Gaia: Survive

Re: Change the Way We Change

http://jordancouch.gaia.com — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 07:35:28 GMT

That's great! Thank you for the cut/paste message. This pod is for anything that anyone wants to share.

I agree, and I also voted for our President elect, Barack Obama.

Peace...

Re: Change the Way We Change

http://haledavid1.gaia.com — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 11:00:58 GMT

Apologies... It seems neither here or in other places I posted the above did I cut and paste the blurb attributing it to Mr Rob Brezsny. That's who wrote it. I meant to say I thought it was such a wonderful way to look at the whole picture and still act.

Blessings, David

Change the Way We Change

http://haledavid1.gaia.com — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:08:00 GMT

Just a pop in and post to praise Mr. Brezsny and spread something he had on his front page at Free Will Astrology today.
Blessings, David

Dear Readers,

Before the last U.S. presidential election back in 2004, What Is Enlightenment? magazine posed the following query to five religious leaders: "Many people argue that the upcoming presidential election is the most important in our lifetime. Do you
agree?"

Four of the respondents said, in effect, "Yes, because George Bush is bad for America and the world."

But the fifth religious leader, Zen Buddhist Jan Chozen Roshi, replied, "I don't know. Our existence is so short, it's like a dust mote in the eye of God. To say that the time in which my dust mote existed was the most important is a self-centered view."

Roshi's wisdom reminded me of an anecdote told by Henry Kissinger, an American politician who was Secretary of State in the 1970s. Kissinger once asked Chinese premier Zhou Enlai what he thought of the French Revolution, which had happened two centuries earlier. "Too soon to tell," Chou answered.

I always like to keep these ideas in mind, even in times of relative peace and calm. But I'm especially fond of focusing on the *very* big picture when divine chaos is whirling around -- like now. It helps keep me humble, and discourages me from any temptation I might have to believe I know the Whole Truth about anything, let alone about the mysterious long-term processes at work in the evolution of the human race.

There's another factor that makes me cautious about getting embroiled in partisan politics and the narrow-minded hostility that fuels it. One of my main goals in life is to love everyone with passionate intensity -- no exceptions. Not just the people I find beautiful and helpful and interesting and attractive. But also the people I don't like and the people who don't like me and the people I disagree with and the people who can't or won't do anything for me.

In order to become the gorgeous genius I aspire to be, in order to fulfill the unique destiny I came to Earth to embody, I have to hold EVERYONE in my heart with compassion and empathy. As I contemplate how every single part of creation is interconnected, I've got to be aware that the creatures I'm allergic to and inclined to feel alienated from are also part of the great web of life.

That's my spiritual goal; it's essential to awakening my best self and cultivating an intimate connection to Spirit. It's also my selfish goal; it's critical to my physical and mental health. Hatred always sickens me. Love always invigorates me.

*

On the other hand:

I was born at a specific moment in history with a unique outlook and a particular assignment. I can't help but be passionate about the truth as I see it.

And the truth as I see it is that Barack Obama is the best choice for President of the United States. He is definitely the most pronoiac candidate.

That's why I'm voting for him and feel good about saying:

BARACK OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT

Re: Obama

http://jordancouch.gaia.com — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 01:34:01 GMT

Cool. Thanks for all the clarification and understanding and information. I wish you safety and success in Iraq. As I write this response, I am watching the final presidential debate on CBS. And, it looks as if Obama is the stronger. But, look at my past predications at the beginning of this post. I won't be surprised if McCain wins! Smiles.

All the best, my friend.

Re: Obama

http://haledavid1.gaia.com — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:51:53 GMT

JORDAN

No misunderstandings here. Written communication is as hard as any other communication with a few extra loops thrown in. Despite that you’ve been clear as newly washed crystal. I thank you for that.

Have seen most of what you mention and I continue to deal with the gut wrenching shudder that accompanies the questions such viewing raises.

I’ve recently heard and remembered a quote which rings strongly for me when dealing with others in my life. “My facts won’t change your perception.” It’s so simple yet so hard to accept when I talk to and deal with others who simply seem to choose not to see where I'm coming from. Yet it's possible to state the facts I have and let it go.

It seems you may be dealing with that too Jordan so I hope the quote and viewpoint helps.

If you’re a reader I’d add this to your list and move it to the top of the stack. Though I’d have several boxes of tissue and a few friends stand by for support.

For my part: I will vote Absentee due to military training and hope my vote is appropriately counted. I will take these views, videos, ideas from books, the changing focus of the Army mission and create a space for them. Then I will deploy to Iraq and do the best I can to educate & also humor my fellow soldiers.

Blessings backatcha,

David

Re: Obama

http://jordancouch.gaia.com — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 07:12:32 GMT

I think I caused a misunderstanding. I wasn't at all suggesting that you were laughing at me. I knew you weren't. I knew exactly what you meant and how you felt. I was trying to express that I basically tried to be all smart and stuff by predicting who was going to win, but I was completely wrong, in all the predictions. When I said, "at my expense", I wasn't directly responding to you, it was, how do I say it, sort of a self-ridiculing response. I was kicking myself in the butt so to speak. It's really difficult sometimes to express tone and even sarcasm while writing.

Sorry that I wasn't clear. I honestly knew what you meant. We are both peaceful adults, and I know you well enough (electronically) to know your intentions. Anyways, nuff said. Smiles.

Yes, I was hoping Hillary would win. But, you know, after watching Zeitgeist and other of these type of NWO movies, I'm beginning to realize that it really doesn't matter who gets to be president. Well, a part of me thinks it will matter, but on the hand, I just don't care. "Hacking Democracy" is another movie I think I posted in my blog. It's a movie about the rigging of voting machines. It really made me feel hopeless as far as voting is concerned.

Oh well, I think the absolute most important thing for democracy is to find a system of voting that will accurately count all votes--transparently. Electronic voting machines are not part of my idea either. And, we need more than one place to cast our votes so that corruption doesn't happen. I want to write a blog about my ideas for a more perfect voting system someday.

Thank you for posting here, and have lots of peace and happiness in your life.

Re: Obama

http://haledavid1.gaia.com — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:10:14 GMT

I4one am not laughing at your expense. Geesh... could the terms TOPSY TURVY have more relevance than in todays world. I'm sure my grandparents would scoff and relate their stories and experiences.

Just you and I here Jordan... whispering in the corner.

I think people are starting to realize they are personally being asked/forced to figure out what's really important to them and step out to act on it. State it. Think about it. Support it. etc, etc etc.

Thankful that laughter plays a part in that.
I won't link to proof... yet I was pretty sure Hilary would win the DEM nomination. LOL in retrospect.

Blessings, David

Re: Obama

http://jordancouch.gaia.com — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 06:25:29 GMT

Thank you! Yes, laughter is a good thing. But, gosh, why did it have to come at my expense? I made a fool out of myself, sort of. My predictions were all wrong. Mabye I just made those predictions because that's what I wanted to see happen. Hah! Either way, I better stick to things other than politics. Maybe comedy? Laughs.

Re: Obama

http://haledavid1.gaia.com — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:07:46 GMT

Made me laugh. Had to join pod to say thanks for the laugh. Maybe we should all become political scientists.

Blessings, David

Re: Obama

http://jordancouch.gaia.com — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 22:22:24 GMT

I was comletely wrong. I guess I shouldn't become a political scientist. Smiles.

Obama

http://jordancouch.gaia.com — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 04:16:58 GMT

Hillary has conceded and will probably become the vice president. Can you imagine that? Who would ever have thought that 2008/09 would be the year that an African American and a woman would hold the highest political office in the U.S.A? Absolutely amazing. But, you never know what will happen. McCain may also win. Who do you think he'll have as a vice president? Mitt Romney?

Re: Mental problems?

http://jordancouch.gaia.com — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:08:02 GMT

I hear you. I wish there was a magic solution to make everyone normal. Smiles.

Mental problems?

http://pemadeva.gaia.com — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:05:48 GMT

Guess I'm fed up of handling other people's mental problems and their incapacity and/or unwillingness to resolve them. One thing I know for sure, everyone who has mental problems knows perfectly about that and copes to have it preserved so they can surf in their crisis and make fun of people as much as they wish. Something deeply related to character. This really sucks!

War On Terror?

http://jordancouch.gaia.com — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:09:12 GMT

The "War on Terror". If you really analyze that buzz phrase you'll soon realize that it is not correct. In fact, it doesn't serve the purpose of defense and security, because it is invalid. Let me explain. Just so you know, I only had this revelation less than two minutes ago while reading news, and then looking up a definition on "terrorize". Therefore, like most of my writing, I have not thought this through very much and might be incomplete.

Here is the short chronology that inspired the writing of this blog:

http://cbs8.com
14 Sep 2007, approx. 2:35PM Pacific Time
WORLD NEWS
"Powerful Aftershocks Terrorize Indonesia"

After reading that headline (link), I questioned whether "Terrorize" was spelled correctly because I thought it should be spelled "Terrorise". So, I did a google search on the definition, which led me to this website:

http://www.answers.com/topic/terrorize

WordNet

The verb terrorize has 2 meanings:

Meaning 1: coerce by violence or with threats
Synonym: terrorise

Meaning 2: fill with terror; frighten greatly
Synonyms: terrify, terrorise

After noticing the spelling was correct, I continued to read the definitions and to just let my mind begin to ponder and analyze the meaning and understanding of that word. Then, if I can still remember now as I write here, came up with an idea.

I began to think about the reality of violence and fear and threats. Here is what came to my mind. The act of violence towards people, and the destruction of property with the intent to harm people physically, emotionally, or psychologically is not terror. It is an act of violence and destruction. The consequence of that destruction and violence may result in fear from its survivors and witnesses, but that is a result of the act itself. If witnesses and survivors of those types of behaviors choose not to experience fright or become threatened, then there is no terror. Even if those violent people intend to threaten or frighten people by their acts, it does not necessarily mean that they have terrorized them. It is up to the witnesses and survivors of the violence to be frightened or not. Using the word "terror" is giving extra power to those people that choose to do those acts of destruction. It is their intent to frighten and threaten people. But, if nobody gets frightened then it is not an act of terror. It is only an act of violence and destruction. When we say that it is an "act of terror" then we are admitting to the people that have done such acts that they have succeeded in frightening us.

A much more accurate phrase could be "an intentional act of destruction", or "a war on destruction". Bombs cause destruction of life and property. Terror is the possible result of that destruction. The phrase, "war on terror" means to me that there is a struggle to control the fearful minds of witnesses and survivors of acts of destruction. People can either be afraid and threatened by those acts committed, or they can view the destruction as a random and chaotic event, like we see in the destruction that earthquakes and hurricanes cause people. Just because destruction comes from people or from nature doesn't mean we have to feel afraid or threatened. People, as well as nature, cause destruction and pain to people.

Just maybe, if we go back in time far enough, we'll realize that people learned to kill people by witnessing the weather and such natural acts of destruction. Or, maybe not. Maybe we learned to bring harm to people because we got confused in our struggles to defend ourselves against other lower forms of life. We once lived in the jungle where the animals could kill and eat us. So, in order to defend ourselves, we would kill them. Maybe, just maybe, the hunters of those days long ago got confused over who was an animal and who was a person. It's my intention to bring us back long ago to discover what happened so that we can get on the right track again and work together as a unified team of people to defend ourselves from the real threats to humanity; microbes, animals, and weather.

So, that's all I feel like writing today on that subject. Maybe it'll come up again. Or maybe not. So, it's not a "war on terror". It should be a "defense against confusion".