What do you think?
ARE SCIENCE AND SPIRITUALITY
MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE?

One of our most regular commenters here at The Global Conversation has said about my last post here: “I just read Neale’s post again, and I must again marvel that with little manipulation, it can fit right into a scientific paradigm. There is no talk of souls or afterlives or manipulating matter, reading minds, or the other typical woo nonsense.”

This gentleman, named Patrick Gannon, then adds:

“With just a little bit of work, this article can be an analogy for the quantum wave, of quantum fields, of which our universe is comprised. Energy affecting — other energy — those can be quantum fields interacting. Probably wishful thinking on my part, but is this a small step away from the woo?”

I would like to reflect on that commentary here.

Let me begin by saying that it should not be surprising that my understanding of God “can fit right into a scientific paradigm” with what Patrick calls “a little manipulation” — and what I would call “a little imagination” and “a little information.”

I’ve never for a moment thought that science and spirituality are mutually exclusive, or somehow at odds with each other.

What CWG has done for me is add to my thinking “a little information” that I did not previously have…and the dialogue does not restrict its information to that which humanity already fully understands, but invites me to stretch my imagination to include the possibility that there may be something about God and about Life that humanity do not yet fully understand…the understanding of which could change everything.

I think the only difference between what CWG is telling me about God and what science is telling us about the universe is that CWG (and, more broadly, the New Spirituality) is saying that the process of life has been (and continues to be) consciously created by a force and a source of wisdom, self-awareness, and purposeful intention that I would, in my own vocabulary, describe in one word as love.

I have come to conclude that the energy I feel as love is the Essential Essence, or the Pure, Undifferentiated Energy that some people (myself included, for shorthand) call God. I believe that this Essential Essence or Pure Energy moves with purpose and intention — the purpose and intention of each element which is capable of consciousness choice…and that the combined or collaborative purpose and intention of The Whole is what we might call God In Action.

I believe this Pure Energy exists in, as, and through everything — and, furthermore, that it can be affected and manipulated by itself. That is, by facets or particles of itself. I have long (echoing what I was told in CWG) stated that energy affects energy through the processes of energy itself. This is, others may note, quantum physics at its most fundamental level.

I have been talking for 20 years about the “contextual field”…and physics has been talking for many years of the “quantum field.”

CWG told me two decades ago that “there is no straight line in the universe,” and quantum theory confirms that the basic “shape” of the cosmos is curved.

CWG told me two decades ago that time, as we understand it, does not exist, and quantum physics makes it clear that there is no separation between what we call Time and Space, and that we are actually living in what a layman (or a spiritual author) might call the Eternal Moment of Now.

I think, in the end, that it would be ironic if the only real difference between Mr. Gannon and myself, in terms of our larger cosmological understandings, is the terminology we use to describe many of the exact same things. What he describes as “woo” is what I describe as that which we “don’t fully understand about God and about Life, the understanding of which would change everything.”

Mr. Gannon leaves me with the impression that he feels that if something cannot be proven and demonstrated scientifically, it is “woo,” and not worthy of our consideration.

I rather like the viewpoint of people such as Albert Einstein, who didn’t dismiss ideas simply because they could not (yet) be proven, but rather, said: “To sense that behind everything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense…I am a devoutly religious man.”

I would not describe myself as devoutly religious, but I would say that I am “a deeply spiritual man.” By this I mean to communicate that I believe there is a spiritual basis, presence, identity, and essence behind all of life that cannot yet be explained by humanity’s currently limited linear scientific logic or proof-driven model.

Or, as Shakespeare put it far more eloquently: “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

There are simply not many who will say out loud what has been said in their hearts. People seem to find it much safer to keep their innermost metaphysical understandings or beliefs quietly hidden, following Shakespeare’s admonition, put into the voice of Hamlet: “Swear by my sword. Never to speak of this that you have heard.”

So what many of us “hear” within ourselves we keep to ourselves.

I, of course, have not done that. And I feel a quiet inner certainty that many of the major messages of Conversations with God will someday soon be revealed to have been not so far off the mark. Yet they are today called heresies by some. In moments when they are, I find comfort in the observation of George Bernard Shaw, who wryly noted: “All great truths begin as blasphemies.”

So Mr. Gannon’s scientific method may disavow the existence of the spiritual essence that I call “God,” but Einstein offered us this: “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a Spirit vastly superior to that of man.”

Okay. I call that God. Someone else may call it Something Else. But a rose by any other name…

I have become aware in my life of the existence of what I would call Intentioned Essence and Pliable, Usable, Directable Energy. This is what I call God, and I think that God can be (and, indeed, places Itself at our disposal to be) used to produce consistent and predictable results in many areas of our lives. But we have to believe this to be true for it to manifest as truth in our day-to-day experience. It turns out that believing is seeing, and this is how energy impacts upon itself.

The Rev. Dr. Norman Vincent Peale called this The Power of Positive Thinking, and it has generated sufficient pre-desired outcomes in my life to leave me convinced of its efficacy and of its reality. Whether my personal experience meets someone else’s “scientific test” of proof beyond doubt or question is irrelevant to me.

Getting back to Mr. Einstein, I am particularly fond of what he said in a talk at Union Theological Seminary on the relationship between religion and science: “the situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

I am not nearly as comfortable with the word “religion” as I am with the word “spirituality,” because I experience most “religions” to be collections of doctrines and dogmas that must be accepted whole and without question by a religion’s adherents. Conversations with God, on the other hand, says to all its readers: Do not believe a word of this. Simply try it in your own life. If it resonates and works, use it. If it does not, throw it out immediately. In this, and in all matters, be your own authority.

Mr. Gannon likes to assert that CWG in a religion, but not a religion in the world says that. Nor do any of the contemporary writers and teachers within today’s religions say: “I could be wrong about all of this.” It would be refreshing if they did. It would be refreshing if they simply said, “Here is what we believe. Decide for yourself what is true for you. And know that you will be neither condemned nor rejected by us (and certainly not by God) should you not embrace these beliefs.”

Many of the messages of Conversations with God are difficult for many people to believe. And (to repeat), people should not believe them if they cannot. But just for review — to see whether there are any that you can embrace — here is a list of what I call Eleven Unbelievable Beliefs from Conversations with God:

  1. There is an Essential Essence in the universe, which some people call God
  2. This essence is Pure, Undifferentiated Energy, which is aware of Itself and which differentiates in variable physical and metaphysical forms.
  3. The purpose of its differentiations is to provide the Essential Essence with the full and complete experience of Itself.
  4. You are an Individuation of this Essential Essence, a spiritual entity comprised of three parts called, in human language, Body, Mind, and Soul. There is no separation between you and this Essence that has been called, by some, God. All things are One Thing. There is only One Thing, and all things are part of the One Thing there is, arising and existing in Individuated Expression. You are to God as a wave is to the ocean: In no way equal to it, yet in no way other than it, and in no way separated from it. There is no such thing as a Separate Thing, and no such thing as No Thing. What is called “empty space” is not “empty” at all, but a collection of energy particles and waves, the fluctuations and vibrations of which are too minute to be discernible or noticeable by the human mind, but which can be detected with instruments.
  5. That which some people call God wants and needs, requires and demands, nothing from you. Eternal punishment does not exist, but eternal life does. The Soul of you always was, is now, and always will be. Its eternal existence does not depend upon adherence to a set of “rules” or “regulations,” “requirements” or “commandments.” What has been called the Kingdom of God is not a meritocracy. It is simply a field of experience, a field of energy expressing, a Contextual Field providing opportunity for the endless experience of Itself by the Essential Essence. This field manifests in what has been called metaphysical and physical form — or what has been labeled, in some of humanity’s belief systems, Heaven and Earth.
  6. The purpose of Life is to recreate yourself anew in each Golden Moment of Now in the next grandest version of the greatest vision ever you held about Who You Are.
  7. In most commonly used human terms, your life is not about you. That is, it is not about Local You, but about Universal You. It is about everyone whose life you touch, and the way in which you touch it. It is by this means that you recreate yourself anew in the next grandest version of the greatest vision ever you held about Who You Are, allowing Local You to experience yourself as Universal You.
  8. There is no such thing as “right” and “wrong,” and every such designation or definition is a human construction, subject to (and evidenced by) fundamental changes across periods of what you call “time.”
  9. Time itself does not exist in the way humans have defined it, any more than space exists as humans have defined it, but both exist as a Single Reality that could be called spacetime, producing an Eternal Experience of Always Here/Always Now.
  10. Forgiveness is the biggest obstacle to spiritual growth, because every act is an Act of Love, and therefore understandable, if not condoned. Understanding is not condoning. No one does anything inappropriate, given their model of the world.
  11. 98% of the world’s people are spending 98% of their time on things that don’t matter. That is, most people don’t know what they are doing here, who they really are, or what the purpose of life throughout the universe is. Most people aren’t even sure that life has a purpose — which is the biggest and most profoundly negatively impacting misunderstanding of our species.

Enjoy the discussion.

Please Note: The mission of The Global Conversation website is to generate an ongoing sharing of thoughts, ideas, and opinions at this internet location in an interchange that we hope will produce an ongoing and expanding conversation ultimately generating wider benefit for our world. For this reason, links that draw people away from this site will be removed from our Comments Section, a process which may delay publication of your post. If you wish to include in your Comment the point of view of someone other than yourself, please feel free to report those views in full (and even reprint them) here.
Click here to acknowledge and remove this note:
  • Kristen

    Nice post Neale.
    And thanks for switching back to the old format.
    K

    • Craig

      Yep agree, but we have not thanked him for protecting our emails, that was a very decent thing to do. Thank you Neale.
      Neale I used a different devise earlier today to respond and typed my email address incorrectly now that device is blocked and I cannot post as I cannot verify the incorrect address… Any suggestions as this device is ancient and I was replacing it with the newer model which is now blocked.

      • Craig

        Neale got my email corrected. Took a few attempts to delete incorrect one, but it is all fixed again…

  • Patrick Gannon

    “…CWG (and, more broadly, the New Spirituality) is saying that the process of life has been (and continues to be) consciously created by a force and a source of wisdom, self-awareness, and purposeful intention that I would, in my own vocabulary, describe in one word as love.”

    That part is not scientific. Neither quantum waves, quantum fields nor particles are in any sense “conscious.” Particles have states, such as mass, charge and spin. There are no happy/sad states, no aware/unaware states. The process of life (biological life at least) is driven by the completely blind and unconscious process of evolution. You can describe this with any word you like, regardless of how pertinent it might be, but all the available evidence indicates that consciousness is an emergent property. We don’t emerge from consciousness, it emerges from us – from our brains. So, this description doesn’t work.

    Neale says that “this Essential Essence or Pure Energy moves with purpose and intention…,” but inanimate force fields don’t have purpose and intention – they simply are. A quantum wave is a superposition of all the possibilities, but only one possibility manifests, and this happens when a “measurement” is taken. In the old days, they used the term, “observation” which led to the quantum woo that a conscious entity was required in order for anything to manifest – in other words, the moon ceases to exist if we don’t look at it. This is a concept our short term visitor Bruce was proposing in the book he was trying to sell here a few months ago (but I don’t think he understood his own material!). That idea has been left by the wayside, in favor of impersonal measurement, which can be taken by a piece of hardware that clearly has no consciousness. The “intention” to make a measurement, does not come from the quantum wave. How could it? It’s not conscious.

    He correctly (I think) says, “energy affects energy through the processes of energy itself. This is, others may note, quantum physics at its most fundamental level.” However these fields (not really energy) lack intention and consciousness. No intelligence or consciousness drives them; these field simply permeate our known universe.

    “CWG told me two decades ago that “there is no straight line in the universe,” and quantum theory confirms that the basic “shape” of the cosmos is curved.” I don’t think that is confirmed – in fact the opposite appears to be true. Spacetime is curved around objects with high mass, like the sun, but the universe is thought to be flat or saddle shaped by most cosmologists, as I understand it. There is also a chance that the universe is infinite. “The exact shape is still a matter of debate in physical cosmology, but experimental data from various, independent sources (WMAP, BOOMERanG, and Planck for example) confirm that the observable universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error.” (Wikipedia). It’s premature to suggest that the universe is curved; spacetime is curved.

    “CWG told me two decades ago that time, as we understand it, does not exist, and quantum physics makes it clear that there is no separation between what we call Time and Space, and that we are actually living in what a layman (or a spiritual author) might call the Eternal Moment of Now.”

    The question of time is also debated, and there is a growing sentiment that time is not a fundamental property, but is an emergent property (like consciousness). I am currently reading a book by Lee Smolin, “Time Reborn” in which this long-held notion that time does not exist, is debated, and other scientists are coming around to this idea. We don’t know yet.

    “Mr. Gannon leaves me with the impression that he feels that if something cannot be proven and demonstrated scientifically, it is “woo,” and not worthy of our consideration.”

    That is correct, if the something being described is at odds with the laws of nature as we currently understand them, then it is woo, until demonstrated to be otherwise. If you say you talk to dead people, predict the future, travel out of your body, die and return, have a soul that leaves your body with all your memories intact (which memories?) when you die, etc. – these things are at odds with the Standard Theory of physics, and that makes their likelihood next to zero, and thus it is fair to categorize them as woo.

    Quoting Einstein on either side of this debate is fraught with peril. Einstein apparently was a deist who did not believe in a personal, interactive god, but if we’re going to quote Al, let’s include these:

    “”The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”

    “For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.”

    “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”

    “On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:

    “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.[18]”

    It’s also noteworthy that Einstein was wrong about several things. He wasn’t perfect by any means. He was wrong when he said “God does not play dice with the universe” but of course he was not referring to Yahweh, but referring more to the laws of nature as being the equivalent of God.

    I have no problem with the power of positive thinking. We can’t manifest what we want out of the matter of the universe by attracting it to us as the absurd “Law of Attraction” (which is not a law), suggests, but certainly if we think about a thing, plan how we might get that thing, envision the steps necessary, etc. then of course we, our self-aware consciousness, but not the universe at large, can contribute to obtaining that thing or making it happen. The universe itself has no consciousness.

    Yes, CwG is a religion. It became one the instant it invoked God. It even has a name, “The New Spirituality.” That it may have some unique and different concepts is immaterial. Buddhism is referred to as a religion, and it’s possibly less of a religion than CwG is, because it does not have gods. CwG is a religion because it advocates belief and faith in things for which we have no evidence – just like other religions. It’s not about the dogma, it’s about unsupported beliefs.

    I don’t have time to go through the list of 11 unbelievable beliefs, right now, but I am curious where in CwG these quotes come from. I only have CwG1 in pdf format and the term “essential essence” doesn’t show up in CwG1.

    To summarize, I think what I found in the comparison between Neale’s “essential essence” and the quantum wave that may describe our universe, was a mere coincidence. I think he’s a pantheist – he thinks everything is conscious or constructed of consciousness, but there are very few scientists and practically no neurologists, who would agree that consciousness can exist without a brain of some sort. It was a fun exercise on my part, to try and pull the science and belief together as analogies, but I think it was a pretty limited connection.

    I would appreciate a commentary from Neale regarding the character of the soul. Straying from Cartesian dualism that is held by most believers, i.e. we have a body and a soul of which the mind is part; Neale splits off the soul from the mind, and treats them separately. Most belief systems don’t do this. Most consider the mind to be part of the soul. Since Neale separates the two, why should we care about that soul? Our minds are not going anywhere when our brains die, so the self-aware consciousness that makes us who we are, and which is responsible for our memories and experiences is food for worms. Why should we care about that soul, in the unlikely event that this immaterial thing exists?

    • CwG is not a religion. However, it is a theology. All religion may have a theology, but not all theology is a religion.

      • Patrick Gannon

        Theology: the study of the nature of God and religious belief.

        • The study of religious belief is not necessarily a religion.

          Theology is the critical study of
          the nature of the divine. It is taught as an academic discipline,
          typically in universities, seminaries, and schools of divinity. Wikipedia

          • Patrick Gannon

            It became a religion the moment he invoked “God.” He said himself that he has been accused of heresy. Kristen has accused him of being a false prophet. Religions have prophets. That means others also see CwG as a religion. It’s an internet religion, a business based internet religion, building on the Jehovah Witness business model. The JWs are a publishing business posing as a religion; but they nevertheless qualify as a religion. They are selling their version of God and Neale is selling his. They are both selling gods. They are both (tax exempt) businesses, and both are religions by virtue of the product they have chosen to sell.

            Neale can deny that CwG and The New Spirituality is a religion as much as he wants. People decide what is true for themselves all the time, but that doesn’t make it true. CwG is a belief system, like other religions. It has all sorts of things to believe in.

            “…the critical study of the nature of the divine.” It might as well say, “the critical study of the nature of unicorns.” There is no evidence for any divinity, unless that term is being used allegorically. If by “divine” you mean the quantum wave of the universe – then we should be studying quantum mechanics, not imaginary beings; but we know that term is not being used allegorically. It means some supernatural god thing, for which there is as much evidence as there is for unicorns.

            I know that the philosophy of religion (PoR) is taught at many universities, but there is growing antagonism to this. For one, in the US, when you talk about religious philosophy or theology, you’re only talking the Abrahamic religions, and the others are ignored. If it was an honest philosophy degree, then it would include all religions; but that would turn it into a study of comparative religions, and then it would no longer be philosophy. It would be the study of something real – the study of different religions.

            Opposition comes from the fact that It’s the only university class taught that does not require that it based on anything in the real world. Every other topic taught in school, is in some way linked to some part of the real world. Philosophy of religion is not. You’re going to see growing opposition to giving out degrees in the study of imaginary invisible beings, in the years ahead. Bank on it.

          • Let me know when you find some CwG churches. CwG like A Course in Miracles is not a religion. If they were, they’d say so, and gladly get tax exempt status a bring in a lot more money.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Every time I come here, I come to a CwG church.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            I disagree. As you have pointed out ad nauseum, this is a global conversation. This is not a church. Would Raphael or Kirsten be here if this were a “CWG Church?” I suspect not. Hopefully, they’ll read this and answer that question for themselves.

          • Patrick Gannon

            I’m laughing my butt off here. I can’t believe how wrapped around the axle you guys and Neale get over the idea that his New Spirituality is a religion. You twist and contort words to mean different things, you suggest we get to define words like “spirituality” as we choose, but define a word like “church” to be applicable to CwG, and you get your undies in a twist. Why does Neale go to such lengths to deny the obvious? It’s a religion, and I’m certainly not the only one who thinks so.

            It’s a tiny little button. All I have to do is tap it, and alarms go off and people run in circles, scream and shout, that “no” it’s not a religion. I really don’t understand why it’s so important that it generates a response. Who cares? I will continue to refer to it as a religion. You guys and gals can continue to have hissy fits when I say it, and I’ll just laugh over the fact that it raises so many hackles.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            Actually, I generally heave a heavy sigh, say something to myself like “oh, shyte, here we go AGAIN with the same thing over and over,” and then I type the same thing I usually reply because it’s the same thing you keep saying, and you’re wrong. We should let it stand, when you’re wrong?

          • Patrick Gannon

            Nobody has demonstrated to any reasonable degree that I am wrong. In any event, I would rather be wrong about whether CwG/New Spirituality is a religion, than be wrong about the nature of the natural world. In ten or twenty years, nobody will care about CwG, but there will be a growing recognition that your magical woo does not exist. The trend is already strongly moving in that direction. When the next generation is taught the standard model, it will become evident that woo is impossible, and they won’t grow up with the same incorrect beliefs people have had for thousands of years. Actually, this will probably take a couple generations, but look how quickly evolution has been accepted. Everyone accepts it today except a few whacko fundies or Trumpists. The same thing will happen with physics. Wait and see. And yes, you’re on the side of the whacko fundies and Trumpists when it comes to science.

            (I could be wrong, but I think Neale gets this, and is trying to figure out how to make CwG fit into a new paradigm in which woo is no longer taken seriously. I predict that the woo market is going to shrink as the next generation gets educated).

          • Spiritual_Annie

            But, as you like to say, since you’re the one making the claim that CWG is a religion, isn’t the burden of proof on you?

          • Patrick Gannon

            I put forth my reasons. You reject them – as you reject science – so we’re at an impasse. It’s not that important. I just get a chuckle out of how easily and consistently I can push this button.

          • Kristen

            Yip, pressing peoples buttons must be so much fun.

          • Kristen

            Annie…as much as I don’t like it, CwG does meet the requirements by the word religion by definition. I dont have a dictionary with me at work, but I’ve looked it up previously. But its just a word. I think the legal definition is that there is a God at the helm, a messenger on Earth, books of that Gods teachings and active followers of that God and its messenger.
            It also almost meets the criteria for the WORD cult, which has a God, one leader and offers everyone immortality, but was cleared by Cultwatch due to Neale stating he cannot confirm he communicates with God and actively tells people to seek other information, and that there are two sides to every story. Cultwatch members went to retreats or something years ago.
            His retreats and things also met the criteria for a church based on a church being a group of likeminded people meeting together to discuss and axalt one God or diety, regardless of the building they meet in.
            Sorry, I would love you to be right in this, but we are looking at the definitions of words, nothing else.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Wow. Kristen and I agree on something. It’s trite, but it’s a place of agreement. Better than nothing!

            I wouldn’t call CwG a cult though. I think it’s a sort of Christian Lite denomination. It doesn’t meet the definition for a cult very well:

            “a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object” Not applicable

            “a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.” Well fundies would consider it strange or sinister, perhaps and normal people might see it as strange, I don’t think this is a good description of CwG.

            “a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.” That one might apply for some folks here.

          • Kristen

            I agree with you on a lot, just as I do with other people. Somwtimes I agree and other times I dont. I dont agree with a few of Neales comments in this blog, especially about there being no wrong and everything is love, but its his site, Im not here as a troll, and its not my place to argue with the site owner.
            I know my place in the world!!!!!!!!!!!
            If you werent so hell bent on arguing and being a jerk for your own entertainment, including acknowledging in here that you like to press Annies buttons, then perhaps people may want to talk WITH you, you know…the word conversation, and you may actually find common ground with people. All people are 80% the same, its just that some focus on the 20% differences.
            Every matter discussed is a different subject, its normal to agree with some on different things.
            As much as you like to think we all dispute proven sience because we have other beliefs or awareness that you don’t, thats not the truth at all, just something you have ‘brainwashed’ yourself in wanting to believe.
            Maybe you should read the blog again, thats Neales main point….other than telling people to be civil and not drag others down to your level (my words, not his). Read it again.
            Im still waiting for Mateias acknowledgement of something you probably missed, that Neale has addressed with out pointing it out….Mateias statement that the internet hates Jews. Im eager to see if he even shows his face in here again

          • Patrick Gannon

            Why is it not your place to argue with the site owner? Why would he post articles if he didn’t want to provoke discussion, knowing full well that there are going to be people who disagree with him? Neale is not a fresh, young virgin.

            You all know how I go after his woo, and I’m still not sure if he’s a scoundrel or deluded, but I have a lot more respect for him than you might expect. I have been kicked off of more than one religious blog. I think it took me two days to get kicked off AnswersInGenesis. They definitely don’t want evidence discussed there!!! Neale permits anyone to say whatever they want and never kicks anyone out for disagreeing with him. I respect that, and I’m tough on him, but I’ve never with gut-wrenching sincerity, told him he’s going to Hell as I’m sure countless fundagelicals have done, so I have my limits!

            You said: “I know my place in the world!!!!!!!!!!! ”

            Kristen, to me, that is just about the saddest statement I can imagine. I have been and will continue to seek out my place in the world till I take my last breath. Nobody tells me what my place in the world is, and I set no such limits on myself. Slaves know their place in the world, don’t they? I don’t know mine yet, and I pray (well not really) that I never find it.

            “including acknowledging in here that you like to press Annies buttons” Hold on… the discussion about pushing buttons started with Neale, who insisted in his article, yet again, that CwG is not a religion, and with Marko who backed him up. I wasn’t referring to Annie, though I may have made the comment during an exchange with her. I have only to say that CwG is a religion, and from the response, it’s clear somebody’s button is going to be pushed, starting with Neale. Remember, you agree with me on this point, unless you’ve changed your mind in the last hour or so.

            Not that I owe you any explanation, but I think I find common ground with people. Jethro and I have a lot of similar interests, and Craig is fun to chat with, but they tend to stick with the topic and stay off the personal for the most part, which keeps things more civil. I don’t recall any of us calling the other a “jerk” for example. I even find common ground with Marko and Raphael from time to time, but each and every one of us, like our imaginary souls, has an agenda, a reason for being here, and most of us probably don’t want to share all of that because we do it for different reasons.

            I get something out of it. If Annie, for example, makes an assertion about science, that I’m almost positive is invalid, I stop and do the research. She suggested a while back, that the electromagnetic forces our bodies put out might be responsible for psi events. I was extremely confident that this had been fully debunked, and I remembered vaguely the reason why, but it’s on an audible book that would take a long time to find. I always put in the back of my mind – what if I have to prove it? So I do the research before commenting on things I’m unsure of. In the process, I learn new things – or re-remember them, might be a better response given that I probably learned about the rate at which electromagnetic waves degrade back in high school, and as I write this I realize I’ve forgotten the formula again! Sucks getting old, but I know where the info is, and that’s what is most important. Once you understand how the force works, it’s pretty obvious that it’s not responsible for psi. Our EMI is far too short-range to read minds, for example. We understand these forces… and I’m off on a tangent again. Sorry. I just love the crap out of understanding real stuff! When I saw a video recently that used an image to provide an idea of how the quantum wave collapses – something I couldn’t envision – it was almost orgasmic as I suddenly grasped it. Well…. that might be a little bit of a stretch – but it is really cool when you suddenly “get it.” I get those moments all the time now. It’s a bit addictive.

            I saw bits and pieces of the discussion with Mateis. I have chores on the weekend, and I didn’t have the time or inclination to wade through all of it. He said, “the internet hates Jews?” The “internet” is a communication medium, so technically speaking, it doesn’t hate or love anything or anyone. What the internet loves is redundancy and speed! As for users on the internet, it’s fair to say that Jews have more than their fair share of haters. To be honest, I never really understood the hate. My guess is that it goes to the arrogance of claiming to be chosen people with a chosen land, and that rubs people the wrong way. That’s my best guess.

            I hope he continues to contribute. We don’t always agree, but I enjoy his perspective.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Why did this post twice?

          • Jethro

            It was just that good! Now I want to know why your so privileged!

          • Kristen

            Probably because over the next week you’ll say it all over again, so Neale saved you the time.
            LOL.

          • Kristen

            I’ll just address the one thing….’knowing my place’.
            No one is more important than another, we are all equal, no more relevant than anyone or anything else. Its not my place to tell anyone what to put on their own site, nor to be a troll. I disagree with people assuming that right, and would ban them from my site if I had one. I see it all as no different to face to face, I wouldnt go to one of Neales functions and be rude to him or his fans, so why would I do it here OTHER than pointing out that its not the biblical God. Even if I disagreed with them immensly, I would never argue or be rude to Marko, Annie, Jethro or Craig. Theyre Neales fans, what he set this site up for, Im a guest looking through the doors, as a non CwGer.

          • Craig

            You may be rude and argue if it gets the point across. I have no objection. But a fan of someone or something no. I do not blow air around to cool someone’s heated ego…
            Can you advise if you can get that talk shows content on sexual education. I can introduce it to a few individuals this side that also do such road shows. It may help them achieve more…

          • Kristen

            Hi ya,
            I cant put a link in here but google moe tki sex education. It was started by the family planning assn, who are sort of a govt dept to oversee contraception etc, in the 80s there were trips there with friends to get a script for the pill, or later they use the morning after pill, so teens can avoid seeing their family doctor. Although we’ve always and still dom have some of the worlds highest rates of teen pregnancies. Now abortions as well I assume, with huge numbers of Asian students.
            Go New Zealand…in the worlds top 5 for obesity, sexual and spousal abuse, child abuse, nutritional neglect in children due to poverty, teen pregnancies, cost of living compared to incomes etc BUT hey, our main city is in the top 5 for liveable cities, and we’re good at sports so I guess that makes it all ok!!! Nope!
            MOE is the ministry of education.

            No need to be rude and argue in life in general, that ‘rare’ side is saved for a reaction when others do it. As long as people believe in something thats true and feels right for them, and have open minds, then Im happy for them! Life must be hard with no beliefs at all, I cant imagine it, and would be really hurt if God had excluded me from it all, that would feel personal. My only wish would be that if there are ‘judgement days’ that everyone learned what they could face consequences for, to deny it is dangerous and unfair, no one knows, so no one can say they’re are none. They’re sure prophecies I dont want to come true, I dont think anyone will be spared.
            Take care Craig,
            K

          • Craig

            Thank you will look it up. Judgement day I read of is now here as we understand and are enlightened. Raising the dead and in front of the seat of Moses was a judicial activities those does and I think we need to read that in context not as something to come. New heaven and earth change the way you perceive and what you experience changes. Keep well.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Why is it not your place to argue with the site owner? Why would he post articles if he didn’t want to provoke discussion, knowing full well that there are going to be people who disagree with him? Neale is not a fresh, young virgin.

            You all know how I go after his woo, and I’m still not sure if he’s a scoundrel or deluded, but I have a lot more respect for him than you might expect. I have been kicked off of more than one religious blog. I think it took me two days to get kicked off AnswersInGenesis. They definitely don’t want evidence discussed there!!! Neale permits anyone to say whatever they want and never kicks anyone out for disagreeing with him. I respect that, and I’m tough on him, but I’ve never with gut-wrenching sincerity, told him he’s going to Hell as I’m sure countless fundagelicals have done, so I have my limits!

            You said: “I know my place in the world!!!!!!!!!!! ”

            Kristen, to me, that is just about the saddest statement I can imagine. I have been and will continue to seek out my place in the world till I take my last breath. Nobody tells me what my place in the world is, and I set no such limits on myself. Slaves know their place in the world, don’t they? I don’t know mine yet, and I pray (well not really) that I never find it.

            “including acknowledging in here that you like to press Annies buttons” Hold on… the discussion about pushing buttons started with Neale, who insisted in his article, yet again, that CwG is not a religion, and with Marko who backed him up. I wasn’t referring to Annie, though I may have made the comment during an exchange with her. I have only to say that CwG is a religion, and from the response, it’s clear somebody’s button is going to be pushed, starting with Neale. Remember, you agree with me on this point, unless you’ve changed your mind in the last hour or so.

            Not that I owe you any explanation, but I think I find common ground with people. Jethro and I have a lot of similar interests, and Craig is fun to chat with, but they tend to stick with the topic and stay off the personal for the most part, which keeps things more civil. I don’t recall any of us calling the other a “jerk” for example. I even find common ground with Marko and Raphael from time to time, but each and every one of us, like our imaginary souls, has an agenda, a reason for being here, and most of us probably don’t want to share all of that because we do it for different reasons.

            I get something out of it. If Annie, for example, makes an assertion about science, that I’m almost positive is invalid, I stop and do the research. She suggested a while back, that the electromagnetic forces our bodies put out might be responsible for psi events. I was extremely confident that this had been fully debunked, and I remembered vaguely the reason why, but it’s on an audible book that would take a long time to find. I always put in the back of my mind – what if I have to prove it? So I do the research before commenting on things I’m unsure of. In the process, I learn new things – or re-remember them, might be a better response given that I probably learned about the rate at which electromagnetic waves degrade back in high school, and as I write this I realize I’ve forgotten the formula again! Sucks getting old, but I know where the info is, and that’s what is most important. Once you understand how the force works, it’s pretty obvious that it’s not responsible for psi. Our EMI is far too short-range to read minds, for example. We understand these forces… and I’m off on a tangent again. Sorry. I just love the crap out of understanding real stuff! When I saw a video recently that used an image to provide an idea of how the quantum wave collapses – something I couldn’t envision – it was almost orgasmic as I suddenly grasped it. Well…. that might be a little bit of a stretch – but it is really cool when you suddenly “get it.” I get those moments all the time now. It’s a bit addictive.

            I saw bits and pieces of the discussion with Mateis. I have chores on the weekend, and I didn’t have the time or inclination to wade through all of it. He said, “the internet hates Jews?” The “internet” is a communication medium, so technically speaking, it doesn’t hate or love anything or anyone. What the internet loves is redundancy and speed! As for users on the internet, it’s fair to say that Jews have more than their fair share of haters. To be honest, I never really understood the hate. My guess is that it goes to the arrogance of claiming to be chosen people with a chosen land, and that rubs people the wrong way. That’s my best guess.

            I hope he continues to contribute. We don’t always agree, but I enjoy his perspective.

          • Jethro

            In the case of spiritual beliefs or a lack thereof, nobody is wrong actually in my opinion.

            I have not read the string so I put my two cents in on a gamble. If I’m out of line, picture my little finger at the corner of mouth like Mike Meyers “Austin powers”… Muahahahahaha

          • Spiritual_Annie

            I purposely avoided the Austin Powers movies. Just like I’ve purposely avoided any movie with Will Ferrell in it. I like Saturday Night Live skits, but not as full-length movies.

          • Kristen

            Read my comment to Annie below.

          • Jethro

            It’s Not A Religion…. Muahahahaha, Muahahahaha!!!
            Honestly who cares? Ok. Fine. It’s a religion. Now what? My curtains didn’t fall of the wall and the wooden cross I bought from teen challenge didn’t turn upside-down.

          • Kristen

            I look in the ‘church’ but don’t sign up or part with any money! Haha.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Another point of agreement between us! My goodness!

            I stopped buying his books which I see as offerings or donations to his church. I would like to read the last book, but I’m not going to pay for it out of principle, and I don’t want to sign up for another service to get a free audio. I’ll stumble across a free copy eventually, and read all about the HEB superheroes.

            Now if Neale presents these HEBsters as analogies, rather than real beings, that might temper my views, but I’m guessing he presents these as real beings… and that cannot be taken seriously without evidence.

          • Kristen

            I have no opinion on HEBs, and zero interest in aliens in any form, I dont think any would be here with a positive agenda anyway, I wouldnt trust them so reading about it would be a waste of my time.
            I dont give anyone wealthy my money, other than an occasional concert I really want to go to, even my designer clothes are all preloved out of principle. I dont like the ever growing bridge between the wealthy and the poor, so try not to contribute to it. The entire thing is crazy…the poorer people are, the more they idolise the wealthy and give them $$$$$, especially labels sponsored by spirts people. Its all strategic marketing. I acknowledge everyone as equal, so just dont play societies games, and have a personal policy of avoiding contributing to inequality and wealth.

          • Craig

            What I heard of the HEBs makes it sound as if you may be one… Not a supernatural being but rather a being accepting and taking responsibility to further the good trusted on.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Bwahahahahaha… Me a HEB? LOL

          • Craig

            Well the worst we can be is normal…

          • Kristen

            Excuse me……I havnt accused Neale of being a false prophet at all thank you very much.
            I haven’t accused Neale of one thing at all actually. Ive pointed out that his God is not the one of scriptures whom he was obviously praying to in the first place. Someone else answered Neales ‘call’ and clearly implied they were that specific God, deceiving Neale BUT then acknowledged in a later book, 3 or 4, that they were a ‘new God’, whom would not give Neale his name as in English it would not be appealing to his ears, therefore is unpronouncable to us.
            I have also pointed out that Neale should make this clearer as just the name of the books implies he speaks with the one the west defines as God. And that some of his teachings are untruths and dangerous like teaching people there are no judgements or consequences.
            How is this accusing Neale of anything at all?

          • Patrick Gannon

            You just described a “false prophet,” one who was misled by his god. Saying that “some of his teachings are untruths and dangerous like teaching people there are no judgements or consequences,” is the same thing as saying he’s a false prophet.

            Actually I agree with his teaching that there are no judgements or consequences, because when we’re dead – we’re dead! It’s all over and done with.

          • Kristen

            Doesnt meet the criteria for the word prophet sorry, and not a word Ive ever used. Neale was decieved, chanelling information does not qualify someone as a prophet. There are thousands of books out there channelled from ‘beings’ above, and more often, below, CwG is no different from any of those, its just channelled information.
            There may be info in books I havnt read that may meet the word prophet, but I’m unaware of them so please leave me out of that statement. I have never accused Neale of being a false prophet, dont put words into my mouth thanks.

          • Patrick Gannon

            I wish I had the time to search the archives…

            Why does channeling information not count as prophecy? That’s what Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi all did. They all channeled their god. That’s what made them prophets.

            You said Neale channeled the wrong god. That makes him a false prophet.

          • Kristen

            Prophets talk about the future, prophecies, whether true or false.
            Please dont look tbrough archives, I can tell you right now Ive never called Neale a prophet. Doing things like that is what crosses into pedantism, very uncool.

          • Craig

            I understand the prophets in the old days came with a sacrifice not a commission cheque. 80% of the time the prophets of old actually died after their message was delivered… Do not find that in more and more books or chapters of teachings just to repeat the message.
            I said before we all have a message which is not wrong it is when we cover it with false intents and purposes that misleasd that make us false not the message… Two kinds of messengers prophets those empowered and tasked to introduce or remind others of the unknown, then ambassadors or apostles those empowered to repeat what they had witnessed. Not a mystery as the prophets… So ye we may have a catch 22 on Neale’s empowerment…

    • Spiritual_Annie

      Since Patrick was prolific in his points, I’ll address them by quoting his own comments, but only those that make a difference to me.
      Patrick partially quoting Neale: “…CWG (and, more broadly, the New Spirituality) is saying that the process of life has been (and continues to be) consciously created by a force and a source of wisdom, self-awareness, and purposeful intention that I would, in my own vocabulary, describe in one word as love.”
      Patrick says: “That part is not scientific. Neither quantum waves, quantum fields nor particles are in any sense ‘conscious.’ Particles have states, such as mass, charge and spin. There are no happy/sad states, no aware/unaware states.” I believe it would be more accurate to state that science has not yet discovered all states of consciousness or awareness.
      From Patrick: “The process of life (biological life at least) is driven by the completely blind and unconscious process of evolution.”
      Many of us are involved in conscious evolution–choosing, consciously, those attributes we believe will help humanity and the planet survive. In fact, we’ve been consciously evolving for some time, in some areas. Partners may not have children based on the decision that they don’t want to pass down the genes in their ancestry due to a high risk of disease or deformity. Woman have terminated pregnancies when they’ve discovered that their fetus has a debilitating deformity. We’ve certainly been playing with the evolution of plants and animals through the bioengineering of their genes and the nutrients they are fed. Evolution is no longer unconcscious.
      From Patrick: “Neale says that ‘this Essential Essence or Pure Energy moves with purpose and intention…,’ but inanimate force fields don’t have purpose and intention – they simply are.” Again, it may appear to the science-only inclined that fields of energy don’t have a purpose and intention because science has not yet discovered what they are through objective evidence. Others of us have had repeated subjective experiences that energy fields do have purpose and intention.
      Quoting Neale: “Mr. Gannon leaves me with the impression that he feels that if something cannot be proven and demonstrated scientifically, it is ‘woo,’ and not worthy of our consideration.”
      From Patrick: “That is correct, if the something being described is at odds with the laws of nature as we currently understand them, then it is woo, until demonstrated to be otherwise.” [Emphasis added.] I guess that means that every scientific and mathematical theory that has yet to be proven, much less to not be “at odds” with our current understanding of nature, are also “woo,” then? It’s at least nice to see you including phrases such as, “as we currently understand them,” when talking about the “laws of nature.”
      From having read much of, and about, Albert Einstein, I would agree that he was not a religionist in the traditional sense of the word, and the way it’s used here. However, there are many, many quotes that lead one believe Einstein (not “Al”–disrespectful!) was a Spiritual person. If one chooses to cherry pick quotes, one could also portray Einstein as an antisemite.
      From Patrick: “Yes, CwG is a religion.” As clearly stated by Neale, who ought to know as the material came through him and he has been living it for about 25 years now, I would personally take the word of Neale, and my own experiences with CWG for a couple of decades, over the word of Patrick.

      • Patrick Gannon

        ” I believe it would be more accurate to state that science has not yet discovered all states of consciousness or awareness.”

        If by that, you refer to inanimate things like the universe being conscious, then you would be utterly incorrect in that belief. Ask a physicist how much credibility they would give to that possibility? Quantum mechanics rules it out to 12 decimal points of reliability. You won’t believe me, so you’ll have to learn it on your own when and if you’re ever ready for it.

        You harped on my selection of words, “as we currently understand them” but that was intended to say… that we currently understand very well. I did not intend that as a caveat. I was not leaving myself an out. We understand how the natural world works and there are no forces acting on us, and that’s all there is to it until you find a woo scientist to overturn a theory demonstrated to be true beyond reasonable doubt. You have the burden of proof.

        • Spiritual_Annie

          From Patrick: “You have the burden of proof.”

          Therein lies the major difference between you and I.

          I’m not out to prove anything. I come here to read Neale’s columns, which usually cause some pondering and then a response where I share my thoughts, feelings and experiences. Period.

          • Jethro

            Keep it going Annie! You’re doing an awesome job!

          • Patrick Gannon

            I wish I understood you, given that you say you don’t believe in imaginary gods and souls.

          • Jethro

            You asked me if I believe in those things and I said, “The simple answer” is No. I do not have a belief in woo, just like you. I do not believe in many things mostly pertaining to the Abrahamic God. What I will continue to do, which you refuse to do, is make sense of what it all meant without the woo. There is more to the story than we know and the $h!te just kept getting deeper beyond the original story. I know you think you have the answer but your answers to “why God” haven’t really satisfied my curiosity. Once my truth has been determined, the explanation will follow. You keep up with the science Pat. I count on the knowledge in your arguments to put it together. The idea for something that exists, exists, and it wasn’t magic, but it was something. Neale got me started by stating things that I was thinking already. I’m going to see it through. I sure don’t thing the Ancient alien theories are correct either. Humans have been smart enough to not need alien help. God is God by a different name, got to find out which names to put to it.

          • Patrick Gannon

            That’s a fair response, and I appreciate it. Thanks.

            “What I will continue to do, which you refuse to do, is make sense of what it all meant without the woo.”

            What do you mean by “make sense of what it all meant without the woo.”?

            I used to love the Ancient Aliens theory, but like so many pseudoscience ideas, the evidence is exceptionally thin. I once read an exhaustive debate between one of those Ancient Alien guys – not the one with the hairdoo – and a science-type person. It wasn’t pretty for the AA guy. In beliefs vs evidence, beliefs always seem to come up short.

          • Jethro

            What do you mean by “make sense of what it all meant without the woo.”?
            In the beginning there was a thought about Gods. A nomad sitting by a campfire maybe, just for fun, petting his pet sabretooth tiger, after his 8 to 5, hunting mammoths. He had a thought about what he called God, but he didn’t call it god, it was something else.

            God has an origin. The origin is in the minds of man as an idea of something before the woo set in. I’m still thinking about that.

          • Patrick Gannon

            I think most scholars of the subject agree that gods were invented as a way to explain the terrible and frightening unknown. Today we know.

          • Jethro

            Having a scholar agree doesn’t make someone right. How many religious scholars agree there is life after death. A life of which we have no proof of?

          • Jethro

            AA intends to say, anything God was said to be responsible for, it was aliens. Then they paint early humans as stupid. Early humans may have been primitive maybe, but not stupid. Same brain then as today with a different understanding.

          • Jethro

            Pat, you come on a bit strong sometimes. I have nothing against your thoughts. I get tired of your inability to find common ground, thinking to myself ” is there anything Neale can say that Pat might find agreeable? Neale actually post the above in your honor and while you were able to find the likeness in the last post, you found every reason to argue. Why not find the similarities once again, but in your words. I personally was impressed by your response in the last bulletin. I should have given you a bravo for that one as I did Neale. Common ground is important in cases such as this. Not agreeing, just acceptable common ground. Is it possible? Note, Neale has torqued my shorts on occasion. Nobody is perfect, just human.

          • Patrick Gannon

            He strayed beyond the reach of the allegory. I can go to an atheist site, or science-based site (and I do) and find all sorts of common ground – all sorts of “likes” to my posts. It is in religious sites that this common ground is lacking.

          • Jethro

            It could be I’m too flexible but I’m moving in a different direction than you. I loaded the Eleven Unbelievable Beliefs to word and began to ask questions and make statements below each number. I do this to better understand my own thoughts on the subject sometimes. I began to ask more questions than make statements. If I believed for a second the author would respond, I would ask the questions hear. Turns out if you torque his shorts, he devotes an entire discussion in your name. Actually I can’t tell if his shorts got torqued or not but you stated something that got his attention. Isn’t sharing an understanding the goal? Not having an argument?

          • Patrick Gannon

            Yes and no. I have to tread cautiously when a New Age author starts trying to work quantum theory into his “theology.” No other scientific theory in history has been so abused by the woo-meisters than the field of quantum theory.

            Here’s the problem – in the early days of QM, the favored explanation for the behavior of quantum particles was called the Copenhagen explanation, and it’s still the most popular because it’s the one taught to all physics students. There are a half dozen or so competing theories, and it’s rather embarrassing for some physicists that that number has not been narrowed down,yet.

            The Copenhagen explanation was based on an “observer” and early on it was proposed that this word “observer” implied a “conscious” observer, and off to the races the woo-meisters went. We know today that an observer can be a piece of equipment. A better word than observer is “measurement,” but Schroedinger’s cat got out of the bag, so to speak, and we’re still dealing with it. Physicists still speak of an observer, but are quick to point out that this does not imply consciousness. The moon does not stop existing when nobody is looking at it.

            There is nothing I’ve read or heard from any physicist who says that QM in any way implies a conscious, self-aware substance at the core of the universe. I shared some news here recently about an experiment in China that, if confirmed by other experiments, will take the remaining woo out of the Copenhagen explanation. There are real, physical things going on.

            As to whether the universe could become self-aware… that seems highly unlikely, but if it did, it would surely be an emergent property, just as consciousness is for us. No brain, no consciousness. Consciousness, memories, thoughts, emotions, emerge from the network of connections in the brain. So what about those connections?

            Scientists have been looking for some missing matter, for a while now. This isn’t the ‘dark matter,’ but our natural world matter. About 50% of it has been missing. We found it, in the form of baryons (subatomic particle made of 3 quarks), in between the massive superclusters that we see throughout the universe. They are like tendrils connecting the superclusters across vast distances, and they are all but invisible. Clever techniques were used to pull them out of the background and display them. We know where the missing matter is now. Could these connections between superclusters somehow transmit information? At the speed of light, it would be a painstakingly slow process… but it is interesting that this network of connections exists. It was all together once, and now a thin filament retains a connection.. Perhaps nature follows patterns, and that’s how our brains ended up being conscious…. !

          • Jethro

            Copenhagen explanation… Somebody used the wrong word, huh? The word “observer” would certainly do it lol. Energy is another good one for argument.
            The moon is there when nobody who can see it is looking at it? I thought maybe like sound… if there is not a receptor for sound there is no sound. It makes sense that if there is no receptor for light projection it would not be detectable as actually being there. Maybe we just know, kind of like we know a falling tree makes the sound without receptors there to detect it.

            I was told the other day, only a half moon would be out that night, I quickly let them know both halves would be there to form a whole moon and if they looked hard enough they would see it. Silly people!

          • Kristen

            Yip, thats right about shorts. Or it used to be have a pretty female picture or a new recruit to CwG, they would get a complimentary thread. Mine have been when I torqued the shorts….no thanks!

          • Jethro

            Maybe there is some sort of liability insurance rule for responding in kind or handing out advice. I’m sure Neale is constantly under attack for… something. It happens when you talk about God. I guess you get accustomed to defense over time. Happened to me. My parents were always right, even when they were wrong… and they stated so. I became quite defensive with everyone.

          • Patrick Gannon

            If you are making a claim that the universe is conscious, or aware then indeed the burden of proof is on you. I know you aren’t here to prove that, because you can’t.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            I have no “burden” to prove anything.

            I believe, based on my personal experience, knowledge, and investigation; from working with those who are healing; and over 57 years of living, part of which was two years of intensive therapy so that I know who I am, and part of which has been and is still spent in an in-depth examination of religion, philosophy, psychology and sociology in order to better understand my place in the universe, that the universe is both conscious and aware.

            Yep, I sure do believe it. Now, do I have a need to prove that to anyone? No, I’m just sharing what I believe to be true.

            As I stated before, I share my thoughts, feelings and experiences here. No need for proof of those.

          • Patrick Gannon

            As long as you stick to the words, “I believe,” then no problem.

            Interesting that in the list of things you have given in-depth examination to, science – the purpose of which is to understand the natural world – is noticeably not on your list. You went to all this work to understand your place in the universe, but failed to find out how the universe actually works. I would suggest that your in-depth examination should be extended, so you can shift from believing to thinking, but that’s up to you.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            I’m going to be kind, and just say that I’m not interested in your suggestions.

          • Kristen

            High five. Do we have a roster for each thread?

  • Spiritual_Annie

    My goodness, but there’s a lot of ground covered here!

    First, I have never believed that science and Spirituality are at odds. I believe that science has not yet discovered everything that there is to know, especially when it comes to “squishy” things like metaphysics and that the universe may be alive with an awareness we cannot (yet) measure. Just like before the discovery of the elements inside an atom we had no objective evidence that electrons, protons and neutrons existed, there are things now for which science yet has no objective evidence. That doesn’t mean these things don’t exist, it just means science yet has no objective evidence.

    More importantly, however, I believe in my personal, subjective experiences, and have noted their similarity to thousands of other peoples’ experiences. This cannot simply be discarded as insignificant or unimportant, which science (or at least science as represented by Patrick) seems to dismiss entirely, or try to find a way to get it to fit into a particle-based, material theory of the universe. Without looking outside their dogmatic, particle-based view of the universe, scientists may never understand the metaphysical. It is as possible to become dogmatic about science as it is about religion, and the same stagnation takes place.

    One of my favorite paragraphs in the column is this:

    “Mr. Gannon likes to assert that CWG in a religion, but not a religion in the world says that. Nor do any of the contemporary writers and teachers within today’s religions say: ‘I could be wrong about all of this.’ It would be refreshing if they did. It would be refreshing if they simply said, ‘Here is what we believe. Decide for yourself what is true for you. And know that you will be neither condemned nor rejected by us (and certainly not by God) should you not embrace these beliefs.'”[emphasis added]

    I think if the world’s religions were as flexible as to allow one to decide for oneself that which reflects their own views, the world wouldn’t be in the existential chaos that it is today. But, everything happens for a reason, and often an existential crisis provides a leap in our understandings of what is so. I’m of a mind with Barbara Marx Hubbard, Marc Gafni and others when they say that the last day of an existential crisis is the first day of a new era, maybe even a new way of understanding who we are and of what we’re truly capable.

    I also really like the following:

    “In most commonly used human terms, your life is not about you. That is, it is not about Local You, but about Universal You. It is about everyone whose life you touch, and the way in which you touch it. It is by this means that you recreate yourself anew in the next grandest version of the greatest vision ever you held about Who You Are, allowing Local You to experience yourself as Universal You.”

    We may use different terminology, but this rings so true for me. The more I get out of myself and into the service of others, the more I feel a Spiritual connection with whatever it is that I’m doing and the people I’m serving. It adds depth and meaning to whatever the activity is, which also adds depth and meaning to who I am–creating the next grandest version of the greatest vision I hold about myself. I see myself as more than I previously did before I stretched and grew through whatever service I undertook, which then leads me to believe I can become even more than that. I’m not certain there’s a limit to human potential, but I believe we must consciously evolve, choosing those attributes that will keep our species and our planet alive.

    I may have more later, after I muse a bit more about all of the information contained here.

    Love and Blessings Always,
    ~Annie

    • Patrick Gannon

      ” I believe that science has not yet discovered everything that there is to know, especially when it comes to “squishy” things like metaphysics and that the universe may be alive with an awareness we cannot (yet) measure.”

      And that puts you fully at odds with the Standard Model or Core Theory of physics. Science claims that indeed it HAS confirmed that there is no “awareness” in the universe, because if there was, we would have discovered and measured it by now, or at least been made aware of its existence as it acted on the particles that we do understand fully, those being the particles that we humans and the rest of our natural world are made of. If the universe is aware, it’s moot to us humans. It has no effect on us, or we’d have seen it or its effects.

      I say again, that in taking this view, New Age is siding with the fundamentalists and Trumpists who are anti-science. You are denying the science that we already know. Is that really the side you folks want to be on? Science and spirituality (think Carl Sagan) are not at odds until you invoke woo like an aware universe. With statements like that, science and spirituality most definitely part ways. If you don’t want them to be at odds, do the science – prove the universe is aware. Many have tried, and some still are – but I’ve been watching this since the 70’s and there is no more support for woo today than there was then, while in that same time, science has learned how the natural world actually does work.

      So many people don’t seem to understand that when a scientist says water is a combination of two hydrogen and one oxygen atom, and you unquestionably believe them – that they are every bit as certain about the Standard model of physics, as they are that water is comprised of those two atoms. These scientists are putting out books left and right, so there’s plenty out there for people to educate themselves. I’m reading Brian Cox/Andrew Cohen’s “Forces of Nature.” The science is settled. You folks are on the wrong side, any time you invoke this sort of woo.

      “It is as possible to become dogmatic about science as it is about religion, and the same stagnation takes place.”

      That’s ludicrous. Science is based on attempting to disprove theories. Religion NEVER does that. How would you compare the “stagnation” of the last two centuries of scientific progress, with the last, oh let’s say 2500 years of religious stagnation? Which of the two has contributed more? For those who support science, what’s wrong with being dogmatic about things that have been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to be valid and true, or would it be better to abandon that and join the growing number of flat-earthers? We can pretty dogmatically say that Newton’s science is correct within its sphere, Einstein’s relativity is correct within its sphere and quantum theory is correct within its sphere of influence, and there’s no wiggle room, until and unless someone overturns the standard model of physics and proves that every single experiment ever conducted gave incorrect results. It took me a while to realize just how confident science is of these things and if you want to call that dogmatic – intending it as an insult – then have at it. I’m proudly dogmatic when it comes to knowledge.

      Subjective experiences are not necessarily unimportant, but they can be explained as phenomenon of the brain. It was through studying things like this that we learned that lucid dreaming was a real phenomenon, but one that we know now, from brain scans, is entirely a product of the brain. These experiences are interesting, and it’s interesting that many people often have similar experiences, but they are all tracked to the brain, and neuroscience is starting to understand what causes them.

      If Neale is indeed trying to take a step away from woo – you aren’t helping.

      • Spiritual_Annie

        And your entire post is filled with the hubris of “knowing for certain” when the only thing we know for certain is that not all things have yet been discovered. Same discussion, different day.

        I’m not attempting to help Neale form his own opinion of his own Spirituality, or how he presents it. That is not my purpose here.

        • Patrick Gannon

          I have never said that all things have been discovered, although you persist with this straw man distortion. What I have said, is what physicists – many physicists, the community at large, has said – and that is that “we know some things.” And we know them very well. And what we know rules out your woo. I understand that you deny this, but please stop misrepresenting my words, and simply note that you disagree with the scientific community.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            I never said you said that “all things have been discovered.” (Who’s the straw man? You’ve done that to me twice today, but claimed it was I who was doing it.) I said your post was filled with “the hubris of ‘knowing for certain’ when the only thing we know for certain is that not all things have yet been discovered.” You have clearly implied, based on your interest in physics and your long-standing arguing here, that you know for certain that what you refer to as “woo” has been ruled out.

            I don’t disagree with the scientific community. I haven’t heard from the scientific community. I have heard from one man who purports to have read (or listened to) a great deal on particle-centered physics information imparted by scientists, who has a vested interest at this Spiritual site in “proving” there is no such thing as what you refer to as “woo.” (BTW, is that a scientific term? It sure doesn’t fit, using dictionary definitions, which you’ve said you prefer.)

          • Patrick Gannon

            I’m not going to play any more word games with you on this. However, yes I will agree that I know beyond a reasonable doubt that what I refer to as woo, has been ruled out.

            That said, in science nothing is ever completely ruled out. It is “possible” that every physics experiment ever performed has provided incorrect results. Quantum field theory tells us it is “possible” that a pink, polka-dotted dinosaur will manifest in your kitchen this evening at 7:32 PM and ask for a purple lollipop. It’s “possible,” but utterly foolish, in my view, to live our lives based on such insignificant possibilities.

            Thank you for confirming that I am your sole source for science information. You should be thanking me for the free education. Better yet would be if you tried to debunk me by doing your own research.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            I was clearly referencing the conversation that takes place here. You are certainly not my only source for scientific information.

            In fact, I would imagine that my scientific knowledge has a broader base than yours does. Yours appears to be based solely on physics. I have studied and continue to study biology, chemistry, psychology, sociology, anthropology, cosmology and archaeology. I also study people, and life, and the world around me.

            If all you share here is the sole scientific education I would receive, I would refuse it, even at no cost.

          • Patrick Gannon

            If all you share here is the sole scientific education I would receive, I would refuse it, even at no cost.”

            Whew – what a zinger! Yeah, we have different definitions for the word “spiritual,” that’s for sure.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where Patrick goes when he has no argument–implying that I’m supposed to be less than human (or less than honest, or less than saintly–whatever) because I’m Spiritual.

            And that is where I’ll bow out.

          • Patrick Gannon

            I refrained from saying that I will be more than happy to take a science test on any and all those subjects and put my scores up against yours. Any day of the week.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            No, you didn’t. You just said it.

          • Patrick Gannon

            I refrained in the prior post. You really like to play these foolish little word games, don’t you? So with my own foolish word game response, I’ll point out that you did not “bow out” as you proclaimed…. but this is utter foolishness, so I’m done.

          • Kristen

            Haha, another Annieism…I love those sassy oneliners!
            You’ve earned your pendant in this one!

  • Raphael

    “..the process of life has been (and continues to be) consciously created by a force and a source of wisdom, self-awareness, and purposeful intention that I would, in my own vocabulary, describe in one word as love.”

    I am not often cynical, but I am in a cynical mood today. Given the fact that two main drives of all living creatures are feeding and reproduction, should we consider the strange possibility that having another creature for lunch is a form of love? Are African wild dogs tearing at their prey and eating it alive expressing love? Is sex between two lizards or two ants love?

    It is often said that God created the universe in order to know and experience itself…so it could constantly eat itself and have sex with itself? We then have a very famished and extremely horny God.

    The problem with theology is that it always concentrates on the human experience and disregards all of nature, because what happens in the natural world doesn’t match the theology, particularly one that concentrates on “love” and “morality”. Are we that separate from nature that we must consider the human experience to be basically alien, and all of nature to be a completely different, unrelated, “inferior” and undesirable world? Who created this “inferior” world, a second rate God?

    • Spiritual_Annie

      I’m sorry that you’re feeling so cynical today, but we all have those days.

      I have been struggling with continuing to eat meat for a while now. I don’t yet have complete control over my diet as some of it comes from food pantries and I can’t be picky, but it bothers me more and more.

      I don’t think Spirituality disregards all but the human experience. We are human, so we are to a certain extent human-centric (if that’s a word). I think wild dogs are dog-centric, ants are ant-centric, and lizards are lizard-centric. (As for the black widow and preying mantis, they may be onto something… just kidding.)

      But because we’re human-centric, that doesn’t mean that we necessarily exclude the rest of nature from our considerations. Many have, and many still do, but it hasn’t been that long that we’ve been thinking about anything more than other humans.

      And now you have me wondering… I know my miniature Schnauzer loves me. Do ants also love? Is a preying mantis expressing its own form of love (what it’s feeling) while eating it’s mate? Hmmm….

      • Raphael

        My cat loves me…perhaps, as long as I feed and pet it. But If I was the size of the mouse, would this “love” be expressed as eating me?

        When I wrote that our theologies of love are human centered, I meant to say that they disregard the natural experience. They are consequently not universal, and do not fit with the universal natural creation. Others might not see this as a problem, but I do.

        It’s not just cynicism…some questions are worth asking.

        Another question:

        I think Neale, if I understand correctly, has the following beliefs:

        -our souls are perfect and complete, and without needs or lacks.

        -there are “highly evolved beings” out there, in other words evolution does take place.

        -life itself is not a “lesson”, there is nothing to be learnt through suffering and challenges.

        Add these up, toss, blend, and what do you get? Contradictions. How can we evolve if we have perfect souls to begin with? What is the point of beginning our presumed evolution in a highly polarized world such as the earth if there is nothing to be learnt (because we are perfect and whole to begin with)?

        Are we playing hide and seek with our own souls, pretending to be ignorant when we are actually already enlightened, fearful when we are actually at peace and full of love, etc?

        • Spiritual_Annie

          I get what you’re saying about what I call Divinity being everything, not just one aspect of that everything. We choose to focus on whatever we wish to make manifest. Maybe that’s where seeing God as love, or peace, or unending joy, comes into play.

          Yeah, the Judeo-Chistian God isn’t what I believe in anymore. I don’t believe God chooses one denomination over another because of their belief sysems. I believe God is all things, humanity included.

          As for the Soul, I see it (I’m a visual person) as the bridge between our selves (all our lives, whether consecutive or concurrent) and Divinity. If you believe, as I do, that life has a purpose, and that life both begins before birth and continues after death, it’s our Souls that have one foot in the physical and one foot in the nonphysical.

          I see it as sort of coordinator of all our lives, helping determine which aspects of life we choose to experience in each of them. Then, through the process of unconditioning (I believe we know everything at birth but can’t verbalize it, and by the time we can, we’ve forgotten much of it as we become more focused on the physical), we forget about our “past” (or concurrent) lives, our Souls, and even about being Divine.

          I believe what happens isn’t so much that we “learn” anything, but rather that we “remember” things we knew before we were even born. Once remembered, such as the purpose our Soul chose to create this particular life from and for our own evolution and that of Divinity, we can use that information to form our lives. Or we can ignore it. Free will and all.

          I know I’m using a personification of Divinity, which I use but don’t believe is all that Divinity is, when I think of our Souls. What owner of a set of chain stores across the country, for example, wouldn’t have regional managers? I see it kind of the same way.

          Maybe none of that makes sense to you because you have had different experiences than I have. I’m just trying to explain it from my own perspective.

          Love and Blessings Always,
          ~Annie

        • Patrick Gannon

          Great analysis. However there may be a problem with your initial premise. You said:

          “-our souls are perfect and complete, and without needs or lacks.”

          The thing is, Neale talks all the time about “the soul’s agenda.” I don’t know if an agenda qualifies as a “need” but it sure seems to. An agenda is defined as “the underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group” by the Oxford dictionary. I’m not sure that qualifies as a need, but on second thought, it may be a lack. If you’re motivated to do something, it must be because there’s a lack of it, otherwise what would be the sense of the motivation or intention? So souls appear to have needs and lacks.

          I’m also not sure about the last one:

          “-life itself is not a “lesson”, there is nothing to be learnt through suffering and challenges”

          The soul’s agenda, it seems, is to subject the other two pieces of us, our minds and bodies, to suffering and challenges, for it’s own selfish reasons – to advance its agenda – whatever that might be. Being used and abused, and then discarded, makes me warm and fuzzy all over! God is love???

          • Spiritual_Annie

            From Patrick Gannon: “I’m not sure that [a Soul’s agenda] qualifies as a need, but on second thouht, it may be a lack. If you’re motivated to do something, it must be because there’s a lack of it, otherwise what would be the sense of the motivation or intention. So souls appear to have needs and lacks.”

            I find your logic questionable. Many things can be motivaton to take certain actions. One of those things is a sense of purpose. Another is desire. Yet another is altruism. Feeling a calling. Learning. (Shall I go on?)

            From Patrick Gannon: “The soul’s agenda, it seems, is to subject the other two pieces of us, our minds and our bodies, to suffering and challenges, for it’s own selfish reasons – to advance its agenda – whatever that might be. Being used and abused, and then discarded, makes me warm and fuzzy all over! God is love???”

            I don’t envision it the same way that you do. First, I see my thrice-part person as the physical, the Soul, and Divinity, all of which are differentiations of the same thing, working together to provide experiences in the physical that Divinity cannot have without taking on physical form. The Soul’s agenda is that which all three parts have agreed upon and are in alignment with, and from which all three grow and evolve.

          • Patrick Gannon

            If you don’t have a purpose, you lack one. If you have desire, it’s because you lack something. Why would you desire something you already have? Desire implies lack. It has to. Altruism is a desire to help others, a need to do so, or a feeling of lack that you haven’t done so in the past. Desire is “a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen.” You don’t wish for things you already have.

            I have a calling to spread the “good news” of science. That’s a desire. There is a lack of this good news that concerns me, so it is my agenda to spread it. I have, at a minimum, a desire to do so. I learn all the time, because I have a lack of knowledge about all the things I want to know, and I have a need or desire to seek that knowledge. Sure – you can go on. When is a motivation to take a certain action, not driven by a need or desire, which in turn arises because there is a lack of something?

            You’ve defined different elements than Neale has. He goes with the (1) soul -whatever that is, (2) the mind – our self-aware consciousness, and (3) the body, the physical thing that holds the mind. Of your three parts, soul, divinity and body – where is the self-aware mind? What is the difference between divinity and soul? Or are you mindless (grin)?

            I can’t imagine that Neale would agree that the soul’s agenda is that which all three parts have agreed on. It’s what he wants the three parts to agree on – that being whatever the soul wants. The soul, as I understand it, is trying to get the other two parts to do what it wants, needs or desires to fulfill its agenda. My mind is most certainly not in agreement with any suffering that my soul wishes to impose on me to further its own agenda. Mateia would most likely have a contribution to this!

            Regardless of whether these three components are in agreement or not, or which of these three components is the mind, since you left that out, you know that your body is not going along for the trip, so if the three parts are what is required for all three to grow and evolve, what happens when the body dies and is left behind – along with the mind. The soul does not grow and evolve unless it is in a human? How does this soul even know it exists, if it has no mind? I know my mind and body exist. If my soul knows it exists, it has failed to share this with me…. those pesky physics laws in the way again!!!

          • Spiritual_Annie

            One can have a desire without it implying a lack. I don’t lack clothes, but I desire more. I don’t lack food, but I have a preference for more or different ones. I don’t feel any lack of having helped others, yet still feel called to continue to do so, even though there’s been no lack of it in my life. Wishing I’d win the lottery isn’t about a lack of enough money on which to live, but in the desire to live with more. So, there are the examples you asked for about desires not implying a lacking of something.

            I’m pretty sure Neale knows I define things differently than he does. I’ve actually been here for a few years now, and around his work for decades. Neale doesn’t need for everything to come into perfect alignment for everyone who reads and interprets the CWG materials or his own writing about them. Nor do I, for that matter.

            My self-awareness arises, I believe, from the same place as everything else–out of the irreducible building blocks of existence, of which Divinity, my Soul, and my body are all comprised. Just as I desribe my Soul as “having one foot in the physical, and one foot in the nonphysical,” I see my mind the same way. My physical brain, that which is part of my physical body, stays in the physical realm. I believe the mind, however, crosses those realms.

            I don’t believe I implied that all three parts needed to stay together in order to grow and evolve. Once the growing and evolving that was the purpose of that particular life is complete, the physical body dies. That doesn’t negate the growing or evolving that happened when the three were together. Why would they have to stay togther? Did you stay living with your parents after you felt you’d grown enough, or did you move into a different relationship with them–a different experience of them–after you moved out? You’re starting to make less and less sense, Patrick.

            I grow and evolve a as a person while I’m alive. So, too, does my Soul, as does Divinity. None of that growth is negated or dissolved somehow just because my body dies.

            Whether or not your Soul chooses to share its presence with you is between you and your Soul.

          • Patrick Gannon

            I’m making less and less sense? LOL.

      • Kristen

        Hi Annie,
        Re Biscuit…my understanding is that ‘pets’ develop learned behaviours and become a bit humanised with emotions when they absorb the energy of their owners or other humans…hence the saying that dogs are like their owners.
        I think this is partial development of soul energy from us, without this animals are just mortal, yet we can read so much about loved pets in the Afterlife, the must get some form of soul for this to even be possible.
        xx

    • It could be simply that God is neutral in the matter. That we have complete freedom to decide what we choose to define as love or not love or neither or both.

      God has given us the power to be God. First on a small scale later on a grand scale. We call it evolution. By the way, the first four letters backward in evolution
      is love. Fascinating.

      Some humans like to think that they are smarter than God because they can think of a better way to create the world with out having to eat be eaten and procreate and die.

      So could God create a life form (us) that grows beyond the intelligence of it’s creator? My answer would be maybe. However, there may be an even bigger picture here we may not see of such magnificent design, and beauty, that we simply can’t comprehend it yet. We look at it from such a different angle. Eat, defecate, procreate and die. But there is so much more going on than just that, don’t you think?

      Are we God?

      I searched for God and found only myself.
      I searched for myself and found only God.
      -Sufi proverb

      Some will seriously speculate that this is what is going on or is actually happening now with artificial intelligence. That we will create an AI that is smarter than us.

      That is part of free will and complete freedom. We can use it, abuse it or whatever we like.

      We get to play God in the small sense as our human potential. Later we can play God in the Larger sector of life until we reach the zenith (unless it’s infinite) of our potential. At such a point when we look back we may say. “That was fun, lets do that again!” And we start over or move to a place we’d like to revisit or try differently.

      We may in fact right now be the product of artificial intelligence. Wild stuff this physical life on earth at this time. Like Robin Williams said “Reality, what a concept!”

      • Raphael

        Thank you for your comment Marko…

        I understand that there is more to life that breathing, eating, drinking, eliminating and procreating (not necessarily in this order)…or working, paying your bills and dying (usually in this order).

        What I was attempting to say is this:
        If God is everything, and God is love, it should logically imply that everything is love. Is this true in the natural world, which is part of everything? Hardly, unless the two main natural drives, eating (which includes predation and killing) and reproduction are love.

        Of course we can play with words, and say that killing a prey and eating it is a form of love. However this is not what most people mean when they use the word love (very few say “I love you so much I could kill and eat you”). When Neale says that God is love, I am nearly certain that he does not mean that God is going to kill him and eat him.

        I was merely pointing out the inconsistencies and contradictions of love-centered theologies, which are rooted in Judeo-Christian dogma and do not match the realities of nature and natural law. This is why Christians speak-logically from their own perspective-of a “fallen nature”, because they cannot reconcile a “loving” God and a “cruel” nature that continually feeds on itself. New age theology is however not so logical.

        • Jethro

          I also have a hard time with the term “everything is Love”, but nature is what it is. in the terms you put it which describes a predator ripping apart its prey to eat it, it is necessary. It’s the way nature feeds nature. The reason I find the term so hard to swallow is humans, I can’t find an expression of definable love in all human thought and action. What do the animals that are not human aware of enough to actually act in hatred. Cats of all sizes don’t just kill out of hunger. But the motions leading to the kill are hunting practice. They do it naturally, we cannot teach them to not be cats, and nobody has taught them to be cats, they just are.

          God is a word. That’s it. I have read there are 300,000 Gods. Without a description or a name we do not know which God is being discussed. I think most Gods have been named a God because man found no way to defeat it, whatever “it” is. Therefore it’s more powerful than Man and must be a “God”. Man cannot accept that man is not in charge of something. The beautiful part of our Native American (among many others actually) spiritual beliefs is that in the belief we are not above, we are a part of. We are a part of the circle of Life. All life does what life does, it strives to remain alive. In the process of remaining alive we must kill something, Be it a sprig of onion or a white tail deer. Nature loves nature so much, it provides food for all nature and we as humans, in our free will, decide if that is good or bad. As humans, if we have experienced violence enough in our lifetime, we can see all killing as bad, or draw a line at killing anything with a heartbeat as bad, but it’s ok to kill that which lives by photosynthesis. Our human digestive tracts allow us to eat many things, so we do. We cannot have the same diet as a dog or a pig or a horse, but we have the choice to choose our food when other animals do not. Put us out into the forest or the fields again and the number of vegetarians will drop and the number of people eating meat will drop because we will take whatever is available.

          So, what is love? A feeling, something we do, an understanding, an acceptance, something we provide? Given Neale’ description of love, what is it? Without knowing exactly, it’s just a word. Like “God”. An individuals word. The correct response when we don’t understand is “What do you mean?” not “You are wrong!”.

          Happy to hear the fires avoided you.

        • Hi Raphael, there’s a lot we can talk about here. But for the moment,– I used the word God in my post as being neutral. This may have more of a close relationship with Taoism. It’s also in line with CwG.

          As I see Taoism is going with the flow of life. As for God being neutral, it’s like electricity, it can be used for good or bad as we define such terms.

          As for the brutality of nature, that’s a tricky question and I’d love to hear Neale’s response to that.

          My stab is this, that we judge this stuff as being bad and I get that judgment. From my minds point of view it looks bad if not horrible. Earth is a pain and suffering planet.

          It’s also a jewel of a planet that a young species playing with matches is destroying. No one would dispute that here. It could be paradise too if we all worked and played toward that.

          From a higher point of view from the mind, a place where the mind can not yet contemplate, is to see nature as a love filled work of art and design. The mind can’t grasp it yet. But at a higher state of mind it is not as brutal as we think. We only see if from our own current limited unenlightened mind space. On the other hand.

          It could be a reflection of the darker or say primitive aspects of life that we have in the early stages of life’s early evolutionary development. As we progress and advance, the brutality of nature changes it’s course to more match that of an enlightened world.

          When I’ve talked to animal communicators they tell me that animals understand the game of life they are in. When an animal is eaten, they quickly leave their body.

          • Raphael

            Thanks for you comment Marko…

            Taoism I think is an understand of the flow of life but within the context of duality (Yin and yang). Unlike western religions, it is not an emotionally charged worldview…it doesn’t speak of love as the primary energy that permeates all life, but it focuses on achieving harmony with nature, with the cosmos, for practical and health reasons. The Chinese people are said to be very pragmatic, and developed this practical philosophy and method.

            Zen is a study of spontaneity, and nature as well. It comes from Japan, which has a very formal culture, which is ironical at first glance but quite logical.

            It seems that every culture and population pursues what it lacks the most (spontaneity, balance and unity with nature, etc). Is the fact that the idea of love in religion came from the Middle East (Abrahamic religions) indicative of an original lack of love in these cultures? I do not know, but it could…

            The same goes with individuals…listen and hear what people talk about the most, and you will know what they lack the most. As Leonard Cohen wrote in his song Democracy:
            “And it’s here they got the spiritual thirst
            It’s here the family’s broken
            And it’s here the lonely say
            That the heart has got to open
            In a fundamental way”

            I do not judge nature…I merely suggest that saying that everything is love (which has to include nature) is a judgement.

            Love is not a judgement, but saying that God is love is a judgement, which leads to the absurd (in my view) logical conclusion that if God is also everything, it is then all of nature, and that nature is love. This, I think, is a projection of human needs and desires, and indicative of a lack of love in one’s life or in one’s culture or world.

            As all judgements, saying that nature is love would be unrealistic, in my opinion (a judgement is not necessarily negative, it can be positive, but it is still a judgement, an evaluation, a limited human perspective which is too narrow to comprise the entire cosmos).

            I do agree that nature is neutral, it is neither love nor fear, neither good nor bad, and so is the divine source (what Neale calls God), because it cannot be judged (assessed to be love or not to be love, to be good or bad) from our limited, narrow, ignorant perspective. It just is, and that’s really all we can say about it, and that’s enough.

            In the face of a cosmic reality which we cannot understand, awe, contemplation and reverence, and silence, are my own preferred responses, not theologies and endless definitions. I personally refuse to jam the universe in a small mental box. That’s just my way, we are all different, and all have the freedom to choose an infinite number of perceptions, which are all totally valid as long as they work for us….

          • Thanks Raphael. I want to divert on a more personal note of something you said about not having a personal inner dialog. If that’s true, that’s fascinating. I’d like to hear more.

            I personally feel we are all self dialoging, mostly unconsciously.

            In the speed reading course I took as a kid, at a very advanced level speed reading, (as I remember) the personal dialog most use in reading or the voice we hear as we read disappears. Also very fascinating.

      • Patrick Gannon

        ” By the way, the first four letters backward in evolution is love. Fascinating.”

        By the way, the first three letters backward in God are Dog. Fascinating. (Sorry couldn’t help myself)

        “We may in fact right now be the product of artificial intelligence.”

        Would that mean that the developer of the AI is God? How could the AI be God, if it was created by another being, or perhaps another AI?

        You sound like you are willing to accept being part of a computer program, as long as the programmer modifies the laws of physics in this simulation, on the fly, in such a way that certain woo phenomenon could never be available for scientific analysis – but to only be revealed as subjective experiences in the minds of a handful of human avatars? The programmer who would do that would be a real jerk, wouldn’t she?

        You might be relieved to know that scientific consensus is growing against this idea. There are certain aspects of such a simulation that can be falsified, thereby ruling them out, and thus far, that seems to be where we’re headed. One problem is the HUGE amount of data required to run such a simulation. The database would necessarily have to be larger than the entire universe.

        • Jethro

          Unless the size of the universe is a well constructed illusion which extends no further than a rainbow and all of this is only playing out in your head alone. Provided the head itself is not an illusion. The size of anything may be an illusion. We may be chips on a circuit board experiencing the first awareness of another larger more intelligent society still trying to decide if the experiment was successful or not.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Google PBS Nova Next physicists-confirm-that-were-not-living-in-a-computer-simulation

            The idea has become much less likely for technical reasons.

          • Jethro

            I was being funny… It really doesn’t matter one way or the other if this is a big simulation, unless of course we are going to wake up. We have no way of knowing. My imagination could go many places with the idea but it would just be imaginary, right? We have what we have, I’m going with that. The purpose doesn’t really matter, we are here so the purpose is to be. Thoughts about it will be the only that changes. It’s raining. I’m bored out of my skull, it let up enough to pressure wash the zero turn and started to pour when I got to the trailer. To early to do the couple small jobs I have. By the way, the new employee is working out great!! He found out that there is nothing great about a jackhammer. I told him he was going to jack a slab for me and his chest got big. I told him he still had another day of it and I think he almost cried… Anyway, I’m pretty proud of him so far. Next week he will be digging out a improperly installed room in a county home (no inspectors), They set wood joists directly on the soil. That corner of the house will be raised 4″ by the time we are finished. Believe it or not, they had termite damage, go figure.

    • Patrick Gannon

      Raphael, for me, your excellent observation extends the concept of consciousness to new heights. Consciousness is not a property of fields or particles in the universe. There are no degrees of freedom or states which define the capabilities of particles, that can be said to refer to a state of “consciousness,” or awareness. Rather consciousness is best described as an emergent property. So too, I would suggest, love is something that emerges from consciousness. It is even further removed from the core source of the known universe, than consciousness is.

      In a way, this can be seen as a wondrous and spiritual thing. Out of sheer simplicity, a handful of basic fields and particles, emerges a quality like love. Out of fields and particles, and atoms and molecules and cells and tissue, and consciousness, emerges love. The best and final product. That’s pretty spiritual to me.

      • Jethro

        Is it possible that “Love” and “Affection” are being confused? Love would be that which is accepting of everything about that which is being loved, no changes are required. If nature accepts all that is natural it’s defined as love. The quirky thing is Nature is not recognize as something that Loves. Nature most certainly does not have emotions, but humans may say during a severe thunderstorm that the skies are angry. What the human is actually saying is the skies are scary. As far as love, Nature requires no change in anything, nature does what nature does because that is the nature of nature. I have a friend who has a dog that jumps on me every time I visit. She says the dog loves me… BS!! The dog wants me to pet it. It is spoiled and untrained because she allows the dog to jump on visitors. The truth is, the dog does not fear me. Love? no. The human mind does its best to describe things in a way they understand, usually humans use human emotion to describe things that have no emotion. Nature has no emotion, it is just nature and requires nothing from us, it does not become angry at us, and it is not happy with us. We could say that if nature requires nothing of us and accepts everything as we are, that is love. Most of the arguments against “love” on this blog are about “affection”. Love has no action, Affection does.

        • Spiritual_Annie

          Jethro,

          I know I’m writing this days after originally reading it, but I had to read it for a couple of days to pull the threads of thought together that were floating around here and there.

          Another of the Spiritual teachers I follow, Marc Gafni (if you want to look him up), talks about the “allurement” in our physical world. There are more forces that attract than there are those that repel and, ever since the big bang, the physical world has acted on that allurement. The first of the elements began to be attracted to each other to make more complex elements. Then the elements themselves began to be attracted to each other to make up complex molecules. The complex molecules began to be attracted to each other, and suddenly there were single cell organisms. The complex molecules then started forming more complex life and, eventually, here we are.

          When Marc talks, one of his favorite phrases is that the history of the universe is a love story because of all the allurement in it. He talks about the 5 trillion cells in our bodies having developed due to an evolution of love. He talks about the allurement between people into societies, and societies into states, and states into countries, and countries into superpowers.

          It’s not what’s generally meant by the term “love,” but his ideas of allurement are inspiring. He talks about how, now, the allurement is also between people’s unique gifts, like the fitting together of puzzle pieces. People are cooperatively sharing their genius (special gifts) to create new things. Spiritual leaders are starting to work together to create things like a Conscious Business Initiative, and co-authored books, and Global Oneness Day (which has been around for a while).

          Marc’s background is in Jewish Mysticism (he used to teach at a “mystery school” in Israel), so I don’t always get all the references. But now he’s working with Barbara Marx Hubbard, who’s been working in the field of conscious evolution for half a century. They balance each other out nicely. I’ve followed Barbara Marx Hubbard almost as long as I’ve followed Neale. While Marc’s been more about the basic allurement in evolution, Barbara’s been about the psycology and Spirituality that can grow from it.

          Maybe we’ve had different terms for it, but if one chooses to see the attraction that drove the formation of our physical world and evolved life as “allurement” or a “love,” I’m not sure that it can hurt. I personally find it inspirational while I’m listening to or reading Marc or Barbara. Anyway, that’s another way to look at everyting being “love.”

          Love and Blessings Always,
          ~Annie

          • Jethro

            Attraction is a good start for love, its the similarities that create an attraction, then in time find enough perfection to call it love and merge. It makes sense.

  • Jethro

    Neale… bravo!! Excellent post. Thank you. Been waiting for it.

  • Raphael

    Is a theology that excludes nature valid? There is a difference between the Native American -and Taoist-perspectives (which include everything) and the Judeo-Christian/new age perspective, which are solely human-centered, love centered (as in “God is love”).

    Is a concept or definition of God (such as “God is love”) valid and real if it contradicts natural law? I guess you will have to find your own answers…but I recommend that you look at facts (about natural law, about the wilderness), and not use rationalizations or denials to uphold your belief.

    Furthermore, if God is the absolute, it cannot be defined. If it can be defined and it is everything, it would then be just as valid to say that “God is hate” as it would be to say that “God is love”, because anything that can be defined, in a relative world, is forever attached to its complementary polarity, as are the two sides of a coin.

    • Spiritual_Annie

      You have expressed yourself well, my friend. I personally believe that what I call Divinity is the irreducible building block of all creation, from which we can and do create our realities.

      Is God love? I believe so, because I belive Divinity is everything. That means I also believe Divinity includes its polar opposite (which I see as indifference rather than hate, but that’s me). I believe it includes all polar opposites, and everything on the spectrum in between. I believe we see it, and use it, as we choose.

      I believe we can choose to use Divinity, this irreducible building block of creation, in many ways. One of those is to create love–unconditional love. Another is to create peace. Sometimes I’ve heard people say that “God is love” or “God is peace,” but I think what might be happening in some instances is simply verbal shorthand. Others might only be able to see one aspect of what can be created with Divinity, such as love.

      I like the way Nicht That Hahn (might be misspelled) puts it. Metaphorically, we all contain within us all the seeds of everything. Who we are depends on those seeds watered and nourished, by ourselves and our inner circle, and those which are not.

      Love and Blessings Always,
      ~Annie

  • Jethro

    And God promised man that good and obedient wives would be found at all corners of the world… Then God made the earth round and he laughed and laughed and laughed and laughed!

    • Spiritual_Annie

      ROFLMAO! Surely the sign God was just kidding was that “obedient” bit!

      • Jethro

        I find the stereotypical description of relationships quite humorous these days. This one is funny to me because of the obedient part. There is no such thing as obedience in a good relationship. Not in the slightest. To obey is to fear. Fear and love do not go together in that fashion.

        • Raphael

          There should not be any sign of obedience anywhere…not in society, not in schools, nowhere. Indeed authority (especially religious authority) rules through fear, ultimately teaching people to love what they fear and fear what they love, and to become good little authoritarians, repressed and repressive, abused and abusive.

          Obedience and love indeed not not mix, which means that authority and love do not mix.

          • Jethro

            Agreed

          • Craig

            What do you call it when you agree and do… Agreement?
            What do you call it when you disagree and out of respect withdraw… Withdrawal?
            What do you call it when you do not agree to a request but execute it because it has advantages… Sucker? Liar? Sponger? Gravy train hopper?
            If obedience by definition does not fit in with God’s request why was it translated as such? Do we agree that because of the assumed favour or advantage in obedience to the biblical requests we have all become liars…
            Or is there something else implied by the Greek word translated as who hears commandments and does. Not obey, then what.
            I agree that fear is part of the obedience package but fear does not always imply negative implications but can also refer to respectful acceptance based on understanding the responsibilities that come with the obedience… And trust in the ability off the won that requested, commanded or instructed… Jethro here is the language barrier associated with words. Is it the word or the implied principle behind it that makes it right or wrong?
            I am half way in agreement…

          • Raphael

            Craig, there are two kinds of laws in the world: the law of love, and the other laws, rules, regulations, commands, instructions.

            The law of love does not originate from any other authority than that of your own heart and soul, All the other commands, laws and rules originate from another person or group, they are not your own.

            When you are not evolved, you need to be controlled (by laws, rules, regulations) by the group, like an errant chimp. When you are evolved, you need not be controlled by anything.

            What causes evolution? Love. Only love causes what some call spiritual evolution.

            The problem with control (with authority and obedience) is that it prevents love from taking over, from becoming the law, from ruling the mind, because love can only flourish in absolute freedom, not under any kind of control.

            So control feeds on itself in a closed loop or vicious cycle…controlling the irresponsible, and perpetuating irresponsibility. And who profits from such control? Look up…at anything or anyone who is above you.

          • Kristen

            There are 7 kinds of Laws in the world. Natural Laws, Scientofic Laws, Emotional and Psyche Laws, Laws by definition which includes everything and word in existance, Universal Laws that all are bound by and consequences are generally in place and Laws approved and defined as being for the betterment of all. Many in the last group are what you define as authority….remember these ones are in place as most people need them, just because we dont it doesnt mean they should be abolished.
            The 7th group define the same as God did in scriptures, There Is Law And Freewill, nothing else, use your freewill wisely. Y’shua/Jesus backed this up in telling people they are not to impose their religion on anyone for religion is a freewill choice. And it is.
            xx

          • Raphael

            I understand that the vast majority of people, like children who haven’t yet learnt responsibility and the consequences of their actions, unfortunately need rules in order to behave in a non-destructive manner.

            The problem is that such rules or laws, or tight control, keep these same people forever irresponsible, and prevent them from maturing, spiritually and psychologically.

            A person learn from experiencing the consequences of their actions. That is why nature is such a great teacher, and why Native Americans, living under natural laws and in total freedom, matured very quickly. When you are sheltered from such lessons, you remain forever in a sate of infancy, protected by a government that is like a parent.

            When a person behaves because of a fear of the law, he or she behaves little better than a dog, and hardly matures beyond the condition of a trained pet.

            But then, again, you have to look at who profits from such conditions…who does not want populations from understanding and claiming their own power, freedom and sovereignty.

          • Kristen

            Its all definately abuse of Law, especially profiteering. But we do need Laws saying you cant abuse others just cos you feel like it, cant drive drunk, cant legally take or sell meth or P, these are the ones that are in place for the betterment of all.

          • Raphael

            Civilization is a very complex and chaotic environment, and the more complex, the more rules are necessary, to the point where you cannot do anything at all without having to deal with a rule or regulation, without having to have a permit, or without violating such a law unknowingly because thousands of such new laws are created every year. For example in a Dec. 27, 2011, press release, the National Conference of State Legislatures said U.S. states and territories passed more than 40,000 bills and resolutions into law in 2011.

            Natural laws keep you straight, because you cannot cheat nature. Nature is the greatest, simplest and fastest teacher. Yet nature does not lord over anyone, it is not a tyrant, on the contrary: it offers you total freedom, or free will, unlike civilization, which takes away your free will, your sovereignty and freedom, and trains you and restrains you like a dog on a leash.

            A human being who has no other prompter for the avoidance of evil than the fear of punishment, who is forced to do good by the authorities above him or her is not a man…or a woman, he or she is little more than a beaver, as Adario, a Huron Chief, said in the seventeenth century.

          • Kristen

            I agree, but when I talk about Laws approved for the betterment of all, I certainly dont include the thousands of rules, regulations, permits and control seeking rules, I dont acknowledge or include them in that catagory of approved Laws, nor do those above.
            Yip, this planet is crazy, and I think its naturally too cold in general for human life, and many species.
            Nature and Earth will be our best friend, or worst enemy, or both at the same time. We definately need to learn a damn hard lesson, like we are now, that nature is just as it is, its far bigger than all of us combined, we just live here. We need to work with it, rather than against. In a world without insurance we would behave so completely differently…would we build on ocean fronts, on the top of cliffs, play with matches or even cook inside, built on reclaimed land, have highrise buildings, live almost on river banks? Nope…insurance and sueing has almost become the backbone of the West, leading to complacency. The way nature is heading it wont take long before all the insurance companies go broke. Then what? We grow a brain and take responsibility for our own choices in going against nature.

            Out with a friend for a coffee this morning, she showed me an email sign from someone “Everyday at work Im expected to do something Im not qualified for…..dealing with stupid people”.
            I bet God, Guides and many above have that on their walls!

          • Jethro

            I’m not dealing with stupid people, I’m making an impression on the ignorant. People who deal with me, are also making an impression on the ignorant… I hope.

          • Kristen

            Ignorant…lacking in knowledge or understanding, rude through lack of knowledge of good mannners, lacking in awareness.
            Im at that stage in life where Im just heading out of parenting, and need a breather just to be me, not having others dependant on me.
            So I ignore the ignorant (ignore, refuse to notice). Ive decided to ditch anything below normal/neutral/just in my life completely, including words and people. The word ignorant has a negative complication, so I just smile politely unless people are offensive, and walk away. If that means Im deeemed ignorant in some matters, then cool, they’ll be things that bore me senseless like physics…..boredom is a negative word I’ll walk away from as well.
            My own personal experiment, like a Heaven where there is no good and bad, evil or righteousness or polar opposites BECAUSE everything negative has been erraticated, including the words to define them. Like pedantism!
            Now I just need to clean up mess outside, mess is a negative word, so it has to go!
            Take care,
            K

          • Raphael

            Totally agree…freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.

            It is truly amazing to see the irresponsibility (stupidity?) displayed by the current civilized world, by people who think that they can disregard natural laws, that they are more powerful than nature, that they should be able to avoid the consequences of living in flood plains, tornado alleys, on earthquake fault, at the edge of a crumbling cliff by the ocean, at the foot of a live volcano, in a high rise building, etc.

            Or the consequences of polluting everything, of releasing and mixing tens of thousands of chemicals in the environment (chemicals that are tested individually but not together in infinite combinations), etc.

            The most comical example of stupidity is a town in America that choose the location of an abandoned coal mine for its dump, and then decided to set fire to it. That was decades ago, the fire is still burning underground, and the town was evacuated. Next, the ground will collapse because the burnt coal will have created a hollow space. Then we can have a brand new lake in that location.

            Another great example of disconnection from reality (from nature) and from any kind of brain activity is a logging company that cut trees on a slope right above a town in Oregon. They had apparently never heard of mudslides, of how tree roots hold the soil.

            We could actually write a book full os such examples.

            Not only insurance companies, but governments will go bankrupt as well.

          • Kristen

            Yip, we are masking natural selection BUT as you said, its not meant to be mean, just how all species are. The ‘stupid’, that is, those lacking common sense, logic and an inbuilt sense of personal safety…often the risktakers, are now living when they used to kill themselves somehow, and are now breeding more.

          • Kristen

            Raphael…your comment I replied to shows as awaiting moderation on the site, I guess only you and I can see it.
            Hope the Schmoderator Nonmoderator isn’t back! Im still sure that was someone in Europe and not disqus at all.

          • Raphael

            I just saw this, and I took it out, hopefully I can repost it when the nonexistent shmuckderator is gone on a coffee break.

          • Kristen

            Try now, theyve gone I think.

          • Raphael

            I keep trying but it immediately goes under so-called moderation, even after changing the first and last few words.

          • Kristen

            Yellow line with this one. Is there a drone above your house, and 3 black SUVs? Not firetrucks I hope.

          • Raphael

            I just got it I think, by doing some research…the “moderation” (which is basically censorship) happens when someone down vote your comment enough times.

            It would be up to Neale (or someone working for him) to fix the problem, but this probably won’t happen, as he most likely has plenty on his plate.

            Someone just doesn’t like our ideas, it seems. Again, I take it as a compliment.

            We can verify this by doing what I suggested before, placing the comment under your name and with your response, if you can find it in the trash, under the empty cat food cans and banana peels.

          • Kristen

            Mmmmmm, thats a bit creepy on the basis its happened to me forever, as I said, until we talked about it in May or whenever it was, everything I posted to do with Law was always deleted. You can only up or downvote something once per user…..freaken creepy and wierd. It the started on Jethro talking to me, the everyone ONCE he pointed it out and we all talked about it.
            I read anyone can flag it as inappropriate, then it gets blocked until the site owner or moderator unblocks it, thats what Ive always thought happened. BUT that they were an official moderator screening for Neale.
            Either way its freaken creepy, that someone has been ‘spying’ on me in here downvoting or flagging everything to do with Law or generally anything teaching, only letting trivia or chatter through.
            Told you all it was manual all along, not a glitch, too much of a fluke that a major glitch happened as soon as someone bought it up.
            Creepy as hell…..3 words to them, fork off loser!
            Ill check my laptop when Ive sorted washing and dinner soon.
            xx

          • Raphael

            I think that the other way to have a comment put on hold (censored, basically) is to flag it as spam. One single person can do this.

            Seems we have “fans”…or one fan. I am guessing who it might be as well…someone who comes and goes.

          • Kristen

            Yip, and ‘came’ when the shite hit the fan bigtime last time. I hope Neale has seen the movie Misery, a vigilante fan could be downright creepy.
            Hopefully the shite will hit the fan again (Sunday Dad joke corner)!

          • Raphael

            Sometimes it’s a power issue. Such a form of control is definitively indicative of a lack of psychological maturation, don’t you think doctor? Between the two of us psychiatrists we should be able to figure it out. By the way what time is it in Finland (of was it Denmark, the Netherlands, am I on the right trail)?

          • Kristen

            Heck, I was fine with psychology, now you tell me we have to be psychiatrists as well? Damn, oh well, why not?
            Unsure where in Europe, I just know Europe, but Denmark I think. It will be early Sunday morning, between 6 and 8am, someone didnt get much sleep last night, we were just too interesting for sleep!
            Marked as spam sounds right, I got banned from here for a few months a couple of years ago, and I think you get banned as spam when marked enough times, again I assumed Neale banned me, this has been going on forever that I know, not a new thing.
            I dont have the missing comment that got deleted, on my laptop all the others were there except the couple marked as spam or whatever. Either supernaturally wierd and Mewabe the cyber ghost is playing games, or when marked as spam on a site maybe that goes against the entire email content. My laptop has uber security as its relatively new, I don’t know, I’m techno stupid and proud of it!
            Boy, just looking at the wildfires and news online did my head in, freaken ads. I dont get them on a tablet. I see in this site that it didnt show the little box to click to mark things as spam or whatever.
            I see winds are picking up again for you. Grrrr.
            Stay safe.
            xx

          • Raphael

            Now I am embarrassed…I remember that I used the B word in my comment…writing that nature was not a female dog. This could be the actual problem…female dogs are not allowed on this site, unless on a leash…and male dogs have to wear a tie.

            Aboot the fire (with a Canadian accent): the hoose (Canadian for house) is still standing, the fire is aboot 70% contained where I live…but down south, in Sonoma and Napa counties, it’s still raging…50 miles from San Francisco!

            Alright no more strange accent, hey? Yes it is a tragedy. My nephew had to evacuate, he lives in Sonoma. This is far from over…and a new fire just started this morning not too far…I haven’t heard the latest.

            I need to do another rain dance.

          • Kristen

            I just did a test, with the word biarch, spelt the dog way, and got censored. Oops. I hadnt read your post properly on email before it disappeared. Ill delete my posts up the top to Neale.
            My post you cant read really just says Canadian accents are hot.

          • Raphael

            I just deleted my post as well at the top…perhaps we should delete the others as well, that relate to censorship etc…what do you think?

          • Kristen

            No ones ever paid me enough to think, that costs extra.
            But yip, although last time is wasnt this at all, it was Europe. Ill do mine now.

          • Kristen

            Howdy,
            Warning….this post comes with a compliment and ‘nice’, you may need to sit down!
            Your comment above, as simplistic as it is (like me!), gave me an epiphony moment last night.
            You understand psychology, and will know all the minor psychological changes in people, the ones we try to avoid like the plaque. For me Ive always tried to avoid ‘single parent syndrome’ and ‘self employed syndrome’, both can make people control freaks, a non team player and often dont listen to others because you’re so used to being ‘it’, no matter the circumstances. Too much independance can be problematic if you let it dominate, like anything ‘different’.
            You said “what do you think?”. My first thought was wow, I havnt been asked that for so long, someone wants my opinion on what they, or we should do. Normally people ‘tell’ what youre doing, rarely asking what we should do.
            Just pointing it out, a compliment, that in spite of being self employed with a lot of freedom, you’ve still remembered that sometimes you’d like input or a joint decision….something I forgot probably years ago…thanks for the reminder.
            xx

          • Raphael

            Thanks Kristen…I always include another person in a decision that could affects that person and me in any way.
            I am very independent but at the same time I am considerate of others…I think it comes from being so freedom loving, naturally respecting other people’s freedom, and not intruding upon it by making a unilateral decision that would affect them negatively, or would not include them. It could be part of Native American culture, I think.
            Sounds like a mouthful…but it’s just a natural behavior, I don’t even think about it.
            Damn…thanks for the compliment!

          • Kristen

            Credit where credits due…..even at the risk of breaking the rules snd being nice!
            Im not a control freak, like all people with dominant negative traits, I find them exhausting just to be around. I love spotting natural psychology, or more psyche-ology of the soul, where things are neutralised so people shouldnt cause suffering to others. Control freaks also have ocd tendancies to ‘force’ them to want to do everything for themselves, the same as perfectionists do. The problem is things have now gotten (if theres such a word) past their general capabilities so theyre now wanting people to do things for them. I cringe as soon as they come into work! They stand at the counter with their ipads wanting quotes for a dozen cakes they love, all of which are perfect and would be hundreds of USD on the NY sites they look in. As soon as I see an ‘ipad person’ I flinch and find any excuse not to do their cakes…the stress isnt worth the $$$$, nor is getting one tiny thing wrong like a colour one shade out.
            Control freaks, ocd’ers, pedants and perfectionists need to learn they can only actually control one person in life, thinking or opinions included, and thats themselves….they should start there! Guess its no fun when people dont play the games!
            Now Im getting out of parenting where thousands of decisions and ‘orders’ are needed just to get out of the house everyday and to keep the wheels rolling, Im back to shared decisions when it involves others BUT just realised yesterday that people are so used to me making all the decisions, that I end up still doing it, friends included….they had to fit around my life for so many years Inguess. I’ll try to nip in in the bud now Im aware of it…they can do as you did and ask my opinion…Ill be as passive as I can be until people realise. Or try!

            You value my thoughts….awwww shucks! Youre just lucky you arent exposed to the million I have a day!

            Take care,
            K

          • Raphael

            I am not sure whether an excessive need to control originates in fear (or insecurity), but it might make sense. My ex was an extremely fearful person (by her own admission) and also very controlling. She would indeed try to control everyone while her own personal life was a mess…typical?

            I am currently working with 2 extremely controlling clients, unbearably anal, and with a tunnel vision. They have very poor communications skills as well. I think they are from South Africa, judging by the accent. Anyway, I am dealing with them as I would with mental patients or with stupid individuals…with great patience.
            Their design firm pays extremely well, but I don’t think I will accept another job from them…and I think that they will ultimately run out of illustrators to torture, as most will eventually tell them to get lost.

            I think it’s okay to be a perfectionist (to a degree and depending on the task), as long as it applies to your own projects. Demanding “perfection” from another doesn’t work since such perfection is subjective…It then becomes abuse.

            A million thoughts a day? Don’t let the government know…they will kidnap you and use you as a supercomputer.

          • Kristen

            Yes..typical for her. Everything is offset in an attempt for normality. If theres a scale for every human trait, and between a 4-6 is normal, then those with a trait, generally developed through life, closer to either end will also have a form of that same trait at the other end as well. Its sort of a form of self preservation or compensation, but often destructive. Ideally they should both be noticeable but sort of work in harmony so they offset eachother. Some call it the Law of Opposites, but they’re wrong, there is no such Law, its a part of many other Laws. Easiest example is black and white…bothe the same therefore not opposites at all, black in potential, and white the traces after all the colour traits are expressed, being the final pure form…but in general grey or silver will be the normal. People who are suppressed and too calm, will have either a wicked temper or be self destructive, often expressed through obesity.
            Yip, being a perfectionist is fine….as you said, as long as you dont impose it on others, its a trait we all have in some form, like every trait, but should just to be to drive our personal standards to a ‘sellable’ standard, nothing more.
            Damn, I hate those clients, I used to get them as a caterer. Control freaks are so manipulative, fighting for the upper hand or power posirion every step of the way. The games are a nightmare, especially when they wont actually say what they want, preferring to ask what you can offer them, like its a job interview. We have a lot of South Africans here, and yes the males can be quite controlling and dominant in general. Thwy’re just so driven to provide their family with a great life that they push and push, quite money driven, like Indian males generally are. They’re still from traditional cultures where a mans sense of self worth is his bank account and how he provides, with parental expectations as well. They’ll get there and catch up.

            A million thoughts….did you miss the point that computers are just an attempt to copy the human mind and brain?

          • Kristen

            Yip, you’re being screened and censored. Neale has said its no one associated with him. I can see your posts as they were replies to me so can click on the ‘show reply’ button BUT they have no reply button to press. Even your one that said ‘another censored post’.
            Mmmmmmmmm, odd and interesting.
            Do you think its Mewabe haunting you?

          • Raphael

            Totally blocked, specifically the comment that was “under moderation”, meaning censored. I take it as a compliment…whoever or whatever is doing this must feel threatened, somehow.

          • Kristen

            Mmmmmm, that two word message “totally blocked” shows a reply button, the others dont. Ive put a post up the top to Neale, asking him to see who else is logged in to see if its someone in here with access. Hopefully he’ll look into it this time.

          • Raphael

            I might have to create a new account to bypass this problem, if Neale isn’t able to solve it.

          • Kristen

            That and a couple more are showing up normally now. Theyve gone on that coffee break. Hopefully talking about it stopped it this time.
            The one about natural selection still doesnt show though.

          • Kristen

            Yip, and as with last time, started when we talk about Laws, although could be a fluke, for a year mine were censored and drleted when I spoke of Laws but I assumed it was Neale. Something else odd, while it was just happening a yellow line shows to the left of your profile pic box, it still is on this one. Have you seen it before? Im on a tablet, it may not show on full computer version.

          • Raphael

            I am not sure whether censorship has anything to do with discussing controversial issues…but unless this is merely a technical problem, if it is actually censorship (not from Neale but from another source), it would make sense. I guess we will have to go back to discussing big foot and pink tutus…non threatening issues!

          • Kristen

            Exactly, its all very odd. And yip, back the the silly comments got through, the deep ones got blocked.
            Maybe the Loserator is bigfoot in a tutu at Walmart, (or was that me in the end?), and prefers those topics…the power of control!!

          • Raphael

            If you still have access to my original comment about natural evolution, you could try to copy and post it above your original response…as a test, to see what happens. Let’s see if we can fool bigfoot.

          • Kristen

            Sorry, I just deleted my weeks emails and texts, I always do on a Sunday afternoon, thats why I’m in here now, or they take up too much storage on a tablet…I dont keep anything in gadgets. Ill look on my laptop later and will do if it shows in there under deleted emails.
            K

          • Raphael

            I was thinking that if my comment was deleted as well under your name, that would demonstrate deliberate censorship, rather than a technical glitch. We can always try, and thank you in advance…

            In the meantime back to bigbutt in pink tutu (I meant bigfoot) haunting Walmart.

          • Kristen

            15 mins later, that yellow line just disappeared.

          • Raphael

            it was merely a quick case of jaundice…I feel much better now!

          • Kristen

            Oh good, but its on a diff post now, the one asking if I have your email reply. Maybe its some MIB Illuminati code for something needing screening? Bigfoot could be working with them?

          • Raphael

            As long as you don’t see a bull’s eye on my profile, I guess I can consider myself safe…no doubt Bigfoot is in on it…the rascal has no principles.

          • Kristen

            Exactly…line is still beside that one post now still.

          • Craig

            Commenting here as seems close to end of further discussions…
            Raphael the command love each other as I love you… Would then be an explanation to experience the fullness of freedom rather than a request for unconditional love… Accept as is, work with what is agreed one and the rest will eventually fall away… Easier said than done, but I do understand thanks

          • Raphael

            Craig, you cannot command anyone to love…it doesn’t work that way. But I am not sure I understand your comment…language barrier?

          • Craig

            Sorry reference to biblical commandment. Love each other as I love you… This seems to then be incorrectly translated, except if it was intended to change the brutality of that era. And if actually upheld it would have been our DNA blueprint today…

          • Kristen

            Nicely put.
            Im in ‘agreeancementation’…new word to define.

          • Jethro

            “Agreeancementation”: Binding agreement?

          • Kristen

            Could be, lots of suffixes are there to work with. ance is generally freewill based, ment a cold hard fact and tion in action.
            Could be a good one for wedding vows!

          • Jethro

            I think your on to something… but will it catch on? Binding agreement….? Hmmmm? Binding agreancetion? Willfully agreeing to be bound…in action…

          • Kristen

            Experimentationism of willfulfilment in agreeancementation.
            Add a few hyphens and it could be a CwG term!

          • Jethro

            Configure it however desire may conduct it and leave it a human term. That would allow any categorization to use it. Think about it.. it may be a statement that saves the world…. the entire world!!!

          • Jethro

            Language barriers… aren’t they wonderful? I get some of the most serious answers from posting things that made me laugh. Thought provoking in many directions I guess. I agree without being fake about it, therefore I mean a mutual agreement. To withdraw is to give up. To agree to disagree is polite. Deciding to do so ends an argument that may never end and would be pointless anyway. Some just enjoy keep the argument going for the purpose of maintaining a conversation.

            Obedient spouses… absurd! Yet like you I half way agree. It really depends on the action doesn’t it? Do we command our spouses to do or be anything they do not wish to do or be? If so, it wasn’t really love that brought the two together I believe. Maybe obedience is required of an arrangement. I would like to think, rather foolishly maybe, that marriages are a work of cooperation. Two people working towards the same goal willing to compromise and find common ground. Both parties equally and willingly on the path to success or doom.
            o·be·di·ence: compliance with an order, request, or law or submission to another’s authority….
            Request; a gray area word. It can go either way. What are the repercussions of not following through with a request? Request sounds so polite.
            Implied principle, context, additional definition based on the words surrounding the key word. The barrier exists in the translation.
            So why does my wife need to obey me if she is an equal in our relationship? Or me obey her? She and I have come to many times we agreed to disagree but still based a compromise on weighing the chances of failure over success and the risk of specific repercussions… Respect showed up rather than obedience. Nothing to fear. I maintain, obedience sounds absurd.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Late for me to join this discussion, but I see only chaos in this idea. None of us should obey speed limits? We shouldn’t teach our kids to obey traffic signs or to obey their teachers or public safety officers or flight attendants? None of us should obey officers when they pull us over, obey tax laws, or obey the rules that apply to appropriate language on this site?

            Perhaps I’m missing something…. If I had failed to teach my child to obey certain rules and individuals, I would have been abusing that child, and placing the child at severe risk. I don’t see that as love. If, as a society, we can’t all agree to obey certain rules, then all bets are off. We’re back to kill or be killed.

          • Jethro

            Obey… Another word game getting started! Fun yet irritating at the same time. How about respect? Can we respect rules and regulations because we agree with them? I think Craig touched a little on that one without saying respect.

          • Raphael

            Why is it irritating?

            Respect comes with thinking and understanding that the welfare of the group (the “tribe”, human society) is at least as important, in practical terms, as your own.

            In a society that emphasizes individualism above all else, more rules are needed because “individuals” behave selfishly, in a “me first”, “looking out for number one”, almost sociopathic manner.

            In order to have less rules, less laws, less authority and coercion, you have to develop a “tribal consciousness”, a group consciousness, an understanding that you are part of something greater than your own little self.

            This is how Native American lived, which is why they needed no government, no laws, no police, no lawyers, no judges and no jails, yet maintained harmony within their tribes or nations.

            The irony and paradox of “fierce individualism”, which is touted in the name of freedom, is that it causes a need for ever more laws and coercion. This is exactly what has happened and is happening in the United States

          • Kristen

            With respected leaders and elders remember, and grandparents helped with a lot of childcare.
            Unfortunately caucasions are so much more competitive, and dont tend to want to live in family or tribal groups, so governments stepped into that role. Just as the ‘white’ way has really screwed up the lives of all indiginous people, especially us introducing cheap booze, work for cash, guns, drugs etc, I really dont think the Native American, Maori, Island ways would work for caucasions. A kibbutz perhaps with private home ownership, but I think we have a tendancy to think we are missing out on something, I certainly would. I cant see many people agreeing on much at all, we all just have different wants, so many different things in our bloodlines and different traits.

          • Craig

            Kristen I think these wants are borne from the marketplace being over grounded with unnecessary fashion. If I may use Patrick’s view our DNA evolution causes us to seek new and better… And that is the area where we should apply more caution as the evolution is now faster than before. Ten years ago a car lasted ten years with no problem and parts readily available, today if you get 100000 km with no engine problem your vehicle is an exception. All these changes have a greater impact on society than efforts to stop them…

          • Kristen

            Hi,
            Im very excited, November Rain is on the radio at work….it doesnt get much more exciting than that….obviously irrelevant….but, maybe I should jump on the counter and play an air guitar riff at the end! Ill be in a good mood all day now! Actually its not irrelevant, scriptures are full of music, if God doesnt love November Rain He’s officially crazy in the head!

            Partially, yes, but psychologically we are just driven, as history will tell us as well. I think a lot of it is a part of freedom, we want options, freewill and choices constantly even within our own homes. We are natural collectors, guard our privacy, dont necessarily share nicely and ‘love’ so much ‘stuff’ that other people make that we just want it all. I love having a choice of probably 50 Summer dresses each day, when sewing I love to have an abundance of trims to choose from…just examples but we are fussy, driven by society and evolution to constantly have better than what we used to have, that competitiveness within us even competing or setting personal challenges within ourselves. I agree with Patrick on your comment above, although would say its how we are made as well as evolutionary.

            Of course things aren’t made to last, theres no financial benefit in that for manufacturers, thats what drives technology especially electronics, they ‘need’ to come up with newer, better and dearer to push people to buy more. The same with cars, most things. Its such a wierd concept, Im the opposite as a cake decorator, I spend hours making something for people to destroy then poop out the next day….yet our industry is still driven by bigger, better and dearer, driven by consumers rather than us. Go figure….shows how it all works psychologically, so strong people even bypass basic logic in realising some things like cakes are a one use disposable item!

            I personally support equality, the same wage for everyone no matter what they do other than doctors and those with student loans or whom have sacrificed working in favour of attaining qualifications for the betterment of society, which would re regulate all markets. CwG talks of this, saying the most valuable people in society like garbage collectors and volunteers are the lowest paid or not paid at all. Its the only way I can see us getting out of the industry driven rut of consumerism., and get back to normal, like pre 1985. Whole generations now have no concept of normal…or do we have to accept that this is all actually the ‘new normal’, as abmormal as it is?

            Take care,
            K

          • Jethro

            “They lived by principles and had common values” What was the purpose of the Chieftains? The wise elders? Was a member of the tribe ever banished or shunned? Whether we are alone or with a tribe, we have rules we must follow. Tribal members respected the chain of command, they endured the consequences of not doing so. The great thing about tribal living was the all for one, one for all attitude. Silly savages! They lived without money.
            Our laws have become ridiculous for sure and it’s all about the cash. I have the ability as the company owner to wave any charges for those in need and I do. I take care of the tribe but trade when it’s possible. A lot of people do just like I do here. There is a sense of respect for each other. The tribe is prepared to take care of each other with a sense of loyalty. It’s the Great white Chief and the wise elders in Washington DC who have the problem. Trying to force us out of our lands and abolish our traditions. They are never satisfied with our trade beads which they demand. Nothing has changed Raphael. The rich man is the new white man and the poor folks are the native savages. It’s going to take many spears and arrows to have change. The tribe may set together again one day and make a decision. Quite honestly the individualism is created by us not taking charge of our own. The government isn’t helping by taking away our right to beat the living crap out of people who need it.

            Word games are irritating. I get what you meant when you stated about obeying, Patrick put it on a different level and then responded to you. Though my statement about obey had nothing to do with government actions either. All the statements were correct and different… word games.

          • Raphael

            I am sorry Jethro but your lack of knowledge about your own culture surprises me…unless the Cherokee were different, which they might have been, having adopted the ways of the white man very early on (in order to keep their land, but Jackson wouldn’t have it this way), and having intermarried extensively as well.

            There was no “chain of command” among most native tribes. There was no “command”. Chiefs had no authority. I am talking about pre-reservation. “Indian chiefs” are a white man’s invention, like “indian princesses”. Actual leaders were merely counselors. They could not force anyone to do anything. People followed their leadership willingly as long as they displayed certain qualities, such as, first of all, a love for their people and placing the interest of the people before their own or that of their family…generosity, courage, wisdom.

            A so-called crime, such as murdering another tribe member, was resolved by restitution. If the perpetrator refuse to do restitution to the victim’s family, he was simply banished for a year, into the wilderness, by himself. If he survived, he was readopted by the tribe upon his return, and all was forgotten. Who enforced this? Warrior elites, such as “dog soldiers”.
            Besides this, which was considered a serious crime, there was no “law enforcement” or “law”, only shared values, and understanding basic individual and tribal survival skills, meaning that you wouldn’t do anything that would hurt the tribe, such as scaring the game away.

            I agree that the rich man is the new white man and the poor folks are the Native “savages”. There is a saying…”What they have done to us, they will do to you” (“they” means the government).

          • Jethro

            It was probably just a Cherokee nation tradition to beat the kids due to abusive white people. I never looked at it that way. Noted. Didn’t mean to try and ruin the other peaceful Native American tribes reputations.

          • Raphael

            Read the history Jethro, it will be more productive and enlightening than using sarcasm.

          • Jethro

            I shared with you an experience my grandmother had on the reservation as a child, a bad one, and you are asking me to read the history books. If she were alive and you were speaking with her, would you explain it all away for her? It wasn’t a white man who beat her. Grandma wouldn’t have said a thing to you, she would’ve chuckled a little and forgot about it.

          • Raphael

            I explained to you the origin of such abusive behavior. This explanation would not be found in history books, only in the memories of elders. I won’t repeat myself. But you should know that most Native Americans would back up what I wrote.

            I know when I am facing a wall. Let’s move on…

          • Jethro

            I’m not a thick wall Raphael. I’ll sit down at my computer instead of my phone and re-read and apologize if necessary.

          • Raphael

            No need to apologize in any way Jethro, we just have different views on this matter, and we might both be a bit stubborn…if you were a wall, I would probably qualify as a fortress.

          • Patrick Gannon

            I can’t help notice the similarity between Neale’s HEBs and your native Americans. In both cases, we lack real information about them. HEBs of course are imaginary until proven otherwise, but native Americans were real. Nevertheless, so few of us are educated about their society and ways of life, that we are just as ignorant of them as we are of HEBs. In any event, the lifestyle they once had is gone, and will surely not return barring some major conflagration that leaves a handful of survivors to start anew.

            In the case of the HEBs and the native Americans, they are being held up to us as superheroes; people the rest of us are inferior to. They are evolved, we are primitive. They are good and great; we are a walking disaster. We will never be as good as either the HEBs or the natives who picked ticks off their butts.

            I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m tired of being told that I’m inferior to beings I don’t even know.

          • Raphael

            “…beings I don’t even know”…
            Here is the solution: talk to Native elders, and you will get to know Native cultures. They had their own faults, their own shortcomings, but abusing children or destroying the natural environment was not one of them.

          • Jethro

            I think your interests in the native American traditions are wonderful but don’t think for a second that it was all peace and harmony. My fathers mother was born and raised on a reservation in 1900. She was just a female though, she was beat by her father so badly and so often she was punch drunk all her life. Native Americans are human too.

          • Craig

            I can say the same about African tribes and right wing political activists.

          • Raphael

            Please look into the actual history. By 1900, Native Americans children had been kidnapped for decades by the US government and forced to attend boarding schools run by diverse religious denominations whose members took great pleasure in beating, abusing (and often sexually abusing) native American children, who were prevented from seeing their parents and families for many years.

            These children learnt abuse very early in life, and having no parents to relate to did not learn parenting skills. As many people who have been severely abused, they in turn became abusers. The abuse goes on to this day. It is the legacy of “civilization”…nothing, absolutely nothing to do with “being human” Human beings do not do such things, and neither did Native Americans in the past, before this so-called “civilization” came to these shores.

            White witness who came into contact with tribes before the reservations, testified that these people treated their children like royalty. Read George Catlin, a British painter, who visited such free tribes, for example.

          • Jethro

            In the 1830s, there were three cases involving the Cherokee tribe in North Carolina. The Cherokee had become “civilized,” adopting white farming methods, laws and even religion. But the state of Georgia still wanted them moved to Indian Territory in Oklahoma. The Cherokee pointed out they were a sovereign nation confirmed by treaties with the U.S. government. Therefore, shouldn’t they be considered like a ‘State’ within the meaning of the U.S. Constitution? Marshall said, No. He said they are “domestic dependent nations. They occupy a territory to which we assert a title independent of their will. They are in a state of pupilage.”
            Later he backed away, somewhat, from this position. In 1832, he said that the Cherokee Nation possessed “its right to self-government,” even though it was “dependent” on the U.S. Further, he said that the federal government, not the state of Georgia, had to right to govern the tribe. Georgia couldn’t force the Cherokee off their land. The Cherokee thought they had won the right to stay in the Carolinas and Georgia. They were wrong.

            The Trail of Tears 1831- 1838

            1851 is the earliest I find the boarding schools starting in the Cherokee Nation. I’m not aware of any family who went to one. The Cherokee were a bit different from the plains tribes. The Oklahoma area would have been quite an adjustment for them. It could be possible as you said, that violence was a learned response. The trail of tears could have in itself created enough bitterness for those actions. My grandmothers, great grandfather was a Cherokee chief before and possibly during the trail of tears. I’m still trying to find his name. Grandma past away at age 91 in 1991. I can’t ask her. I will say, they didn’t see abuse as we see it today. It may not have been seen as abuse. My mother was abused by a Christian preacher until her 16th birthday when he rapped a belt around her neck and she left. while frowned upon, It wasn’t abuse then either. Grandpa was very abused as a child himself, stories that would start your anger fire. my responses to you today were short and short in patience. I wasn’t reading thoroughly.

            I don’t know as much as I should about tribal life as grandma and her brothers left the reservation to find work and found it on farms following the harvest, a lot like Mexicans do today. A very harsh way to live. they eventually ended up in California in the early 60’s making me a first generation Californian. I have moved back to where the trees grow naturally and the grass is green in the summer. As far as I’m concerned… I’m home.

          • Raphael

            My ex was part cherokee as well and also a Californian. Almost the exact same story…I think that tribal life had been so disrupted, so much loss, suffering and betrayal had been endured, that a Canadian study points out what is called inter generational ptsd as one of the causes for much of the dysfunction within tribes today, beside unemployment, racism, and a governmental bureaucracy (such as the BIA in the US) that strangles the tribes,

            It is difficult to find the names of those who left on their own, as they were not on the reservation rolls.

            Speaking of making my blood boil, there are many documented cases of abuses (physical and sexual) of Native children in boarding schools, and even of mass murder by the religious “authorities” in these schools, both here and in Canada. There are ongoing investigations. The problem was so real and widespread that the Canadian government even issued a public apology a few years ago. I can’t imagine the arrogant US government doing the same!

            The way children were treated, by Europeans especially and for centuries, was awful. Native Hawaiians and Native Americans, generally speaking, treated their children a lot better, according to the accounts of white witnesses as well as the memories of Native elders (who are since long gone) who had been raised traditionally, away from Euro-American influence.

            According to such testimonies, most Native Americans never punished or disciplined their children, and never ordered them around…that was not the traditional way…yet these children were much better behaved that white children (again, white witnesses accounts), which might prove that when you give your children what they need, love and support (from many sources, from an extended family and entire tribe), they grow up to be naturally good.

            Home is a good place to be!

          • Jethro

            “It is difficult to find the names of those who left on their own, as they were not on the reservation rolls.”
            When I talked to my mother last night to confirm that I would be stating facts about the chief part, I asked about a name. No name, and she couldn’t tell me the number… The number! We’re all numbers. I’ve been a number since birth and I’m still a bit insulted by that. I cannot find information related to the family name “Weaver” in the Cherokee online documents but that may be because they left in the early 1900’s and Weaver had not been recorded yet.

          • Raphael

            I understand your points, they represent what could be called common wisdom…

            But I have another perspective. I do not believe that without coercion and authority, we would all revert to being murdering savages, thieves and rapists. I have more faith in human nature than this.

            I think that an intelligent specie could govern themselves, and see the practicality of not setting buildings on fires, not driving through an intersection without slowing down or stopping and looking, not creating global chaos by murdering and stealing, etc etc, without having to be trained like a dog to obey, and without fear of the law and punishment.

            The problem might be that we are not yet an intelligent specie. The other problem is that too much governmental control, authority and coercion keep people from maturing, psychologically, from becoming responsible adults, and therefore cause a need for ever more control and authority. The more a government treats people as if they were children, the more they think and behave as such, to the point where you then need a police state watching every citizen (which is what we have now).

          • Patrick Gannon

            “But I have another perspective. I do not believe that without coercion and authority, we would all revert to being murdering savages, thieves and rapists. I have more faith in human nature than this.”

            So do I, because evolution has already instructed us in the value of obedience. The child who does not obey their parent to avoid this or that, to run quickly here or there – ends up dead, and does not pass along his/her genes. Obedience is built into our DNA.

            The problem with this ingrained behavior relates to your perception. We are programmed to obey, and so we obey religious leaders, politicians, marketing programs, news media, etc. when these folks might not have our best interests at heart.

            This is all about System1, System2 thinking. To move away from rote obedience, we need to invoke System 2 thinking and be more skeptical, contemplative, critical, etc. However taking this path, leads one away from much of the woo on this and other religious sites.

          • Raphael

            I am not programed to obey Patrick, I never have been, and never will be. I come from a long line of what you would call “rebels” in my family, from both my father and mother’s sides. Yet I am still alive and well. I have never obeyed a religious leader, a military officer, a politician, the news media, etc etc.

            Artists and creative people do not obey…they cannot, because they carve their own path in life, and create and express their own vision, not that of society or any form of authority. They are not followers.

            There is a vast difference, as Kristen explained, between rules and laws. For example, I respect rules that are common sense rules, such as those concerning traffic, because not doing so would obviously be idiotic and destructive. But I pay taxes (that fund wars and a militarism I oppose) because of coercion, not out of free will. Coercive laws force me to do things I would otherwise not do, such as applying for a permit (which is just another form of taxation) to build a new well house…or paying a stiff penalty for not participating in the ACA, which I view as a rip off.

            I was never into what you call system 1 thinking (or rather none thinking, because obeying is non thinking). I was born with what you call system 2. System 1 is not inborn, it is taught by authoritarian parents and an authoritarian system. We are born free, as free as animals. But this freedom is mentally (and sometimes physically) beaten out of most children and young adults, because society requires compliant, controllable and exploitable cattle.

          • Jethro

            I have never obeyed a religious leader, a military officer, a politician, the news media, etc etc.
            Artists and creative people do not obey…they cannot, because they carve their own path in life, and create and express their own vision, not that of society or any form of authority. They are not followers.

            Forever and ever amen!

          • Raphael

            Thanks Jethro!

          • Jethro

            Your welcome. I totally agree. Never been one to go with the grain. You mention artists and being creative. In High school my art teacher wanted to put my stuff in a state show. A sketch of Alan alda’ head, A respectful nude, full body, and a grouse in the field. I declined because she wanted me to place some strings on the nude to mimic a bikini at least. I wish I had done it but I declined even though she said it would certainly bring 1st place ribbons. Point is, I haven’t changed. It is our differences that set us apart. If we are to be accepted, it’s on our terms, I’ve been angry for many years due to people who can’t deal with that. Self employment is usually a sign of a desire to exercise complete self expression. Some people confuse that with a need to control, but then, some abuse their position and are very controlling. That’s not the right way, everyone has something wonderful to express, the freedom to do so is a wonderful gift. How else will we ever get to know another.

            I put the charcoal pencils down after that and have thought about picking them up again. I’m not ready yet I guess, some day. Blue prints are filling the desire maybe, Imagine it, draw it, make it 3 dimensions.

          • Craig

            What a hidden talent. Take up the pencil and you will not look back again. Wow the only good I can do is Destroy It Myself… No privilege left for others to try. Maybe I should try and dance on the table with an air guitar as Kristen…

          • Jethro

            The artist is his own worst critic. Do what you enjoy and do it like nobody is watching. Somethings you might be careful with because Somebody might be watching lol.

          • Raphael

            The problem is that successful artists only show their best, which becomes a standard to achieve right away for the beginner, which is unrealistic…you never see their first attempts or their failed attempts. Everyone fails, that’s how we learn.

          • Jethro

            Yes, that is a problem. I’ve seen some rough sketches that really needed to be framed and displayed. I love the extra lines and corrections sometimes, like out of place shading in the right place. There are no mistakes in art… just abandoned art.

          • Craig

            There you see, just abandoned art. What we are and do can only add worth to our own lives when we use them to add value to someone else’s. Just take up the pencil go sit on the beach and start sketching and when a bystander comments and inquirs s into price well time and equipment=price.

          • Jethro

            Beach… drawing…. income… Sounds like a happy thought to me.

          • Craig

            The last part of manifestation is doing… One step to go and your there…
            Just remember not to sleep to close to the beach… High tide and tsunamis…

          • Raphael

            I encourage you to draw again! do it, don’t think about it…it is never a waste of time when it is your heart and soul desire. We are too focused on making money in this world, and disregard anything that doesn’t, or not immediately. But there are many ways to bring a passive income with art, while also working, such as with zazzle, etc…

            As far as self employment and control, I don’t see anything wrong with trying to regain or maintain control of our own lives when society attempts to control us and everything we think and do from the time we are toddlers…society is the control freak, not the independent individual!

          • Jethro

            Thank you Raphael. I will pick it up again. It’s unfortunate that we must put so much time into making money to live these days. When families supported and helped each other in the “good ol’ days” there was more time.
            My work isn’t about the money anymore, don’t get me wrong, the money is important but I show up for the people and their homes. It’s about smiles laughter and hugs, even an occasional kiss on the cheek from an elderly woman. Our homes are the heart of our survival and one of few places we can be who we are. What I do is an art form in itself and each job a very personal expression of myself that will be remembered for years to come. 3 or 4 more employees and I may spend more time at my drafting table… without the rulers.

          • Kristen

            I think the point of it all is that what would become Laws because of the probable half the population that just dont know how to live nicely and respect everyone else and the environment.
            Should we need a million Laws? Nope…..but many others do. Rules are a different ballgame and I agree with you, rules are necessary especially with parenting, but Laws cross the line.

          • Craig

            Then the other half who just bluntly ignore the rules and endanger everyone else…

    • Kristen

      Damn, I’ve been reading scriptures wrong for so many years. I’ve been fixed on God telling men to be a good husband, and all the positive traits of a good wife later on.
      Obedient……heck, good luck with that one. Was He planning on a training book like you can buy for dogs? Or perhaps wife obedience classes?
      No wonder He gave up, smart guy!

  • Kristen

    Neale,
    The Schmuckerator Schmoderator is paying us another visit, can you look into it please. You should be able to tell by seeing who was logged on in the hour before this post, other than Raphael and I.
    His posts are all showing the awaiting moderation by CwG message, I can see them as they are replies to me, but they have no reply tab. There are no web links nor smut or swearing.
    Thanks,
    Kristen

    • Raphael

      I am replying here but this is actually for Neale…

      Neale, the line “Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by The Global conversation.” appears on disque when a comment receives multiple down votes. It is then up to a site moderator to look into it and clear the issue, but it seems that you have no such moderator, so any comment that is thus down voted is essentially censored.

      It’s too bad, because disque is basically forcing a popularity contest, where up votes can be multiple, but a few down votes cause censorship. However this is in line with our times…”group think” does not tolerate much dissent from the group.

      I know this is not in line with your way of thinking, but disque forces this on your site, with its own policies. I though you should know…in fact any small group of people can censor anyone on any site that is using disque (I am not sure how many down votes are needed, but probably not that many).

      A comment can also get put on hold when flagged as spam, until a site moderator unblocks it…so in essence, again, anyone can become a censor unless a site moderator moderates!

      • Kristen

        An add on….you can only downvote someone once per user AND the same thing can happen when someone flags a post as inappropriate.
        Neale, Im still sure I know who it is, can you please see who has been logged in at the same time as Raphael and I…its manual, and if done by downvoting they have access to multiple ‘users’ at once.
        Creepy stuff!!!!!

  • Jean_Sillard

    Neale, thanks for this very inspiring article. Science and spirituality are not exclusive when they are not dogmatic. As spiritual seekers and scientists are both looking for the truth, one day i am sure they will really meet.
    You talk about Einstein, but they are also other great scientists who were very interested by spirituality. I recommend to read the book ‘Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World’s Great Physicists’. In this book you will writings of some of the founders of quantum physics, which is the physics which describes particles. It’s interesting to see that you can find also great scientists who were interested by spirituality. Of course this doesn’t prove anything, but it shows science and spirituality are not always exclusive.

  • Patrick Gannon

    “There is an Essential Essence in the universe, which some people call God
    This essence is Pure, Undifferentiated Energy, which is aware of Itself and which differentiates in variable physical and metaphysical forms.”

    How can energy be aware of itself? How can a lightning bolt be aware of itself? How can a massless particle (the photon) be aware of itself?

    While my post in the last article was about an interesting congruence, I was correct in saying “Probably wishful thinking on my part, but is this a small step away from the woo?”

    It was not a small step away from the woo, if there is an insistence that photons are aware of themselves or anything else. That’s a scientific claim. Is a photon that began life in a star 20 million years ago aware that it is going to land in my eyes one clear, starlit night?

    We have amazing information about what differentiates a photon for example in the variable physical form – but what the heck is the metaphysical form of a photon? A photon is a unit of electromagnetic energy? What metaphysical properties does it have and how do you know that?