What is wrong with the paradigm

The inputs from the field are extremely strong today - as though i can feel the energy rising within my loins. Glen Alport gives more thought to the paradigm shift that we face.

'A paradigm is a framework for understanding, constructed from widely-shared assumptions, theories, examples, and beliefs. Paradigms give meaning to diverse sets of data, guiding action in useful ways – or in less-useful ways, depending on the accuracy of the paradigm.'

Science is a very limited paradigm that has shifted focus away from what the nature of science ought to be. Inquiry, curiosity and wonder are features of science that are key to the understanding conceptually, but no longer have a real place in the funding structure of what has developed. The nature of reality is subjected to the force of an artificial science, that looks to exploit items, rather than have intra-convertible forms that allow energy to be extracted from and placed toward other forms of materials that retain a usefulness in their product. A key concept - recycling - is not at all implemented in a form that actually recycles.

Science today is hard, cold and calculating. It is often built from common misconception and is stunted by the economic overlayer that reqires any venture to create 'profit' in only the economic sense. There is no room for mysticism, religion or love - just a cruel desolate galaxy of hot stars warming rocks. Love, intuition and emotion are all denied by the current science status, which has set the arbitrary goal of improving nature. Rather than taking in the forms that nature creates, we must reinvent them, or suppress them with the creation of artificial actors that disrupt a process. Current chemical industry is based on this exploitation of nature, with the Monsanto's of the world working in tandem with the General Electric's and the Halliburton's. This profit-at-any-cost science effort has betrayed the potential developed at the turn of the last century (1900), when the tesla's could not compete with the j.p. morgan's and the heisenberg's were distracted from their interests to feed the world-at-war paradigm that we now share.

Love and Freedom as yin/yang. I don't know. Relationships are based on too many parsings of definitions - english has literally become a towel-of-babel language. If i mean to say what i wish to say, choosing the proper words is very important - but if my well chosen words have different connotations to the persons listening, then naturally i will be mis-understood. Freedom is such a nebulous concept - lack of coercion is just one interpretation. How many people have attempted to define love. Ghandi sort of got it - but the time of his life was such that he did what he could do. The next player on stage that comes from the spiritual direction will need to have a fluency in both science and religion to demonstrate that yin/yang relationship, which has an aura of uncertainty feel about it.

What is our purpose? Who can say? Start with truth for its own sake and move on from there. Time to question all answers rather than answer all questions based on this current collective science thought pattern. If pro-freedom folks do what they do, that has to be good enough to fit with the explanations based on the truth as we connect to our consciousness level. I talk in terms of science, because that is what i know to talk from, but if you have a different field than science, just substitute your chosen area and you can think of parallel examples. Life comes in facets of the same design.