[GJM] Systemic Balance (was: Re: #14 Replies to #13 Brad Edmonds On TOP And TWP (robert searle)

[marguerite hampton]

Robert Searle writes in part: 

 

d)I understand your disgust for politics, and

politicians, and just simply going your own way by

following a simple sustainable lifestyle. However, to

suggest that some "natural" and/or man-made disaster

would possibly bring about such a world out of

necessity is somehow immoral. It could well happen but

whether it would remain "self-sustaining" is another

matter. It would really depend on how devasting the

disaster was, and how damaged the former economic

system had become.



Robert, having become familiar with how the body-mind

works and the concept of the "the whole universe in a

single atom" I view the Earth as an intelligent and living

organism of which we, as humans, are a "sub-system".



As such, the "Earth system" and the "Human system" 

(both are, in reality, field effects) which are in constant 

communication with one another via subtle vibrational

(electromagnetic) frequencies which strive at all times

to maintain "harmonic resonance" which might also be

translated as "balance".  



When one or the other of these entities gets out of balance,

the other strives through a natural and implicate order to

bring things back into balance.  In the context of the "big

picture" Global Climate Change is such an orchestrated 

event put on to benefit both the human family and the 

Earth .  Such an event opens up the opportunity for us

(the Human system) to increase our intelligence through

a learning experience.  The learning experience being 

that of how to bring our system back into balance again

so that the Earth may continue to provide for us.  



I do believe, Robert, that you, and others, continually miss 

the point that through overpopulation and excessive 

consumption, it is we, the Human system, who has brought.

about the threat of our own demise.by compromisting the

Earth system in such a manner that it may not be able to 

fulfill its covenant to be our life support system.  



So, what is the ethical choice here?  Would  you, Robert

advocate that the Earth try to rebalance the system 

by going into a climate change which will maximize its 

efforts to revitalize itself over a few centuries, or that it 

continue to suffer from the abuses inflicted upon it by

an uncaring Human system to the extent that both the 

Planet and the Human system are unable to recover? 



Not that the Human system intended to place its host in

such a position, but due to "mistakes," repeated over time 

as part of the Human System Learning Cycle, led to 

overload of the Earth System such as to put it in a downward

slide from which it could not recover if the Earth System did

not take steps to assure its own recovery. 



What I feel Robert, is that you tend to take things too personally.

And life can be cruel in this context.  When we take life too 

personally, we live in constant fear of death.  And Western 

religion has for the most part placed us in a position of being

a "death cult". On the other hand, "The Tibetan Book of the Dead"

is a book on how to die gracefully and in comfort. Of course,

being much older and therefore much more mature than 

Western religion, there is more wisdom inherent in Tibetan

culture and in Buddhism -- Buddhism also recognizes 

Quantum Physics and Western religion for the most part

does not have as yet the capacity to do this.   .   



Do you understand what I am saying?   



As to your comment re: "It could well happen but

whether it would remain "self-sustaining" is another

matter. It would really depend on how devasting the

disaster was, and how damaged the former economic

system had become. " 



My feeling is that it will depend upon whether or not the 

Human System develops the ability to take the next step

into a higher level of consciousness quickly enough so

as to act in ways that will mitigate the damage and the 

suffering.  . 



We have to mature into the next stage of our development.

(Refer to Woolf's Six Stages of Human Development)  It

appears that we are very much in the "me" stage at the 

present time. 





Message: 1

Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 12:30:31 +0000 (GMT)

From: robert searle <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk>

Subject: Re: [GJM] #14 Replies to #13 Brad Edmonds On TOP And TWP

To: Discussion Forum for Global Justice

  <discussion at globaljusticemovement.net>

Message-ID: <20061124123031.23779.qmail at web27407.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

 

    Dear MH,

 

 

            I will reply "in brief":-

 

 

a) I am glad you have come across Gandy,and

Freke.However, I have not read their  other work you

mentioned.

 

 

b) What I meant about Mr. Bunzl is that he is not one

of the tiny handful of top plutocrats with great

power. He may have "privliged" access to some of them

,and their organisations which may well be true.

However, this does not qualify him as being part of

the elite as I would understand it.

 

 

c)You are right the GMS does not care for

social,economic,and political justice...unless it

serious disturbs profiteering!!!This is why "bribing"

them to do the "right thing" is the road ahead.

Admitedly, it may not be right morally but we have

little choice, and little time. All this has already

been explained albeit somewhat simplistically in

connection with the positive engagement of banks, and

corporations in the TFE paradigm.

 

 

d)I understand your disgust for politics, and

politicians, and just simply going your own way by

following a simple sustainable lifestyle. However, to

suggest that some "natural" and/or man-made disaster

would possibly bring about such a world out of

necessity is somehow immoral. It could well happen but

whether it would remain "self-sustaining" is another

matter. It would really depend on how devasting the

disaster was, and how damaged the former economic

system had become.

 

 

R.Searle