This post belongs on the Dot Net site for one reason and one reason only. Because there are scientists out there who are thinking about these subjects, yet for whatever reason, are not stepping up to the plate. Their place in the scheme of global transformation is there to be found, but remains quashed, by virtue of 'closed' boundaries placed upon them - for fear of exclusion perhaps, or the thought that resources will be denied should they venture too far from the box. The whole point of the exercise, to many ways of thinking, is to expand the box sufficiently to happily do away with it altogether.
Boundary Systems. What are they for? To protect us. We set ourselves boundaries to encapsulate what we hold to be dear. To reinforce our comfort zones. To establish parameters beyond which others should, to our view, not step. Are they useful? What purpose do they serve? Boundaries are Closed - there are no 'Open Boundaries' as illustrated by the image attached. Like constants and constraints, they may be perceived to have worth, but by whose definition? There are two sides to the fence, one side impulsed to defend itself from attack, the other waiting to establish some degree of freedom..
Boundary Systems. What are they for? To protect us. We set ourselves boundaries to encapsulate what we hold to be dear. To reinforce our comfort zones. To establish parameters beyond which others should, to our view, not step. Are they useful? What purpose do they serve? Boundaries are Closed - there are no 'Open Boundaries' as illustrated by the image attached. Like constants and constraints, they may be perceived to have worth, but by whose definition? There are two sides to the fence, one side impulsed to defend itself from attack, the other waiting to establish some degree of freedom..
We exist in different realities, which we traverse as we move through our day. The 3D reality, where we face each other head-on and communicate within the confines of shared space. The virtual reality, where we scroll through our timelines on the Internet and share thoughts. feelings and experiences in a non-local format as we integrate with others across the global spectrum. And the interdimensional reality, where we access our inspirations and are subject to the influence of consciousness we can neither see, nor fully perceive in 3D.
Screen writers such as Gene Roddenberry (Star Trek), Arthur C. Clarke (Space Odyssey), and Richard Dean Anderson (Stargate SG1) made their fame and fortune on the basis of the latter. As did the scientists (Einstein, Fermi, Bohr, Schroedinger, Planck, et al) in the heyday of quantum mechanical evolution.
Today there are no Einsteins in sight, and the iconic movies that made history are seemingly irreplaceable. We're left to our own devices with the information at our disposal, the stuff we have been given "to make sense of" in our miniscule 3D timelines. As the quantum units we must accept ourselves as being, we may not bear great significance in the master plan of cosmic consciousness, but surely we play a part, otherwise what would be the point of living in the world as it is now, as we do? We set great store by the choice/destiny paradox, questioning as we go, contemplating the Universe for heavens sake, and trying to calibrate where science and spirituality might find some common ground.
Screen writers such as Gene Roddenberry (Star Trek), Arthur C. Clarke (Space Odyssey), and Richard Dean Anderson (Stargate SG1) made their fame and fortune on the basis of the latter. As did the scientists (Einstein, Fermi, Bohr, Schroedinger, Planck, et al) in the heyday of quantum mechanical evolution.
Today there are no Einsteins in sight, and the iconic movies that made history are seemingly irreplaceable. We're left to our own devices with the information at our disposal, the stuff we have been given "to make sense of" in our miniscule 3D timelines. As the quantum units we must accept ourselves as being, we may not bear great significance in the master plan of cosmic consciousness, but surely we play a part, otherwise what would be the point of living in the world as it is now, as we do? We set great store by the choice/destiny paradox, questioning as we go, contemplating the Universe for heavens sake, and trying to calibrate where science and spirituality might find some common ground.
Being 'Used' is an over-used statement. We fear 'being used', so we try to set boundaries to guard ourselves against it. In the early 1900s, men and women worked with a paradigm in which subjugation and repression were orders of the day, and women rebelled against this with The Vote as an objective, the only thing to latch onto in their attempt to gain some kind of power. Thus ensued a power struggle, ensuring by definition that it could not work, and we've seen it Not Working over many decades since.
We've seen women trying to emulate men in seeking promotion and success. We've seen men at a loss to find merit in female thinking as they try to redress the imbalance of women in positions of influence. The Old Paradigms haven't worked, and now we know that we need to change them.
Way back when, the things men and women were Supposed to Do was left in a no-choice zone, a vestige of the hunter-gatherer era wherein women ran the household and men supplied the livelihood. Ironically, the suffragette movement coincided with the birth of quantum mechanics, though that's not a common consideration, for at the time the females were intent on setting themselves a mark in political history and the scientists were keeping their findings very close to their chests. We haven't yet come round to viewing that strange equation. But it's a different proving ground now, we have a blank space to work with. We're on a quest for equilibrium, and want to leave the power struggle behind. Power Struggle is Old Paradigm. Power Balance is New Paradigm. The question is, how are we going to attain it? Frankly, we don't know. We're only just beginning to find out.
We've seen women trying to emulate men in seeking promotion and success. We've seen men at a loss to find merit in female thinking as they try to redress the imbalance of women in positions of influence. The Old Paradigms haven't worked, and now we know that we need to change them.
Way back when, the things men and women were Supposed to Do was left in a no-choice zone, a vestige of the hunter-gatherer era wherein women ran the household and men supplied the livelihood. Ironically, the suffragette movement coincided with the birth of quantum mechanics, though that's not a common consideration, for at the time the females were intent on setting themselves a mark in political history and the scientists were keeping their findings very close to their chests. We haven't yet come round to viewing that strange equation. But it's a different proving ground now, we have a blank space to work with. We're on a quest for equilibrium, and want to leave the power struggle behind. Power Struggle is Old Paradigm. Power Balance is New Paradigm. The question is, how are we going to attain it? Frankly, we don't know. We're only just beginning to find out.
There is, logically, no reason for boundaries where we don't need them. With all the emphasis of mental health on the social agenda, we have to accept that mental differences are to be valued, not vilified. Boundaries are established to keep out the unwanted (hence renormalisation), and to protect us from perceived 'badness' that comes with other people's ways of being. Do we really need, in the search for equilibrium, to defend ourselves from other people's way of being?
Boundaries per se are pushed hard in striving for what we (independently) perceive as necessity rather than in seeking consensus. We see something wrong in the way another person behaves or thinks, and we try to limit their impact on us by setting a boundary against it. What would happen if we took down the barriers we subsequently erect, and allowed those different processes in action and thought to take part in the process with equal validity? What if we stopped judging the world lines of other people and started taking down the blocks to their personal (and collective) validity?
In so doing, we would set ourselves a course for the unknown. However, clutching to certainty never did us any favours. The Universe does not deliver what we imagine it is going to, by virtue of the Uncertainty Principle. And if you haven't yet expanded the Uncertainty Principle to apply beyond the simplistic behaviour of electrons, you wouldn't be reading this Blog. Hello there - you again. Looking forward to that.
Boundaries per se are pushed hard in striving for what we (independently) perceive as necessity rather than in seeking consensus. We see something wrong in the way another person behaves or thinks, and we try to limit their impact on us by setting a boundary against it. What would happen if we took down the barriers we subsequently erect, and allowed those different processes in action and thought to take part in the process with equal validity? What if we stopped judging the world lines of other people and started taking down the blocks to their personal (and collective) validity?
In so doing, we would set ourselves a course for the unknown. However, clutching to certainty never did us any favours. The Universe does not deliver what we imagine it is going to, by virtue of the Uncertainty Principle. And if you haven't yet expanded the Uncertainty Principle to apply beyond the simplistic behaviour of electrons, you wouldn't be reading this Blog. Hello there - you again. Looking forward to that.
RSS Feed
