one collectivism’s most infamous adherents. (Adolf Hitler) The doctrine of collectivism has been put into practice by many dictators such as Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao. Death, destruction and suffering on a mass scale was the end-result in each case.
How does placing the good of society above the good of the individual tend toward such unfortunate outcomes? Is it not a display of compassion to sacrifice our personal interests for the greater good of our society? At first glance collectivism may seem to be a virtuous position to take, but on closer investigation a philosophical error called the fallacy of misplaced concreteness corrupts the practical application of this ideology. The fallacy of misplaced concreteness occurs when one treats what is merely an abstraction as an entity that exists in the real world. Collectivism, in claiming the individual must sacrifice his or her private interests for the sake of society, takes what is merely a concept – “society” – and treats such a concept as if it had a concrete existence, but as Jung points out:
““Society is nothing more than a term, a concept for the symbiosis of a group of human beings. A concept is not a carrier of life.”
Carl Jung, Volume 15 Practice of Psychotherapy
In contrast to the individual that has a real existence in the world, society is an abstraction used to represent an ever-changing collection of individuals living and interacting in proximity. As far and as wide as one looks, one will never find a concrete entity called society that we can point to and identify in the manner analogous to how we can identify an individual.
“Society does not exist apart from the thoughts and actions of people. It does not have “interests” and does not aim at anything. The same is valid for all other collectives.”
Ludwig von Mises, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science
Or as Jung put it:
“. . .the “nation” (like the “State”) is a personified concept …The nation has no life of its own apart from the individual, and is therefore not an end in itself…. All life is individual life, in which alone the ultimate meaning is to be found.
Carl Jung, The Swiss Line in the European Spectrum
As a society is a concept it cannot think, act, speak or choose, and therefore, an individual, or group of individuals, must be granted the ability to define the so-called societal greater good and then granted the power to force individuals to act in service of this good. Since the dawn of civilization, it has been ruling classes who anoint themselves the arbiters of the greater good, and so not surprisingly the greater good, more often than not, merely amounts to the good of those in power, or as the 20th century psychologist Nathaniel Branden wrote:
“With such [collectivist] systems, the individual has always been a victim, twisted against him-or-her-self and commanded to be “unselfish” in sacrificial service to some allegedly higher value called God or pharaoh or emperor or king or society or the state or the race or the proletariat – or the cosmos. It is a strange paradox of our history that this doctrine – which tells us that we are to regard ourselves, in effect, as sacrificial animals – has been generally accepted as a doctrine representing benevolence and love for humankind. From the first individual…who was sacrificed on an altar for the good of the tribe, to the heretics and dissenters burned at the stake for the good of the populace or the glory of God, to the millions exterminated in…slave-labor camps for the good of the race or of the proletariat, it is this [collectivist] morality that has served as justification for every dictatorship and every atrocity, past or present.”
Nathaniel Branden, The Psychology of Romantic Love
The philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, a staunch collectivist who exerted a profound influence on the ideas of Karl Marx, promoted collectivisms’ negation of the individual with the following words:
“A single person, I need hardly say, is something subordinate, and as such he must dedicate himself to the ethical whole. Hence, if the state claims life, the individual must surrender it…All the worth which the human being possesses…he possesses only through the State.”
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Elements of the Philosophy of Right
Contrary to the philosophical trickery promoted by collectivism, neither the “greater good” of society nor the state nor any other concept used to describe a symbiosis of human beings is superior to flesh-and-blood individuals, whose spontaneous actions are the real creative and generative force in the world. As the 19th century British philosopher Auberon Herbert wrote,
“The individual is king, and all other things exist for the service of the king.”
Auberon Herbert, Lost in the Region of Phrases
Or as he further explained:
“[The individual] is included in many wholes – his school, his college, his club, his profession, his town or county, his church, his political party, his nation…but he is always greater than them all…All these various wholes, without any exception….exist for the sake of the individual. They exist to do his service; they exist for his profit and use.”
Auberon Herbert, Lost in the Region of Phrases
The conviction that “the individual is king” informed the ideas of the Enlightenment thinkers of the 17th and 18th centuries and led to a rapid awakening to the vital connection between freedom and the individual rights of life, liberty, and property. Generally speaking, individual rights specify that:
“The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily or mental and spiritual.”
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Those who support individual rights are not motivated by an insensitivity to the plight and suffering of others, but rather by the recognition that in granting each of us the freedom to pursue our own good, social cooperation, the division of labour and a prosperous society emerge in a bottom-up manner and thus the ability to help others also improves. For without the wealth generating mechanism of freedom all the good intentions in the world will not clothe, house and feed the poor. Collectivists claim the opposite. An emphasis on the rights of the individual, they suggest, rather than on the greater good, tends to inhibit social cooperation and promote an atomized population in which every man and woman is an island left to fend for themself. But here collectivists have it backwards. We are naturally social animals and so the atomization of individuals only results when a government, under the guise of the “greater good”, is granted the power to enforce social isolation or else to sow the seeds of fear and suspicion amongst friends and neighbours. In his classic study of 20th century collectivist political systems, the medical doctor Joost Meerloo noted that
“…behind the iron curtain the most prominent complaint in the totalitarian system was the feeling of mental isolation. The individual feels alone and continually on the alert. There is only mutual suspicion.”
Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind
Carl Jung, who lived through the totalitarianism which swept across mid-20th century Europe, likewise observed:
“The mass State has no intention of promoting mutual understanding and the relationship of man to man; it strives…for atomization, for the psychic isolation of the individual.”
Carl Jung
The best way to promote social cooperation and a prosperous society is not through top-down centralized control, but to remove the clamps of control and to let individuals make their own choices with respect to their own lives. And this is what a society structured on individual rights accomplishes. Live and let live, as the age-old adage puts it. Or as David Kelley explains:
“[Individual rights] leave individuals responsible for living their own lives and meeting their own needs, and they provide the freedom to carry out those responsibilities. Individuals are free to act on the basis of their own judgment, to pursue their own ends, and to use and dispose of the material resources they have acquired by their efforts. Those rights reflect the assumption that individuals are ends in themselves, who may not be used against their will for social purposes.”
David Kelley, A Life of One’s Own: Individual Rights and the Welfare State
As individual rights leave us free to pursue our own good in our own way so long as we do not aggress upon the person or property of others, it follows that each of us has the right to freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of association and assembly, the right to property and bodily autonomy, and the right to work and retain the fruits of our labor.
“Man is absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to nobody.” (Locke)
John Locke, Second Treatise
Individual rights are universal in that they apply to all human beings everywhere:
“…rights exist regardless of whether they are implemented in the legal constitution of a given country.”
David Kelley, A Life of One’s Own: Individual Rights and the Welfare State
And they are inalienable in that they cannot be given or taken away by any man, government, or institution.
“A man’s natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime…whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber…or by millions, calling themselves a government.”
Lysander Spooner, No Treason The Constitution of No Authority
When a society and the judicial system are predicated on a deep respect for and commitment to individual rights, the individual is king and therefore the individual is free. But when individual rights are transgressed under the pretext of public safety or the “greater good”, the individual turns into mere political property which any mob or government or institution in power can oppress, detain, or eliminate if deemed necessary. As Lysander Spooner explained:
“…there is no difference…between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man’s ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.”
Lysander Spooner, No Treason The Constitution of No Authority
In the modern world we are moving ever closer to a widespread acceptance of collectivism and thus the condition of political slavery to which Spooner alludes. At times such as these it is useful to recognize that while the majority are complicit in their servitude, in standing on the side of freedom, we unite ourselves in spirit with all other guardians of freedom across the globe.
“I rebel – therefore we exist.”
Albert Camus, The Rebel
Or as Camus Further wrote:
“Every insubordinate person, when he rises up against oppression, reaffirms thereby the solidarity of all men.” (Camus)
Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death
that was the idea of what Talcott parsons et al idealized and also what communism is based on.
a commune ‘shared’ resources.
but this can only be run by a leader as idealized by the tao
a selfless person, but which i believe also means a person to maintain this comfortably would be an enlightened one.
It is said that politics is downstream from culture – that culture, in other words, determines the type of rule that emerges in a society. But one could also say that culture is downstream from technology. Technological innovations, by creating new possibilities for how we interact with the world, change culture. Of all the technological revolutions that engender cultural change, changes in communication technologies are among the most impactful. For these technologies sculpt the flow of information and information is power. Information directs our focus and so helps shape our perception of reality. Information demonstrates what is possible and so influences how we act. And in the political realm information legitimizes or delegitimizes a ruling class structure. Change the communication technology and you change the flow of information. Change the flow of information and you change a culture. Change a culture and you change the political status quo.
A cursory glance at two communication technology revolutions that preceded the rise of the internet – the invention of Gutenberg’s moveable-type printing press in the mid-15th century and the rise of the mass media of radio and television in the 20th century – reveals the dramatic social change that comes in their wake.
“Socially, the typographic extension of man brought in nationalism, industrialism, mass markets, and universal literacy and education.”
Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media
The printing press led to an explosion in the publishing of books. It is estimated that only 12,000 books were copied by all the scribes in Europe in the 50 years prior to this invention while in the 50 years following it approximately 12 million books were produced. By reducing the cost of publishing a book, information flowed into more houses and ideas expanded the minds of a greater number of people and with profound political implications. The increase in the number of bibles was an important factor in the Reformation and the pamphlet movement was a driving force of the French and American Revolutions.
“As a result of Gutenberg’s invention monarchs were beheaded, world maps were redrawn. . .Modern society and modern economics were born.”
Andrey Miroshnichenko, Human as Media
The next major communication revolution was the invention of the electric telegraph and the radio, telephone and television which followed soon after. These technologies diminished the need for a transportation network of rail, road, and sea to spread information and so shrunk the globe. The ability to beam information into every home in a nation simultaneously, gave rise to the paradigm of the mass media that defined the 20th century. In 1947, The Commission of Freedom of the Press gave a prescient description of the power unleashed by the informational flows of this new media paradigm:
“The modern press itself is a new phenomenon. Its typical unit is the great agency of mass communication. Those agencies facilitate thought and discussion. They can stifle it. They can advance the progress of civilization or they can thwart it. They can debase and vulgarize mankind. They can endanger the peace of the world . . . They can play up or down the news and its significance, foster and feed emotions, create complacent fictions and blind spots, misuse the great words, and uphold empty slogans.
A Free and Responsible Press by The Commission on Freedom of the Press, 1947
The mass media of radio and television structures a top-down informational flow. The relative few who own and operate the broadcasting infrastructure in cooperation with the wealthy and powerful individuals, corporations, and institutions who influence the institutions of mass media, filter, manipulate and package the content in ways that serve their interests.
“The [mass] media proclaim themselves a supplier, but it really serves as a valve, which opens for money or when given permission to by the authorities.”
Andrey Miroshnichenko, Human as Media
Mass media made possible a never-before-seen conformity in worldviews and proved an excellent paradigm for the furtherance of ideologies that favoured top-down, centralized control. For those who determine what information flows through the mass media have the power to direct the attention of the masses toward certain issues and events, and away from others or as Michael Parenti explains:
“If the press cannot mold our every opinion, it can frame the perceptual reality around which our opinions take shape. Here may lie the most important effect of the news media: they set the issue agenda for the rest of us, choosing what to emphasize and what to ignore or suppress, in effect, organizing much of our political world for us. The media may not always be able to tell us what to think, but they are strikingly successful in telling us what to think about.”
Michael Parent, Inventing Reality: The Politics of Mass Media
In a more cynical manner, one could say that mass media grants the few who control it the sort of power depicted in George Orwell’s novel 1984:
“Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”
George Orwell, 1984
The Nazis made use of the mass media to induce their population into accepting totalitarian rule, for as the Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels stated: “Our way of taking power and using it would have been inconceivable without the radio…” Gordon Allport and Hadley Cantril, in their 1935 book The Psychology of Radio, echoed the sentiment behind Goebbels claim writing:
“Radio is an altogether novel medium of communication, preeminent as a means of social control and epochal in its influence upon the mental horizons of men.”
Gordon Allport and Hadley Cantril, The Psychology of Radio
A unidirectional, limited, and filtered flow of information, all in the control of a select few and served up to the gullible masses creates a situation analogous to Plato’s allegory of the cave. In this allegory prisoners are chained in a cave and forced to watch the dancing of shadows on walls. Not knowing any better, the prisoners mistake the shadows for reality and as Richard Weaver writes in Ideas Have Consequences:
“. . .the [mass media] is a translation into actuality of Plato’s celebrated figure of the cave. The defect of the prisoners. . .is that they cannot perceive the truth. The wall before them, on which the shadows play, is the screen on which press, motion picture, and radio project their account of life.”
Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences
And herein lies the power of the internet revolution – it is a means for the masses to escape from the cave of manipulated shadows. For each time one of us identifies corruption by institutional authorities, sees through a lie, or identifies an act of propaganda – once we notice in other words, that what is thought to be a truth is but the manipulation of a shadow – we can reveal our discovery to an audience of potentially millions. The internet revolution is ending the monopoly the mass media has on the flow of information and so if the printing press led to an emancipation of readership, then as Miroshnichenko writes:
“What we are experiencing now is . . .the emancipation of authorship. Personal computers as well as mobile devices. . .have given all individuals the unlimited right to share their thoughts with others, whatever their reason. . .”
Andrey Miroshnichenko, Human as Media
Will the emancipation of authorship be as transformative as the communication revolutions that preceded it? Time will tell but, to quote Miroshnichenko once again:
“. . .if historical analogies are accurate, then we should . . . expect comparable cataclysms [following the rise of the internet]. The powers of the old authorities. . .have always collapsed along with their loss of sacral control over information. As a result, the social, political and economic status quo falls apart. With every release of content, society sheds its old form, like a snake sheds its skin.” (Human as Media)
Andrey Miroshnichenko, Human as Media
The informational flows made possible by the internet should not be viewed as solely destructive and delegitimizing in their effects. Rather, in a more constructive manner they are revealing alternative possibilities for how society can operate and how individuals can live their lives. Be it alternatives to the inflationary monetary system of fiat currency, to the government control of education and healthcare or to the political structure of society at large, ideas that would never have been permitted in the controlled paradigm of the mass media are being spread by the emancipation of authorship. This new media paradigm is unleashing the creative destruction needed to keep society from descending into the rot of stagnation.
But as this free flow of information is threatening to the parasitic lifestyle of many who occupy positions of power, we should expect increased calls for censorship in the attempt to force us back into the cave of deceptions. This censorship will be justified as needed to limit hate speech and to correct misinformation – but these excuses are merely the attractive packaging being used to hide what is a socially destructive act – the stifling of free speech in the attempt to protect powerful interests. The emancipation of authorship threatens the legitimacy of the oligarchical class of politicians, bureaucrats and crony capitalists and their ability to pull off their machinations behind the protective veil of the manipulated mass media.
“The gods and men who have kept their prestige for long have never tolerated discussion. For the crowd to admire, it must be kept at a distance.”
Gustave Le Bon, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind
This is not the first time attempts have been made to limit the informational flows that emerge from new communication technologies. Following the invention of the printing press the ruling class of Europe implemented harsh censorship laws. One example was the English Licensing Order of 1643 which mandated the arrest of anyone who printed books critical of the government. But the power of the printing press proved too strong, its effects could not be contained by mandates of a ruling class grasping for power and as Marshall Mcluhan wrote:
“Once a new technology comes into a [society] it cannot cease to permeate that [society] until every institution is saturated.”
Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media
But history merely rhymes, it does not repeat. And it is possible that if we are too passive and do not take a hard stance against attempts to stifle free speech, then this technological revolution will be one that differs from those of the past. Those in power will learn to use this new technological paradigm to their advantage and instead of liberating us, these technologies will be the tool that descends us into the hell of a technocratic global totalitarianism.
“Public opinion! I don’t know how sociologists define it, but it seems obvious to me that it can only consist of interacting individual opinions, freely expressed and independent of government or party opinion. So long as there is no independent public opinion in our country, there is no guarantee that the extermination of millions and millions for no good reason will not happen again, that it will not begin any night – perhaps this very night.” (The Gulag Archipelago)
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
Thank you all for your responses.
I think i may not have been fully understand, perhaps i expressed myself in wrong way. (Fasssst typing).
This is not about fear and other emotions associated with it.
The main point was that perhaps in time we will all have to face it, everybody on a diffrent level ofc. The problem is that is introduced in such a way that people are manipulated into creating this situation for themselves, it is applied like a “wolf in sheppherd skin”.
However, there is a ratio here - the more control someone/something wants, the more resistance is here, it happens on so many levels - our organism too - If a virus infects us, our body resists bravely.
Also, i know that most people here would be able to handle it in a diffrent ways, as mentioned above, there are plenty of methods to develop, upgrade yourself on so many levels (courses,servitors,audios,mandalas etc.), and throught our development, we are effecting others in some way.
Ahoy, we also have Captain here (;
We are all, in a sense, small complicated systems that are in other complicated systems, and those systems are in larger more complicated systems, and so on. But some smallest systems didn’t feel ok with being like this (((“errors”))), and travel long way among the material/ spiritual/mental worlds in search of the real “truth”.
100% in favor of starting from within, even though it’s sometimes hard and tedious work, it bears great fruit and it’s definitely worth it. We also have a proverb that describes this quite well…
" As above, so below "
"As within, so without "
and you are right
this is the conclusion I came to regarding communism.
By focusing on freedom within, our own enlightenment, can’t we manifest freedom outside anyway? Manfesting a situation outside the control system.
Besides, when one is free inside, closer to the Tao, one wouldn’t be as identified with being under a control system.
What comes to mind is the quote about those who control resources not having power over you from “The Way of Intergrity.”
I admit, I’ve spent the last few years being identified with the tyranny on the horizon, but I’m getting better at letting go. I’m very much into politics, though I keep my opinions on it off the forum.
and these selfless persons, what’s to drive them to lead in such a path? could we ever see a group of individuals in this modern age that embody the principles of the tao
the best leader is one whose existence is barely known by the people
next comes one whom they love and praise
next comes one they fear
next comes one they defyhere he espouses what an ideal leader
should be a person who isn’t in it for the fame
and glory but rather the upliftments of the people
would you say Web 3.0 is a step we’re taking more of an active role rather than a passive consummation of new technology?
No. Lol. People that want to be in power nowadays usually just want power. With few exceptions.
“From all these indignities, such as the very beasts of the field would not endure, you can deliver yourselves if you try, not by taking action but merely by willing to be free. Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces.”
Étienne de La Boétie, The Discourse on Voluntary Servitude
“So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so.”
Isn’t that funny we both wrote about Way of Integrity at the same time? Lol
indeed, to be fair i have little knowledge on the tao and the principles of the teaching.
I’ve read some Taoist texts and books like Mantak Chia’s stuff, but not as much as I’ve read other traditions. However, the principles are Universal.
The Way of Integrity is beautiful. I enjoy the narration every time.
I wanted to do a few more
actually those i thought would be the best for the device,
you know
spiritual discourses
guided meditations etc.
I usually listen to the person speak a bit, before i write the script, so it matches their natural speech manners and patterns.
Like this guy,
Mark,
Elmer
Yeah it would be fitting. Would def love some more of those in general. Hearing the concepts spoken while simultaneously integrating the energies of the field itself is powerful.
That’s the guy from the Dream Seeds videos right?