Put-down is false currency

By way of introduction, the opening comment and its following response led to a 'dialog' of sorts on the Daily Bell - (where comment quality is usually high) - in which I raised points I feel to be far greater in scope than the apparent context in which they arose - which was simply one of addressing a 'put-down' that felt misplaced and unnecessary, and I did so in a sense of invitation to a communication, rather than using blame to direct or dominate or shut it down.

ALPHAMEG commented: (Not central to the conversation below)

The USA legislative branch Republican & Democrats are rotten to the core. Duplicity by both groups (the typical Old Boys Club) is alive and running on all cylinders. When did either file a grievance as Obama totally ignored the Constitution as he indiscriminately made rulings when ever he wished, and not a word from either of the check and balance units (Supreme Court, the other). The special perks of these two bodies of government, with previous members returning as Lobbyists to their old boys club pals, which the US citizens don't receive, and would be jailed if they attempted some of the freebies the legislative members have Carte Blanche. The Bankers, Military, Industrial, Government, Elitist, hegemony, has stolen 90% of global assets. They consider the common man as being stupid and undeserving of any notice of equality, serfdom is to be their lot. The middle class is being squeezed out of their independence.

The Banks will "all" shortly charge negative interest rates. A tragedy for those retirees on fixed incomes. These elitists are a godless group, without any sense of compassion or concern. They and the Environmentalists suggest the world would be better off with only one billion souls. Hence the false concept of mankind polluting the ionosphere with carbon, causing Global Warming. The United Nations in December 1915, in Paris, ratified, unanimously, on a program to charge all members of the UN with their demands of each member's responsibilities, in bringing control of man's contribution to the Global Warming problem. Initial demands starting by 1917. Also the currencies of the world will be disposed of, in favor of One World Digital Banking. All participants under the control of the United Nations, with all world banking of individual's account's value at conversion, per their determination. No chance to argue. No one can buy or sell outside their individual accounts. Of course, negative interest rates will be in force, at 5% per year.

Ernesto DelMundo responded to ALPHAMEG

You don't do science very well. Polluting the ionosphere? LOL! And why are you talking about the UN in 1915? It didn't exist until the 1940s.

I said to Ernesto DelMundo

No but is that Alphameg's point? I'm not here to defend him or accuse you - but there is a widespread anger as a result of feeling used and abused and indeed it may not be clearly focused or articulated - but it is all primed up and ready to discharge.

There are those who capitalize on directing such forces for their own agenda.

Some of those who use and abuse others without any sense of compassion or humanity are very articulate scientists - though to my way of seeing, the willingness to uncover truth is what validates science and not peer-exclusive presentations of the form of science.

I feel to join with that willingness across apparent divides in a humanity that cares enough to listen through the jamming frequencies and discern the signal from the noise.

Perhaps (re your remark above) most people simply want to be fooled - to get their Dream back - because the only alternative to deceit is a willingness for true. USAmericans may never have been who they thought - but they can be who they are. It isn't only markets that have to undergo readjustment - it is consciousness itself. An Identity breakthrough?

Ernesto DelMundo replied:

Here's the thing: if you are going to claim scientists are pushing an agenda or are part of some evil conspiracy, then at least don't come across as scientifically illiterate in your critique.

Brian:

I am saying that science is a result of human thinking arising from human definitions, and as such is not separable from human arrogance and ignorance. Scientists include a wide spectrum of human individuals engaged in studying the measurable for a wide range of intentions.

I appreciate science but extend it to the tangibility and visibility of that which is within as well as that which is without - while traditional science seeks to minimize or deny the subjective element from results. No wonder then that a 'scientifically' empowered elitism denies the subjective experience of billions to pursue its 'technocratic' goals which of course have nothing to do with mere identity validation in power or fame or wealth and privilege. Scientists are pure, neutral - robots even!

[sarcasm]

Evil can be said to be the capacity to reverse identity so as to operate against your own true function or fulfilment while believing yourself justified. It is also used as a scapegoat term for the projection of the hated.

It is retrograde or contra to your desire for Life as you are defining it. Is your definition sound?

Let's lose the word agenda then and use the word purpose.

Science is a purposeful act of intention.

Perhaps you would define it for me in 'literate' terms?

I feel you are presuming an elitist superiority by painting others as 'illiterate'. That's your church if so - not mine. But a cult of scientism has nothing to do with willingness to uncover truth.

If I come across as confrontational here it is simply that I don't find anything of substance in what you are posting - but everything of smear and innuendo. I gave you the benefit of the doubt but perhaps you are not used to being treated as a human being?

A willingness to meet doesn't have to be agreement in content. If all you can see is in terms of asserting and prevailing your judgements upon what might have been a relational willingness then you know exactly what the evil conspiracy is - because that is its modus operandi. It doesn't actually know it conspires in secret with lovelessness everywhere because it believes it judges reality in secret - and it believes what loveless thinking dictates.

If you are a scientist - start out from Wonder! and don't abandon Wonder! - for narratives preceding from or arising as a result of gathered data. Or you may become a dead matter (dead Mother) cultist who only "feels" the thinking that validates or violates your self concept.

Technologists are not necessarily scientists but are set to solve or address pre-set problems - or use the tools of science to search for opportunity to meet a perceived or believed need, or perhaps hoping to capitalize on exploiting such a need.

I may be judged for using words in ways that seem dense and inaccessible - depending on your presumed self definitions, but 'here's the thing:' I am not seeking to undermine or deny your right or worthiness to communicate - if you should be willing to actually open a channel. Self-righteousness protects itself from quacks, deniers, nutters, or any other terms of invalidation. Only the elite can be trusted to communicate because they are not conspiring - but agree with Reality!

I have had a bit of fun writing this that is not aimed at you in particular but at illuminating something more than the established paradigm allows - and if you think science has not led to a culture of hierarchical conformity in 'consensual' and institutional refusal to evolve then are you suckling a narrative that keeps you in the dark because you are getting off on the movie?

When I was a kid we just turned up at the cinema and started wherever the film happened to be and then became engrossed until a moment of recognition; "This is where we came in!" - and usually we'd get up and leave then - unless we felt for whatever reason to carry on again.

It isn't going to happen that anyone leaves a movie they are engaged and identified in unless something shifts their priorities that cannot be dismissed, hushed, walled out or deferred.

Ernesto DelMundo :

I am not smearing anyone by asking them for a bare minimum of knowledge of the topic which they are attacking. How am I being inhuman in doing so? The ionosphere and the troposphere are two completely separate things. If you don't know the difference then how can you be taken seriously? The short answer is you can't. The long answer is you can't because you didn't make the effort to learn the difference. I have no patience for these people. Not on the internet and not even in person. This has nothing to do with basic humanity, it has to do with not being lazy and stupid.

Brian:
OK. Enjoy being right and impatient.

I discerned a different conversation than you did.

Perhaps ALPHAMEG enjoys being right and impatient too - and if I don't watch out, I might join the club.

I didn't pick up on ALPHAMEG - but on a sense of put-down. I have an interest in promoting communication without put-downs, Not by insinuating correctness - but by inviting the issues to be addressed - not the person.

You can phrase a query or offer correction without dumping your personal emotional issues. To shoot at a barn door from 3 paces is not a difficult target. I have no issue with your corrections - but in the way in which you delivered them. And I offer this feedback without rancour as 'data' you can use as you feel or think best.

But the comments at the Daily Bell are generally good - even if ranging in different styles, outlooks and views - perhaps because there is a shared sense that put-downs introduce division and noise then blocks the signal - while blame discourages the venture of sharing anything.

Its reasonable to address errors but not to expect peer reviewed 'posts'. You can help educate by example or you can withdraw into an ivory tower of elitism. And I expect you do both at different times.

Lazy and stupid is an easy charge for you to make - but why do you give time and attention to what clearly irritates you? But then cant be bothered to focus in the science and leak your irritation. That might be 'stupid' and 'lazy' - but one learns nothing by being already perfect and I'm willing to own the same charges at various times in my life.

Persisting in what doesn't work and not caring enough to focus on what is actually called for.

I'm interested in humanity. We are a mess - from certain perspectives - perhaps as a result of persistence in not caring enough to focus in what really matters.

Ernesto DelMundo:

Believe me, there was a time I tried to use a more subtle approach. That time came and went and I now fully believe that no amount of patience can help you reach through the dense skulls of these people. They believe in an alternate reality of their own making and they are happy there. Go ahead and try to reason with them, I dare you. I predict, from years of empirical observation, that you will fail and end up shaking your head that millions of years of evolution or the hand of some demented deity could produce a dead end with no discernible value to the ionosphere, troposphere, or biosphere.

Brian:

I have a different approach, in that I am not presuming any need or right - nor am I trying - to reach through 'dense skulls' or indeed layers of conditioning that - knowingly or not - operate as defences against anything that does not support the self-definition or model by which others identify and feel supported by. I am reaching from and as an expression of that which is already being - regardless its current form of presentation.

I don't need patience because I am not impatiently invested in an outcome that invalidates or overlooks our starting place - which is where we are rather than where the mind may want to jump ahead to - in identification with its projected outcome. The mind of judgement is very similar to the idea of a field of possibility and probability that collapses to a specific pre-set outcome - and indeed re-enacts the split mind of a demented god in infinite variations that all speak the loss of the awareness of the field in which a subjective experience of an objective reality arises.

Subjectivity is inescapable - though you can try dying and see if that in fact relieves you of whatever awareness actually is - which is where you are - happy or not.

Objectivity is a moving shared focus within consciousness - where two or more are gathered in one movement of being - there is a quality of recognition that embraces self and world at once.

This is not a private reality imagination but a relational disturbance to such apparent 'reality' that calls forth a balancing of self and other within an expanded sense of self.

However, focusing in identification of the private self sense, can fail to recognize the call and movement of expansion of the focus of awareness, and set up a countering force of contraction and defence around the image, model or definition of self reality.

All the conflicting 'selves' generate a conflicting 'world' of competing judgements that is as dense as the 'contract' demands.

Holding back the flow of Life must be in concept and not in truth - but nonetheless we have the ability to render ourselves virtually unconscious in any number of ways - each seeming justifiable to its own thought - because its thought is invoked to provide justification.

I can shake my head in wonder at the different ways the Living Universe has of manifesting Itself - but I can abide in wonder - that is the fruit of the field of pure awareness or I can get lost in plunder - that uses others to 'get' a sense of becoming more or better or more justified in judgement or better qualified to vent grievance.

Discerning Worth is either the false currency of such a segregative sense of self in conflict - or an innate quality of existence that spontaneously rises as the movement of awareness/object.

Defining worth in negative terms of the 'prodigal' plunderer - operates a depleting and destructive unfolding of conflicting experience whilst limiting such worth to an ever decreasing elitist and isolationist agenda - which defines itself in terms of power to control narrative and enforce it.

But where there is any willingness for communication  - and I expand the term to include emotional communication beneath and within other forms of communication, there is an opportunity for a release of conditioned reaction to an expanded appreciation. Of course we each and collectively set rules of 'communication' that we want others to fulfil - but life has a way of disturbing our sense of how things 'should' be,

because our 'model' is blocking a greater fulfilment of integrative appreciation and function - but it cant force us to see what we refuse to accept - and so our will is done - on Earth - but out-of-true in dis-integrity.

It is ourselves we impoverish when withholding our blessing - our willingness to acknowledge worth in the other - and our world. Others can choose to use the experience in whatever way they will - but if they are sharing in the same currency of belief - they will find reinforcement of the experience of a loveless, hostile and treacherous world.

Finally, yes there are paths of willingness that open and apparent obstructions of refusal, defiance or incapacity that we meet in others - as our reflections of reinforcement of prior conditioning. There is no point in persisting in talking to that which is unable to hear - but that does not mean one is deprived or slighted. Use the experience for whatever it reveals of one's own mind-in-reaction and turn to that which is representative of who you prefer to be - because there is no objectively imposing 'should be', and if you attempt to impose it on self you will suffer it in other. Likewise if you seek to impose 'should' on another, you lose your own awareness of freedom. It always cuts both ways - so why not use the nature of Mind constructively and give or extend that which you want to strengthen in yourself.

You may think you have preserved an island of Reason amidst a sea of insanity - but there is more going on backstage than you realise.

Hypotheses can be tested. By the fruits you shall know. If you actively want the fruit of the tree of judgement of good and evil - then your are NOT subject to a demented god nor obliged to hide (redefine yourself) within "Billions of years of evolution". By your own will - or indeed by the denial and impositional model upon what would have been your will - are you free to expand your perspective or contract upon your conviction. Is this so? I don't ask you to abandon what serves you while your belief is in it - but your long-suffering of 'fools' has a deeper root than the behaviours of others, following whatever they are following. The world really is not unfolding as anyone's model supposed. This is transformational once we release energy from defence and invest in creative curiosity - and follow through with an integrity of communication and relationship. Science and technology restated in expanded terms. If a 'model' serves useful purpose - let it. Why seek the One True Model? Why seek to rise on the death of the other? I believe there is a unifying, integrative 'force','field','principle' - but that it can only be known by its embodiment and reflection. It takes one to know one. Scientists forget they are dis-covering an already truth and think they are determining and defining it. Humanity has always been uncovering already truth in all kinds of ways. Science is one of them - but is built on more of an inherited conditioning than it generally recognizes.

Ernesto DelMundo:

Look...when I say dense skulls that's exactly what I mean. They are not penetrable to logic, reason, or science. Trust me, I tried. You can't finesse a coconut open. You have to use a hammer. That's the only thing that a coconut will yield to. You feelin' me?

Brian:

Yes, I can feel you.

For what purpose would you want to 'hit' ALPHAMEG - or anyone else to 'crack them open' and 'yield' to you?

Is your rage the only feeling you have - or must it be felt (yielded to) first in order then to meet the more of who you are?

I can feel your anger and I am still here.

Logic can only operate from an initial presumption or definition. Reason properly speaking, is sanity and as I said before, science is the desire and willingness to uncover what is already true.

If there is an error in the initial presumption, logic may operate perfectly and seem to be sane when in fact there are internal contradictions that are unrecognized in the model. This is what Kuhn referred to in 'The structure of scientific revolutions".

When one is in receipt of being hit and cracked open to force a yielding to what does not feel true or loving or worthy of loving. The tendency may not only to defend in any way possible, but associate the forms of the antagonist with the agony, and reject them - thus growing a reactive oppositional identity of anti-'scientist' because the ambassador failed to open a channel of communication - for whatever reasons.

I am inviting you to listen to me. No hammer, no cracking open and no intent that you yield to anything but what you decide is your true or highest good.

Listening is not yielding or weakness, listening is opening to data and trusting yourself to read it. Refusal to listen may look like a dense skull - but the density is proportional to the sense of being hit and the fear of being cracked open. Denial is appropriate to unloving or harmful intent - but if it sets in place - it imprints all that comes thereafter in the same terms. In other words it is no longer reachable - excepting to be hit by.

If you were defined publicly here as you are describing and defining ALPHAMEG - would you feel hit on or would you feel that it simply had nothing to do with you and therefore gave it no further attention?

I suspect that the latter course is the sanest response because anything said to someone who comes in hitting is likely to be interpreted as justification for attack - and so they get a wide berth - unless useful in a proxy war.

The world is like it is because we are behaving like we do as a result of mis-identifications and breakdown of communication. A hammer is a fair choice of tool to open a coconut but is not a sane choice to communicate with - unless murder or torture is what you want to get across above all else?

I am joining with your example to illustrate an alternate perspective. What you choose to use it for is as always with you.

Ernesto DelMundo:

I am doing the guy a favor by drilling or hammering into his head. It's an intervention. Tough love. A rescue of someone who has turned self-destructive. I am trying to prevent him from further harming himself and others. Climate change threatens the entire web of life. His ignorance is fueling the threat and making it worse. I am capable of introspection and perhaps my methods could use refinement or adjustment. This is the product of 20 years of dealing with the fact-free zone of the conspiracy theorists of the internet. It's even worse on Youtube than it is here.

Brian:

No you are trolling.

Ernesto DelMundo:

Trolling? Perhaps in the sense that Donald Trump is trolling, i.e., providing a pubic service in identifying people who should be sterilized.

Brian:

OK so you are one trick anti 'Trumpet'. But instead of exposing him - he becomes you.

Ernesto DelMundo:

Are you kidding? He didn't even read a word I wrote. He's off taking photos of "chemtrails".

Brian :

I don't doubt he read it and chose not to respond.

I find YOU to be someone who doesn't read a word I write - excepting to use it for ammunition. You have an axe to grind - whether it is really yours or you are played out as an actor in someone else's script.

If you have a grievance - then it is YOUR anger and the sense of hurt beneath it is yours too. Sun-screening keeps the Light OUT and the means to do so are toxic to Life. Redistributing psychic energy or weather as if to control the narrative and protect an elitist power base, is simply lies built on lies. We do unto our self unknowing.

Climate change is naturally challenging and yet the human exploitation of climate change is unnatural in making a pseudo religion in which fear, guilt, hate and rage are given power to dictate and control the narrative.

There is no love of Humanity in such a 'religion' what so ever. Are fear, guilt, hate and rage a 'conspiracy' to appear not only reasonable but Exclusively Compelling and above or beyond any process of communication excepting Edicts?

I see fear, guilt, hate, rage - and deceit and denial as expressions of a negative appreciation.

Under the convenient fiction of 'saving the world', everything that would thrive is withered on the bough. It's a trojan horse of wishful thinking and 'good intentions' through which evil intent operates under cover.

Disinfo is wielded as a weapon. Large budgets are assigned to undermine and frustrate any 'movement' the shadow 'governers' deem a threat to Notional Security - their notion of a trans-national system of extortion.

Just like your 'climate theory' in which humanity is guilty of causing and more guilty of not addressing and even more guilty of presuming to challenge, survival theory generally runs the same pattern. "If you do not do as we say - and our experts agree, bad things will happen to you".

'Bad things' will happen to you in any case - in terms of unexpected and unwelcome outcomes. But to be in a true willingness of embracing Life - your own life truly lived - is to be vigilant against letting fear, guilt, hate, rage, deceit and denial operate in place of truly heart-connected thought, word and deed.

Conspiracy theory originated as a CIA tactic to 'own any opposition' before it even takes breath. That's why it is necessary to find a voice that is not coming from fear, guilt, hate, rage, deceit and denial - but from the recognition, reintegration and transcendence of division within our own heart and mind.

I read that 'conspiracy' once meant 'breathing together'. Breathing in light that opens a togetherness rather than locking down in denial of light and regulating how to breathe.

Here's something from:

http://doasone.com/conspire_6.htm

Definition circa 1300: From Latin conspirare which means to agree, unite, plot, and com which means together + spirare meaning to breathe. So, literally conspire means to breathe together.

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word conspiracy is from 1386; conspiracy theory is from 1909. Before 1386 the word conspire simply meant to breathe together. After the word conspiracywas born, the root word conspire took on a new meaning  to plot

something wrong, evil or illegal.

Modern definition of conspire : 1. To agree together, especially secretly, to do something wrong, evil, or illegal;

2. To act or work together toward the same result or goal.

-Dictionary.com, 2010

The power of breathing together was hidden for centuries due to the misdirection of a powerful word. Do As One is reawakening the original meaning of the word and inviting people to conspire anytime, anywhere in one of our LIVE Breathing Rooms.



Ernesto DelMundo replied:

You are obviously new to this. The crank would have definitely responded with more non-scientific gibberish had he read my response.Or perhaps he sees you doing his work for him.

Let's talk more about climate change. It's not just the atmosphere that is impacted by humans spewing massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the air. The ocean is chemically altered as well, to the point where the entire food chain could collapse. Google "ocean acidification mass extinction". We are possibly on the brink of causing the worst mass extinction in about 250 million years. So keep fiddling on about "conspiracy theories" like the rest of whack jobs or educate yourself about the actual ways the biosphere is under siege. Your choice.


Brian:

It appears that your perspective and your choice to present a smug superiority in the guise of condescension and smear.

I don't share currency of hate-terms - excepting they indicate unresolved issues of fear, guilt, hate, rage, deceit and denial. You may not desire to be free of them - but I join in that desire and it is a perspective in which your coconut will at some point flower whether you like it or not. (But no because I say so!)

I have a possible point of connection with you from a deep love for (and concern as to our treatment of) Mother Earth - Our Planet - Our Living Environment in which and from which we are humanly integral - yet which a disconnected kind heartless thinking is poisoning - just as such thinking corrupts or poisons our own consciousness.

I would rewrite your sentiments within a more inclusive ownership of thought, word and deed. I can see that you have a sense of defining yourself AGAINST something you seem to find more destructive than the poison. If you want to 'fight evil' why not seek to identify it's nature and device and bring it out in the open? Perhaps what at first seems an impure perspective might have something to share in a way that your pride and prejudice disallow? You are not the ONLY perspective on Earth - nor the judge of others - excepting as you want to assume a position of power over Life on Earth?


One kind of a conspiracy is a conspiracy of silence - where what is known is NOT spoken, witnessed or embodied. This kind of tacit agreement NOT to acknowledge, honour or accept is the primary basis of a false human consciousness. I use the word false because it costs us our true appreciation of Life in "Heaven and on Earth" as of a unified Spirit or Purpose. Bringing the false out into the open - into the light is served by symptoms of dissonance and distress - brought to curiosity and enquiry - rather than made war upon as evil in and of themselves.

Fear and guilt frame very dark dramatic pictures with rage and powerlessness playing out a sense of power by which to NOT see they are of the same mis-identification. The only SEEMING power over Life is death. But it has no power over you but what you give it. If you seek power over Life you are seeking to limit and control it to your concept of yourself - and this inherently conflicts you in an experience of war against Otherness in place of knowing your right relationship.

Our Biosphere Breathes within a Greater Being. You can find you breathe as one with the Earth's Evolving Consciousness or you can conspire to play out power games in which you cast yourself against shadows that you refuse to meet or recognize.

Theories are imaginations and the fact is that imaginations that truly don't serve you, do not belong in you, or identify you truly. Fact is not determined by theory but by a wholeness of appreciation. A negative appreciation is inherently conflicted and a false positive is only a wishful mask over a feared negative.

Beware the names you give - for they have stuck to you and set your face - that then seems to besiege what would have been your mind-in-relational communication rather than a disconnect or communication breakdown looking for life to kill so as to finally make a fact of being right about the power of death.


The Daily Bell Moderator to Ernesto DelMundo

Mr. DelMundo, please stop now. You've made your point several times over.


Brian to Daily Bell:

I had wondered if you were overseeing, DB, for there is a certain 'leakage' of emotional charge that is part and parcel of being able to address charged issues that should (I feel) not be "politically INcorrected" or demonized - but resolved within a willingness of communication, if only to identify the feelings that are present - rather than run with their personifications.

But - put-down - if it becomes accepted currency - is the end of any honourable process of comment and conversation here. I value the quality of conversation here at the Daily Bell  - though I see the currency of personifying negative feelings can also lead to a bubble 'consensus' of hating this or that in a way that actively blocks awareness of the underlying issues.

I sense that it is because there is some willingness to enquire more deeply that the attracted community of commentary here has depth. It is in this willingness that I extended embrace to Ernesto DelMundo - who for all I know could be an AI algorithm - so blurred is the line now between human and robotics.

I appreciate that moderating is called for sometimes but that also anyone valuing honourable exchange here can address hate by bringing it to light as an unacceptable currency of exchange. If there is any substance to a point we want to make we can find a way to do it without dumping or targeting another with invalidating or negative feelings - and in the light of a recent DB article on medicalizing or criminalizing 'conspiracy theory' I restate that this is a radical educative need!

But that we uncover feelings of hate and its accompaniments is part of the 'territory' of reclaiming power from that which robs us. The ideal of tidying it all away is part of the overcontrolling imbalance that works against Life. Thankyou for your timing and your lightness of touch.