Pages: [1]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: the evolutionary state of a nation  (Read 1038 times)
ari moshe
Most Active Member
***
Posts: 1231


« on: Jul 15, 2010, 10:48 PM »

Hello all,

Whether a soul experiences the karma of a particular nation/group depends mostly on the nature of a soul's identification with that nation or group. As I understand it, that's the nature of karma itself- the cycle of cause and effect is contingent entirely upon the level of identification with the dualistic world. I am this nation, I am not that nation. I like these kinds of people, I vote in this way etc...

My question is, looking at a political country as a whole, is it possible/relevant to ascribe an evolutionary state to one? Or would they all be consensus, as the very paradigm of a "country" itself is a consensus paradigm?

This question came up as I began looking at the us chart, thinking about manifest destiny and other such distorted visions. It was clear to me that the collective karma of the US, that has been set in motion, is operating at a consensus level of consciousness.
Ari Moshe
Logged
Rad
Moderator
Most Active Member
*****
Posts: 22132


« Reply #1 on: Jul 16, 2010, 12:22 PM »

Hi Ari,

Hello all,

Whether a soul experiences the karma of a particular nation/group depends mostly on the nature of a soul's identification with that nation or group. As I understand it, that's the nature of karma itself- the cycle of cause and effect is contingent entirely upon the level of identification with the dualistic world. I am this nation, I am not that nation. I like these kinds of people, I vote in this way etc...

**************************************************************************

Whether one indentifies with a nation or not does not correlate to experiencing the 'karma' of that nation. If I lived in WW2 Japan, for example, and did not identify with it personally, yet found myself in Hiroshima when the atom bomb was dropped, I would have experienced the 'karma' of Japan anyway. This example could be illustrated a thousand times over.

**************************************************************************

My question is, looking at a political country as a whole, is it possible/relevant to ascribe an evolutionary state to one? Or would they all be consensus, as the very paradigm of a "country" itself is a consensus paradigm?

****************************************************************************

Yes, the very paradigm of a 'country' itself is a consensus paradigm.

****************************************************************************



God Bless, Rad
Logged
Wendy
Very Active Member
**
Posts: 452


« Reply #2 on: Jul 16, 2010, 10:44 PM »

Is it then possible for a consensus collective to evolve out of most of the population being 77% in the consensus state?
Logged
Rad
Moderator
Most Active Member
*****
Posts: 22132


« Reply #3 on: Jul 17, 2010, 08:55 AM »

There is always a 'consensus' reality on this Earth anytime humans forms groups, tribes, or societies to co-exist within. The issue then becomes what is the BASIS of what that consensus reality is about.
Logged
Steve
Admin
Most Active Member
*****
Posts: 566


« Reply #4 on: Jul 17, 2010, 09:49 AM »

Ari and Wendy:

Quote
Ari: My question is, looking at a political country as a whole, is it possible/relevant to ascribe an evolutionary state to one? Or would they all be consensus, as the very paradigm of a "country" itself is a consensus paradigm?

****************************************************************************

Rad: Yes, the very paradigm of a 'country' itself is a consensus paradigm.

****************************************************************************

Wendy: Is it then possible for a consensus collective to evolve out of most of the population being 77% in the consensus state?

The issue is not so much the majority evolving out of consensus, as evolving the level that defines consensus.

For a clear example, go back to the early 1950's and compare what was consensus in Tibet with what was consensus in China.  Notice that in Tibet they aspired to enter monasteries, and in China they aspired to conquer.

In cultures like Tibet and India, valuing spirituality was deeply embedded in the heart of the cultures, including consensus.  These cultures were far from perfect - women were treated as third class, and the mass of people were far from enlightened.  None the less the consensus was taught there is a Soul, and a thing called liberation or enlightenment exists.  That through their efforts over many lifetimes their Souls could eventually be freed from having to endlessly reappear in bodies on the wheel of life and death.  That the reason they were here was to move at least a step or two closer towards that eventual liberation.  That how they lived, the attitudes they held, how they treated others, had a great deal to do with achieving spiritual progress.   These consensus values in those cultures led, for the most part, to them being peaceful nations that were not aggressive toward other countries.  (Pakistan being an exception in India's case).

Contrast that with the consensus values about aggression in countries like China, Germany, USA.  There is a noticeable difference.  No culture is perfect.  Even in Tibet and India there are those with "me first" orientations.  The issue is how does a culture view such people - do they let them run the country?  Do they glamorize the achievements of those who advance themselves at the expense of others, defining that in their mass media as "success"?  

There will always be a consensus in all groupings.  It simply means how the majority see things. The shape of a bell curve is a natural form - the majority always fit within the largest area of the curve.  The area at the edges of a bell curve on both sides, is always smaller.  You could equate those at the extreme right side of the curve with the upper individuated and spiritual states.  In an evolving reality there must always be a leading edge (Uranus) who are demonstrating where the consensus has the potential to go.  

As example, not so long ago in the USA much of the consensus accepted the validity of humans owning other humans (slavery).  Proponents even used bible quotations to justify this.  Gradually, increasing numbers of people started feeling this was wrong.  Over time it was becoming increasingly unacceptable to more and more.  A really ugly war was fought, one outcome of which was slavery being outlawed. That is an example of consensus evolving.  

Even today there are some who in their heart of hearts would be fine with the return of slavery.  And yes, newer forms of slavery involving children and sex workers have appeared.  But these are not mainstream cultural policy, as was the original USA slavery.  Thus an evolution.

Unfortunately that evolution usually occurs far too slowly for people like most of us here on this board. None the less it does happen.  Also true is too often the hard-won progress is followed by periods of backlash that seem to wipe out much of the progress.  That is the two steps forward, one step back principle (that EA associates with Cancer and emotional security) playing out.

The nature of evolving realities requires any species (including human) to "evolve or perish".  Many species HAVE perished because they did not or could not evolve rapidly enough.  Meanwhile the Earth is still here.  The jury is still out on whether the human species will collectively choose to evolve in time or become part of the dustpile of history.  As I said the other day, continuing to do what we are now doing as a species is unsustainable.  
« Last Edit: Jul 17, 2010, 09:51 AM by Steve » Logged

Wendy
Very Active Member
**
Posts: 452


« Reply #5 on: Jul 17, 2010, 10:30 PM »

Thanks Steve.  That was very helpful.

The nature of evolving realities requires any species (including human) to "evolve or perish".  Many species HAVE perished because they did not or could not evolve rapidly enough.  Meanwhile the Earth is still here.  The jury is still out on whether the human species will collectively choose to evolve in time or become part of the dustpile of history.  As I said the other day, continuing to do what we are now doing as a species is unsustainable.  

How many souls will need to wake up and chose to evolve to the next stage of growth for us to "ascend" forward (I'm using that term loosely).  Since we are behind the collective evolutionary eight-ball, how will be be able to quickly progress into a sustainable reality?  If consensus cultures evolve slowly, our outcome doesn't look very good, based on consensus evolution.
« Last Edit: Jul 17, 2010, 10:35 PM by Wendy » Logged
Steve
Admin
Most Active Member
*****
Posts: 566


« Reply #6 on: Jul 18, 2010, 05:17 AM »

Hi Wendy

Quote
How many souls will need to wake up and chose to evolve to the next stage of growth for us to "ascend" forward (I'm using that term loosely).  Since we are behind the collective evolutionary eight-ball, how will be be able to quickly progress into a sustainable reality?  If consensus cultures evolve slowly, our outcome doesn't look very good, based on consensus evolution.

Let's look at this realistically, releasing any wishful or "magical" thinking.

There is no number or percentage of people that when reached is going to save the day.  What is necessary to change things is CHANGE IN ACTUAL HUMAN BEHAVIORS on a collective level.  What is coming is not a cosmic punishment for violating divine laws, but simply natural consequences.  Natural law is the rules by which creation was created.  When we live aligned with them we get a certain kind of result.  When we collectively violate them, we can get away with it for a certain length of time.   But a point comes when we have pushed things so far away that it starts changing the nature of that reality.  And there are consequences when that occurs. 

Right now we have a political party in the country that is the biggest consumer of resources on earth whose political strategy includes denying there even are any problems. ("Al Gore made all of this up so he can get rich".  "The changes in climate have nothing to do with human behavior and are natural". "How can there be global warming when the winters are getting colder?"  etc. etc.)

Each time there is a global climate conference, the leading nations agree to do about 20% of the minimum necessary to slow these issues down, and set a date for achieving that 20% that is yet another 10 to 20 years in the future.  And when the ten to twenty years has gone by, the actual results achieved are about 20% of the 20% that was promised (20% of 20% is four percent).  Then the UN yet again declares these crises are getting worse.  Another conference is held where again not enough is agreed on, and the agreed on date of completion is again 10 to 20 years in the future, and the same thing happens again.

Thus it is all talk and so far has not changed.  Until it turns into action on a global level the course we are on can not change.  Anecdotes about a few hundred people over here doing this and some windmills being built over there make us feel good, and hopeful.  But the scale of such activities is about one percent (if that) of the minimum necessary to actually reverse the course of consequences that are building, in the available time left before those consequences take on a life of their own (which is already beginning to occur).

These climate changes are natural phenomenon.  As they continue they will permanently alter the physical reality of the world we have known.  They change things humans can't reverse.  Weather patterns - more heat and less rain in the largest food growing areas on the planet.  Alterations in the path of the Atlantic Ocean Gulf Stream, which is what keeps northern Europe from being like frozen northern Canadian tundra - they are both on the same latitude.  The increasing release of methane from newly unfrozen tundra areas now melting in the summer for the 1st time in hundreds of thousands of years.

Methane has ten times the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide.  (Methane exploding is what set off the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico).  The change that occurs is the more methane that's released the warmer things get.  And the warmer things get, the more methane is released.  That process takes on a life of its own. How do you stop the release of the gas from hundreds of thousands of acres?

No number of Souls praying for balance and harmony is going to stop that process.  The only thing that is going to change things is vast numbers of humans/countries CHANGING THEIR DAILY BEHAVIORS.  World economics is run by capitalism, which demands profit be maximized in every single circumstance.  Thus reality is next to no countries have agreed to make the necessary changes.  Billions of people in third world countries at this time, rather than deciding to reduce their resource use, are deciding they want to use even more. 

As Rad explained about Hiroshima the other day, positive spiritual God-loving humans are not going to be given a blanket pass to escape all these consequences.  We are part of the collective process, no matter how much we have spent our life rebelling against the very decisions that are leading to these ends. 

Of course it is good that millions are starting to recognize this, make personal changes, praying for different outcomes, etc.  Millions of people is a lot of people.  But there are billions who are not at all thinking in those ways.  Until billions start moving in the necessary directions, millions is just not going to be enough.  That is just reality. 

I realize this is not what we want to hear.  It is shocking and depressing.  But I ask you or anyone to show me any grounded realistic ways that are going to lead to world wide very rapid global change in collective behaviors.  What signs do you see of this going on?  Not a few people here and a small corporation there, but on a mass level?   The mind does not want to embrace what is going on and has to be made to do so.  We are not going to be saved by benevolent aliens bringing new technologies to turn things around.  Millions of "good humans" are not going to be transported to a peaceful planet or etheric plane that vibrates on a higher frequency, because of their inherent goodness. This is not personal.  We collectively created this mess, and now we will increasingly experience the consequences. 

Quote
If consensus cultures evolve slowly, our outcome doesn't look very good, based on consensus evolution.

I could not agree with you more.  Our collective outcome does not look very good.  Sanity and personal survival require us GETTING USED TO that as actual reality, and then making personal changes to adapt as best as is possible to where things seem to be going.  That to me, is why it is wise to get educated to the economic and political realities that are going on around us.  Yes, they are boring and painful and callous and cruel.  But they are affecting everything.  Seeing actual reality helps dispel wishful and "magical" thinking. 

On a brighter note, while the percentage of people who will face these realities is low, it is still millions of people.  As we ourselves start facing this as reality we will inevitably and naturally meet others of like mind, leading to new connections.  And those connections may well play a role in our long term personal survival.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Go Up
Print
Jump to: