April 15, 2015

Who Are We?

Currently reading the Ringing Cedars series book #5 Who Are We? by Vladimir Megre. The book features life in the Russian Tioga with Anastasia - a nymph of nature. The series captures a different vision of how the world can live at peace and demonstrates the weigh to get there. As we begin to question the current social strategy as extremely self-serving for those in charge, we realize that in reality there is nobody really in charge, except each and every one of us. So, Who are we?

Imagine a flow chart that asks questions that narrow down a broadened scope. This is the weigh that current science tends to pretend to work, by asking questions, finding answers and eliminating possibilities. The reality is that science has been an agenda and that all the techno gadgets do not help us answer some of the basic questions. Like, Who are we?

Let's begin our answer with first the statement that i am part of we. If i am not part of we, then we cannot exist in this form, so inclusion in the we presume both me and you. That is you the reader, who i am talking to as one of the we. If you choose to exclude yourself from this we, then by all means be yourself, and loan me your interest, to include you as a reader, if not part of my greater whole we. So, at this moment, we should be okay with you and me as part of we.

How about the other readers? May i include them with you and me, since we are all reading the same insight? If our group of we includes all the readers, should we all each of us in this we include our immediate families?To me this is the first stop. In this we, i speak to everyone willing to read or share information, but for a larger we, must i include people that do not directly interact with me? In some groups, yes, in other groups, no. Inclusion in the group of we should have some criteria that sets us different from other groups. But in reality, isn't everybody part of the we?

Are pets part of the we? We, you and I and the other readers, all treat our pets as part of the circle of love - and they return that love unconditionally much better than other people. They have a sense of when we need them and they're there, yet they also know when to be scarce. If we include our pets as part of who we are, we are happier than when we have to exclude them because of some other person's rules.

Perhaps our group can be thought of as we and not have a consistent membership. If we is a variable that can expand or contract in number depending upon our inclusion zone, then we can use the term we to represent different we's, if we keep ourselves clear. We the people now includes corporations in our structure as defined by the legal system, which is an archaic fiction imposed upon us, people. Can we work through this problem in an inclusive manner, or must we conform to the self-serving edicts of the banksters and cronies? I exclude myself from their we, strawman and all. Feeling is mutual, as i.am excluded from their system for past transgressions of unknown detail, because i will not pay for their information.

If you want to be we in this small community, there may be land stewardship possibilities. Keep in tune with the harmonics and expand your personal we to include everyone that you believe would like to share our changing the movie experience. 

Namaste' ... lemme

No comments: