D-wave quantum computers are legit.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Gem

Personally I am not so big on choice because some folks have more options available to then than others do, and the promotion of 'choice' as ideal only advantages the socially privileged. It does not help the disadvantaged. My framework is empowerment, which essentially means increasing the options available to people who are disempowered and disadvantaged in society. People simply do not have the same oportunties, so choice as a principle is not equitable. People value choice, and give it all importance, because choice is the last bastion of the ego. The basic structure of the story is God gave people 'free will', and we get to choose to go our own way, which is degenerate from God's way. In this way, choice was always coerced by moral underpinnings and never had anything to do with 'freedom'. I sum up the capitalist paradigm with a slogan: Give them choices and tell them they are free. I'm pretty sure that the powers that be understand this and continue to promote choice for reasons of social control, and the construct of social systems that support their privilege and wealth, while The livelihood of minorities and working classes becomes increasing precarious.

My suggestion is quite different, and instead of 'give then choices and tell them they are free' mentality, I'd propose the whole story of free will was bogus from the very beginning, and individuals, that is the bodies with which we identify, are entwined with the universe and powerless in the scale of things. We just experience the lifepath which is laid out as we identify with the body that lives and dies. The difference is a perspective of a conscious universe in which the actions currently considered to be chosen are actually inspired spontaneously within a universal consciousness rather than by an individual who has free will. For any person this would be experienced much like a flow with the moment of life, and actions would arise directly from the insight where one doesn't really know what they do or why, but they know just what to do, and do it whole-heartedly. It is done because life requires it and moves you; not because 'I want it'. It's working in immediacy of what needs to be done, without pause and hesitation of making choices. This holds fundamental values that treasure life as a whole, and the whole movement of life. It does not require human craving to create demand for utterly useless rubbish, it doesn't require mindless competition and it doesn't require the perpetual distraction, sense of lack and consumer fulfillment. It doesn't appeal to the baser human aspects which capitalism relies on.

The whiz bang computers are great. I like 'em. But there is very little truly ethical dialogue surrounding it, and they will be utilised to further capital concerns and values, which are obviously not conducive with life on Earth as a whole.

Gem, thanks for your thoughts. Agreed on the toxic material aspects of our mainstream social and economic paradigm. No argument that our societies are unjust, that there is needless suffering on all levels...but particularly the egregious and abject suffering, which requires only the political will in order to be much more fully and properly addressed. Agreed that choice within a material reality is always conscribed, and further so by a toxic, self-serving mainstream paradigm which oppresses and exploits through both internalisation and open affirmation of narcissistic utilitarianism.

There's no denying the factual state of things. It always strikes me as odd that so many invest in huge mental acrobatics in order to justify why stuff is (which basically seem to be just less theological versions of prosperity gospel), when the reality is that injustice exists as both a key support for the status quo, as well as being the ongoing fallout of maintaining the status quo.

However, I would still put forward that there is an inherent good in the act of choosing. Because each act of choosing represents a moment -- no matter how fleeting -- in which we bring the eternal (consciousness, spirit) into the ephemeral (this physical existence). Bringing awareness and consciousness to the act of choosing only deepens this unity or joining. There is a fullness of heart and spirit that we may all potentially embrace as a good simply for its own sake, in the same way that we may all (hopefully) potentially embrace things such as the value of humanity and life on earth more broadly, of peace, of lovingkindness, and of other personal traits such as humility, restraint, and discipline, etc.

In every choice, there is always a potential to choose wisely, in ways that are aligned with the good of self and others in the moment and place in which we are. Of course, this is only a potential that exists in each moment. Frequently, many would argue, folks choose poorly by any measure even given a conscribed, unjust, or oppressive pool of choices. Many choose in ways that are misaligned with their own well-being, much less the well-being of others or of the whole of humanity or life more broadly.

But with every choice we make in the direction of what aligns with spirit and truth and perhaps concrete specifics such as life, peace, and lovingkindness...we realise a bit more of that potential. We realise a bit more of the fullness of our humanity. A striking example is Ette Hillesum and her conscious and engaged choices, including her beliefs ("life is beautiful"), which illuminated her even in death at Auschwitz.

To me, it is very clear that the ongoing illumination of the soul and realising the increasing fullness of our humanity have always called us to be as we are more fully both individually and collectively. As persons with awareness seeking to live in integrity and balance with one another and this good earth, it is self-evident that without realising our mutual humanity and our collective obligations to one another -- for dignity, for justice, and for a more authentic equality of both opportunity and outcomes -- we cannot live a deeply meaningful life. That is, IMO, we cannot realise the fullness of our humanity without both individual and collective awareness and aligned expression.

Obviously, opinions vary. But IMO, the awareness and the conscious choice in each moment is, to my mind, a key foundation of both our individual and collective existence and potentially to our positive development. It is not the end but rather a means to potentially see more truly, own more fully, and to live more authentically.

Peace & blessings,
7L

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by organic born

And of course I agree.. my beef is that we're simply prone to talk about such things in a high-minded way but then do little to actually rectify our narrow focus as an image-driven and lost species. For myself I'm rebooting my experience based on the tactile needs of my physical body. I'm only eating foods that my ancestors were prone to eat, since those are what we evolved in relation to. I'm also going off the rails and am learning to grow my own nutrient dense versions in an attempt to help re-erect a dying art. I'm also taking serous the folks who surround me in such a way that "nothing else matters". The idea of some god, or of some version of the afterlife should hold my attention for more than a few moments is pretty much on the skids in my current experience.

We've been loosing something as a species and it's time we reclaim it. Talking about it only is the best way that I know-of to do nothing. :)

You're preaching to the choir, so to speak, re: not living what we speak to. Whomever you can reach, I say it's worthy of your efforts to try to engage them and good luck on that.

Because you realise that for most, they're not really (or only superficially, if at all) even speaking of one thing and doing another. For the most part, there is a huge apathy and detachment regarding whatever else doesn't concern them. Occasional statements or agreements with some humanitarian sentiment hardly even qualifies as hypocrisy, because for the most part, they honestly don't care.

Now, one area you will find huge amounts of addiction, pathological behaviour, rampant deceit and rampant abuse and exploitation is the area of personal relationships generally, and particularly those involving sex and supposedly (according to many of the "others" in those relationships) love and commitment. The supposedlys are huge areas for exploitation and deceit.

Integrity and character, along with commitment to any higher good, begin at home, just like lovingkindness. Anyone who cannot treat those in their most intimate circles with authentic love, dignity, respect, honour, and kindness, IMO cannot be trusted as they are not committed to their own path and their own centre (or higher self) equally to others and to source. Instead, many are in service to self at the expense of their own highest good and certainly at the expense of others, and of source.

It is possible and even very likely, living a life of hypocrisy and partial awareness, to do both some conscious good as well as great, widespread, conscious and unconscious harm. But for those who are committed to their path, the conscious good they do will be evident first and foremost in their everyday lives, in simply how they treat others in their lives, and particularly those fam, friends, and partners closest to them.

Peace & blessings,
7L

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by organic born

In the Buddhist tradition if someone is getting under your skin then this is an opportunity to learn something about yourself. Am I challenging your feeling of inner integrity by not catering to your version of a truth in some way? You feel that you've "got it" and I'm questioning that by not playing along directly with your manor of interpretation.

I'm finding your expression of being irritated quite illuminating. It's suggests, by it's presence, that you're protecting something that would be best if you dispensed with. :)

No, challenging is welcome, as long as it's done courteously. I don't give a fig, TBH, what others think if they don't treat me with respect, honour, and courtesy. So I am neutral unless I feel you're rude and then I tend to be dismissive of anyone who would exhibit such poor social form...LOL. Pettiness irks me, and rudeness strikes me as extremely petty. I do generally try to challenge myself not to be as scathing as I might be, unless I see a pattern

TBH I was trying to hold myself back when responding to you, because I wasn't quite sure how to take you. I realised later that you are probably not British and that I may have not understood the cultural context. Here, it would be seen as quite smug to say and repeat, hahaha. But I realised you likely were coming from a different social context and that you may have been trying to be kind in your fashion.
So it's all good

Peace & blessings,
7L

[organic born]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Integrity and character, along with commitment to any higher good, begin at home, just like lovingkindness. Anyone who cannot treat those in their most intimate circles with authentic love, dignity, respect, honour, and kindness, IMO cannot be trusted as they are not committed to their own path and their own centre (or higher self) equally to others and to source. Instead, many are in service to self at the expense of their own highest good and certainly at the expense of others, and of source.

Now let's dismantle this a bit. We have a list that we generally agree upon, that one should behave in relation to good social conduct. So why wouldn't anyone follow that list, it seems simple enough?

If we track back as to our ancestral past we run into a clue. Historically (I mean 'way' back) we didn't congregate in a really large way. I'm reading a book right now that I'm truly grateful for. If you want to get a peek at how the early hunters and gathers interpreted their surroundings read the book that I mentioned earlier: "Don't Sleep, There are Snakes" by Daniel L. Everett. He has a PH.D. degree in Linguistics and spent some time at MIT working under Noam Chomsky, but that's not what really makes him special. He spent almost 30 years among an obscure tribe in the Amazon called the Pirahas. From 1977 to I believe 2006. These folks lived solidly off the land and hadn't changed much in the way of our current culturalization. They spoke a language that essentially "nobody" understood other than them, and over time by Daniel. Daniel started his stay as a christian missionary and eventually tossed that aside because he saw it was worthless. He now considers himself religiously free.

One of the keys toward understanding who we are today involves the fact that our ancestors were once bundled into fairly small groups, and their day-to-day overlapped in something of a seamless way. Other researchers that I've read place our ability to bond with others seamlessly in such groupings at about 25 to 50 individuals with an upside of around 125. After that we start becoming strangers to each other.

So with the connections being so intimate, on a daily and lifetime level, there's little need to police ourselves since the behavioral patterns are built into our daily experience with each other. Sexually speaking this tribe that Daniel studied had roughly 350 members totally, spread out in smaller groupings over around a hundred miles (?) or so along a river. Even though they were spread out they were still very intimate with each other. He estimated that roughly 75% of the adults had all been sexually intimate with each other at some point in their lifetime. This supports much of what I've read so far about other indigenous cultures. Partners were exchanged freely by both sexes. Male/female bondings were formed but were loose and easily dissolved. The "displaced" male or female remained close to the one who displaced them.

Now once the 125 to 150 person in one group was exceeded the relationships started becoming distant and less integrative. People would start experiencing others as "strangers". And it would seem that people can do things to "strangers" that are not easily done to those that they're intimately bound to. After 150 or so there starts becoming a need for rules and some means of enforcing those rules.

So biologically speaking around 150 people are the upside limit to how large a population that we can comfortably relate to directly. After this we can still relate to each other but we now do so through symbols and mutual associations that are collectively agreed upon. We start hovering more among belief structure and belief specifics than we do with actual individual identities.

This creates cultures that are intimately distant from each other, in terms of personal bonding, and more focused on the manor in which appearances (in terms of social priorities and beliefs) are the thing. And such an adherence tends to become the determining view as to how people respond to each other. Essentially we are relating to each other via social filters, almost as strangers, instead of the intimate kinds of bondings that comes with smaller group associations.

So when we make a list of how people should be behaving, we are doing so in something of an artificial way of controlling behaviour among non-bonded strangers. Even those close to us are still being viewed in something of a stranger-like way, because that's how we've been socially aligned to view each other.

Among smaller more isolated groups this is less of a concern. They can hardly view any distance between themselves and those they grew up with. In such environments, were they to hurt another they would 'intimately' feel it as though they were hurting themselves. :)

[Gem]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Gem, thanks for your thoughts. Agreed on the toxic material aspects of our mainstream social and economic paradigm. No argument that our societies are unjust, that there is needless suffering on all levels...but particularly the egregious and abject suffering, which requires only the political will in order to be much more fully and properly addressed. Agreed that choice within a material reality is always conscribed, and further so by a toxic, self-serving mainstream paradigm which oppresses and exploits through both internalisation and open affirmation of narcissistic utilitarianism.

There's no denying the factual state of things. It always strikes me as odd that so many invest in huge mental acrobatics in order to justify why stuff is (which basically seem to be just less theological versions of prosperity gospel), when the reality is that injustice exists as both a key support for the status quo, as well as being the ongoing fallout of maintaining the status quo.

However, I would still put forward that there is an inherent good in the act of choosing. Because each act of choosing represents a moment -- no matter how fleeting -- in which we bring the eternal (consciousness, spirit) into the ephemeral (this physical existence). Bringing awareness and consciousness to the act of choosing only deepens this unity or joining. There is a fullness of heart and spirit that we may all potentially embrace as a good simply for its own sake, in the same way that we may all (hopefully) potentially embrace things such as the value of humanity and life on earth more broadly, of peace, of lovingkindness, and of other personal traits such as humility, restraint, and discipline, etc.

In every choice, there is always a potential to choose wisely, in ways that are aligned with the good of self and others in the moment and place in which we are. Of course, this is only a potential that exists in each moment. Frequently, many would argue, folks choose poorly by any measure even given a conscribed, unjust, or oppressive pool of choices. Many choose in ways that are misaligned with their own well-being, much less the well-being of others or of the whole of humanity or life more broadly.

But with every choice we make in the direction of what aligns with spirit and truth and perhaps concrete specifics such as life, peace, and lovingkindness...we realise a bit more of that potential. We realise a bit more of the fullness of our humanity. A striking example is Ette Hillesum and her conscious and engaged choices, including her beliefs ("life is beautiful"), which illuminated her even in death at Auschwitz.

To me, it is very clear that the ongoing illumination of the soul and realising the increasing fullness of our humanity have always called us to be as we are more fully both individually and collectively. As persons with awareness seeking to live in integrity and balance with one another and this good earth, it is self-evident that without realising our mutual humanity and our collective obligations to one another -- for dignity, for justice, and for a more authentic equality of both opportunity and outcomes -- we cannot live a deeply meaningful life. That is, IMO, we cannot realise the fullness of our humanity without both individual and collective awareness and aligned expression.

Obviously, opinions vary. But IMO, the awareness and the conscious choice in each moment is, to my mind, a key foundation of both our individual and collective existence and potentially to our positive development. It is not the end but rather a means to potentially see more truly, own more fully, and to live more authentically.

Peace & blessings,
7L

Addressing the last paragraph first and going backwards, if we come to this observation in this moment, I question, can anything be done about the circumstances as they are? To me, seemingly not. Things are this way, and not some other way. The consideration of the past and the imagining of futures distracts the attention from what is spontaneously unfolding, making the actual act I am currently performing unconscious. Considering this, in any moment I am already willing rather than willful. To express it metaphorically, imagine a freestyle dancer who goes with the music rather than moving the body in a way which was predetermined. That dancer doesn't think about what they just did nor know what they are going to do, but they know just what to do in the moment and move with a pleasing fluidity. I was fortunate enough to speak with a famous choreographer. He said to me, you know what dancing is? (Rhetorical question). He tells me, Raise up your hand, and I did. He asked, did you have to think about all that movement or did you just put your hand up? I said, I just put it up, and he said, That's dancing - don't think.

During that motion I wasn't choosing, now move elbow, and now decide which particular way to move shoulders - opening my fingers up didn't even occur to me, but in a fluid, graceful, flowing movement, I raised my hand. In this sense, I am aware of what I'm doing, but at no time during my motion am I deciding what to do. If I did try to choose that motion in this moment and that, it would be hesitant, jerky and ungraceful. I suggest, then, there is no such thing as a choice in every moment.

What there is in every moment is awareness, but it isn't necessarily conscious, and I dare say everyone acts out according to unconscious psychological reactivity to some degree, and some people to a greater extent to others, while some are completely compelled by their hatred and greed. I'm sure they think they are freely choosing as well, but clearly they are not free in any sense, but in quite severe bondage. I argue on this basis that choice has nothing to do with the word 'free'. Choice really just regards the options that are available, that is, the possibilities presented - and what we call 'inequity' fundamentally means the privileged have many more social opportunities than those we refer to as 'disadvantaged'.

The new technology, computers and the internet, didn't bring about equity, but rather, the gap between rich and poor grew and grew because the definition of a person became 'a free willed individual with responsibilities and obligations' as opposed to the prior definition, 'a citizen with social rights' (such as free tertiary education). You see, how we define 'a person' is the core of the social value system, but we don't see the importance given to self awareness, self inquiry, know thyself, in our schools or what have you, so we actually never get to the point, which is, 'the truth of yourself' - the deepening discovery of 'your nature'. I also contend that this involves not a choice, but a 'looking into' what is true.

The next gen of D-Wave gadgets will do things we can't realistically do now, but it's not actual progress or advancement, ad it would be naive to say it will bring 'advantages' to any citizenry. It's actually more probable that social disadvantage will become increasingly problematic.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by organic born

Now let's dismantle this a bit. We have a list that we generally agree upon, that one should behave in relation to good social conduct. So why wouldn't anyone follow that list, it seems simple enough?

If we track back as to our ancestral past we run into a clue. Historically (I mean 'way' back) we didn't congregate in a really large way. I'm reading a book right now that I'm truly grateful for. If you want to get a peek at how the early hunters and gathers interpreted their surroundings read the book that I mentioned earlier: "Don't Sleep, There are Snakes" by Daniel L. Everett. He has a PH.D. degree in Linguistics and spent some time at MIT working under Noam Chomsky, but that's not what really makes him special. He spent almost 30 years among an obscure tribe in the Amazon called the Pirahas. From 1977 to I believe 2006. These folks lived solidly off the land and hadn't changed much in the way of our current culturalization. They spoke a language that essentially "nobody" understood other than them, and over time by Daniel. Daniel started his stay as a christian missionary and eventually tossed that aside because he saw it was worthless. He now considers himself religiously free.

One of the keys toward understanding who we are today involves the fact that our ancestors were once bundled into fairly small groups, and their day-to-day overlapped in something of a seamless way. Other researchers that I've read place our ability to bond with others seamlessly in such groupings at about 25 to 50 individuals with an upside of around 125. After that we start becoming strangers to each other.

So with the connections being so intimate, on a daily and lifetime level, there's little need to police ourselves since the behavioral patterns are built into our daily experience with each other. Sexually speaking this tribe that Daniel studied had roughly 350 members totally, spread out in smaller groupings over around a hundred miles (?) or so along a river. Even though they were spread out they were still very intimate with each other. He estimated that roughly 75% of the adults had all been sexually intimate with each other at some point in their lifetime. This supports much of what I've read so far about other indigenous cultures. Partners were exchanged freely by both sexes. Male/female bondings were formed but were loose and easily dissolved. The "displaced" male or female remained close to the one who displaced them.

Now once the 125 to 150 person in one group was exceeded the relationships started becoming distant and less integrative. People would start experiencing others as "strangers". And it would seem that people can do things to "strangers" that are not easily done to those that they're intimately bound to. After 150 or so there starts becoming a need for rules and some means of enforcing those rules.

So biologically speaking around 150 people are the upside limit to how large a population that we can comfortably relate to directly. After this we can still relate to each other but we now do so through symbols and mutual associations that are collectively agreed upon. We start hovering more among belief structure and belief specifics than we do with actual individual identities.

This creates cultures that are intimately distant from each other, in terms of personal bonding, and more focused on the manor in which appearances (in terms of social priorities and beliefs) are the thing. And such an adherence tends to become the determining view as to how people respond to each other. Essentially we are relating to each other via social filters, almost as strangers, instead of the intimate kinds of bondings that comes with smaller group associations.

So when we make a list of how people should be behaving, we are doing so in something of an artificial way of controlling behaviour among non-bonded strangers. Even those close to us are still being viewed in something of a stranger-like way, because that's how we've been socially aligned to view each other.

Among smaller more isolated groups this is less of a concern. They can hardly view any distance between themselves and those they grew up with. In such environments, were they to hurt another they would 'intimately' feel it as though they were hurting themselves. :)

Organic, thanks for your thoughts This is interesting background. Though the larger band you discuss is not the model for all of early humanity...most of it was in much smaller tribal units of not more than a few dozen. Thus there was certainly likely to be less of a social hierarchy than with a larger, much less stable band -- and also more pairing stability/less sexual contact with all other available members.

I think that historically social units were around 25 or 30 precisely due to increasing social distance, social instability/mate poaching and a tendency toward dominion and hierarchy. So Daniel's study is largely not at all representative of the social size and arrangements of most of humanity during its pre-technological or pre-modern phase.

But you do make key point, which is that there is a difference in how we treat others when we give a damn. When we see them as our beloved family, friends, and partner. Historically, if you were known to me and I to you, we were important to one another's survival, including if I were your sister, friend, or mother. My importance was as a person and not just as a potential sex partner -- which I might NEVER be. That is, in the past, there was no such thing as someone who was "known but unimportant". There was only "known and valued" and "unknown" (and therefore less valued).

In the past, this is because we relied on our tribe or band for survival, and thus it was in everyone's best interests to play nice. Now, it's not about survival and our own survival interests cannot be relied upon to treat others decently. Now, it's much more purely about decency, honour, and integrity at the individual and collective level.

Now for many, this difference between who counts as "known and important" versus either "known and unimportant" or"unknown" is very temporal, very momentary, and very much based in our own self-interest and whether or not person X is of momentary importance to us (am I screwing her? is she licking my boots? if not, who gives a damn about her?), versus a longer term importance to us (do I love her as a person, even if I'm not with her? is she caring for my children? Is she a beloved friend?). Social intimacy is not the same as sexual intimacy, but neither does simply knowing someone guarantee that they will treat you well, particularly once our collective survival was no longer seen to be a fact or a necessity.

What this means is in the modern era, we have to choose or decide how we will relate not only to those we do not know (unknowns), but also to those we do know...will they be then known and valued, or will they be the known and not valued?

I would say that we have had to not develop but rather simply to own and articulate social rules, which we would broadly also call humanitarian rights of being.

These rights of being are in fact simply the extension of that same lovingkindness, compassion, decency, honour and respect that we IDEALLY give to those we know and care for, extended to those that we do not know and may not care for. And, equally importantly, to all those we know and whom we do not value. As in the modern era, that category can also be quite large indeed, whereas in our past, no such "category" existed.

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Integrity and character, along with commitment to any higher good, begin at home, just like lovingkindness. Anyone who cannot treat those in their most intimate circles with authentic love, dignity, respect, honour, and kindness, IMO cannot be trusted as they are not committed to their own path and their own centre (or higher self) equally to others and to source. Instead, many are in service to self at the expense of their own highest good and certainly at the expense of others, and of source.

What I said still stands, with our further joint elaboration as background. I agree that our human history, thus far, has yet to make the transition from speaking and acting decently to those we know out of a personal need to survive...to doing so for its own sake, for the sake of our mutual humanity. And therein lies the challenge.

Peace & blessings
7L

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Gem

Addressing the last paragraph first and going backwards, if we come to this observation in this moment, I question, can anything be done about the circumstances as they are? To me, seemingly not. Things are this way, and not some other way. The consideration of the past and the imagining of futures distracts the attention from what is spontaneously unfolding, making the actual act I am currently performing unconscious. Considering this, in any moment I am already willing rather than willful. To express it metaphorically, imagine a freestyle dancer who goes with the music rather than moving the body in a way which was predetermined. That dancer doesn't think about what they just did nor know what they are going to do, but they know just what to do in the moment and move with a pleasing fluidity. I was fortunate enough to speak with a famous choreographer. He said to me, you know what dancing is? (Rhetorical question). He tells me, Raise up your hand, and I did. He asked, did you have to think about all that movement or did you just put your hand up? I said, I just put it up, and he said, That's dancing - don't think.

During that motion I wasn't choosing, now move elbow, and now decide which particular way to move shoulders - opening my fingers up didn't even occur to me, but in a fluid, graceful, flowing movement, I raised my hand. In this sense, I am aware of what I'm doing, but at no time during my motion am I deciding what to do. If I did try to choose that motion in this moment and that, it would be hesitant, jerky and ungraceful. I suggest, then, there is no such thing as a choice in every moment.

What there is in every moment is awareness, but it isn't necessarily conscious, and I dare say everyone acts out according to unconscious psychological reactivity to some degree, and some people to a greater extent to others, while some are completely compelled by their hatred and greed. I'm sure they think they are freely choosing as well, but clearly they are not free in any sense, but in quite severe bondage. I argue on this basis that choice has nothing to do with the word 'free'. Choice really just regards the options that are available, that is, the possibilities presented - and what we call 'inequity' fundamentally means the privileged have many more social opportunities than those we refer to as 'disadvantaged'.

The new technology, computers and the internet, didn't bring about equity, but rather, the gap between rich and poor grew and grew because the definition of a person became 'a free willed individual with responsibilities and obligations' as opposed to the prior definition, 'a citizen with social rights' (such as free tertiary education). You see, how we define 'a person' is the core of the social value system, but we don't see the importance given to self awareness, self inquiry, know thyself, in our schools or what have you, so we actually never get to the point, which is, 'the truth of yourself' - the deepening discovery of 'your nature'. I also contend that this involves not a choice, but a 'looking into' what is true.

The next gen of D-Wave gadgets will do things we can't realistically do now, but it's not actual progress or advancement, ad it would be naive to say it will bring 'advantages' to any citizenry. It's actually more probable that social disadvantage will become increasingly problematic.

If I did try to choose that motion in this moment and that, it would be hesitant, jerky and ungraceful. I suggest, then, there is no such thing as a choice in every moment.

Of course, there is truth in all perspectives and much of what we do is subconsciously driven, even whilst we may bring awareness to some moments some of the time. Bringing awareness to each moment represents the fruits of a much deeper way of being which represents an ideal -- and it is a way we've only just touched on briefly.

The thing is, when we learn to do anything, including throughout all phases of our development from infancy to adulthood...almost nothing came naturally, except for the urges to eat, defecate and urinate...and perhaps the instincts to run and hide when frightened. We've learnt almost everything else we know through immersion and practice. With dancing, the same applies. First, immersion, study, apprecticeship, and loads and loads of practice. Then and only then, it becomes second nature.

We all have the ability to bring more awareness to the moment and to take more conscious choices...such as they are, and even if they may seem conscribed, pedestrian or mundane. But in the realm of the soul, there is no such thing as pedestrian or mundane, and in the realm of the soul, we can choose not to be conscribed spiritually by our material environment, like Ette Hillesum.

Choice really just regards the options that are available, that is, the possibilities presented - and what we call 'inequity' fundamentally means the privileged have many more social opportunities than those we refer to as 'disadvantaged'.

The thing is, for all this is true in our material day-to-day physical existence....it is also true in the realm of spirit. BUT...this is not the only truth, and it is not the core truth. IMO, the greater remainder (i.e., the more powerful in spirit) is that our potential is boundless, even whilst we actualise it in many small steps, typically, only occasionally punctuated by larger steps which are on a different scale entirely (the 3-league steps, you might say).

But as long as we align with our boundless nature, change and growth is always possible. And as long as we align with our boundless nature, it is possible for the scale of growth to change as well. Though we don't want to put that forward as the impetus, nonetheless some momentous growth (a spiritual "growth spurt") will happen in some lifetime, as long as we align with our boundless nature and allow for the possibilities.

The next gen of D-Wave gadgets will do things we can't realistically do now, but it's not actual progress or advancement, ad it would be naive to say it will bring 'advantages' to any citizenry. It's actually more probable that social disadvantage will become increasingly problematic.

Agreed. Until we can more sustainably address these issues on our own, any new tool will simply become another axis of disadvantage and exploitation. And it will be consciously employed for that reason, to promote advantage for some and to exploit others.

Peace & blessings
7L

[Gem]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Of course, there is truth in all perspectives
and much of what we do is subconsciously driven, even whilst we may bring awareness to some moments some of the time. Bringing awareness to each moment represents the fruits of a much deeper way of being which represents an ideal -- and it is a way we've only just touched on briefly.

I'm pretty sure awareness is already there all the time, but perhaps not consciously.

The thing is, when we learn to do anything, including throughout all phases of our development from infancy to adulthood...almost nothing came naturally, except for the urges to eat, defecate and urinate...and perhaps the instincts to run and hide when frightened. We've learnt almost everything else we know through immersion and practice. With dancing, the same applies. First, immersion, study, apprecticeship, and loads and loads of practice. Then and only then, it becomes second nature.

Yes, but you've missed the point of the analogy.

We all have the ability to bring more awareness to the moment

Which I would call being more conscious.

and to take more conscious choices...

How could a choice be made in a moment?

such as they are, and even if they may seem conscribed, pedestrian or mundane. But in the realm of the soul, there is no such thing as pedestrian or mundane, and in the realm of the soul, we can choose not to be conscribed spiritually by our material environment, like Ette Hillesum.

The thing is, for all this is true in our material day-to-day physical existence....it is also true in the realm of spirit. BUT...this is not the only truth, and it is not the core truth. IMO, the greater remainder (i.e., the more powerful in spirit) is that our potential is boundless, even whilst we actualise it in many small steps, typically, only occasionally punctuated by larger steps which are on a different scale entirely (the 3-league steps, you might say).

But as long as we align with our boundless nature, change and growth is always possible. And as long as we align with our boundless nature, it is possible for the scale of growth to change as well. Though we don't want to put that forward as the impetus, nonetheless some momentous growth (a spiritual "growth spurt") will happen in some lifetime, as long as we align with our boundless nature and allow for the possibilities.

Agreed. Until we can more sustainably address these issues on our own, any new tool will simply become another axis of disadvantage and exploitation. And it will be consciously employed for that reason, to promote advantage for some and to exploit others.

Peace & blessings
7L

[organic born]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

I think that historically social units were around 25 or 30 precisely due to increasing social distance, social instability/mate poaching and a tendency toward dominion and hierarchy. So Daniel's study is largely not at all representative of the social size and arrangements of most of humanity during its pre-technological or pre-modern phase.

Actually it is representative. I suspect I didn't make it as clear as I should have. The Pirahas lived among small groupings of 25 to 50 individuals with a leaning toward the smaller number. They interacted with the others pretty much the way all such groups did historically. A study of the Aborigines in Australia found that alliances of far away groupings was normal. There were often close exchanges between tribes as far as several hundred miles apart. and yet, they too, tended to live in similarly small groupings.

What's also instructive in relation to Pirahas was they simply didn't have a religious style belief structure. There's no creation myth, they don't have religious style celebrations or ceremonies, other than dances from time to time where they freely exchanged partners for a day or two (women chose among men as freely as men chose among the women), and they don't usually pass along a story about someone or an event unless they personally witnessed it, or if the person who told them were still alive. They don't generally maintain a mental inventory of idealized stories of long-ago.

They indicate, by their continued and historical existence, that religious style thinking is not necessary for our species to survive. Historically there are folks who have managed quite effectively, going back millions of years, without the perceived needs of the kinds of things that entertain our fancy.

Religious and new-agey type imagery is optional as a species, and may well get in the way of intelligent and direct applications in relation to a reasonable-daily-experience.

The only real problem that they've been encountering is the influx of outsiders actively disturbing their rhythms. Through the traders they're encountering alcohol, which the traders are using in the place of money (the Pirahas have no concept of money) in order to acquire cheep labor. Several of the captains of trading boats have been turning the groups against each other for the sake of such corruption. Such things are historically common throughout history. The American Indians were brought down by such influences as well as our New Zealand friends tribes that I was bantering around with recently.

What tends to make people mentally ill is the bulk application of our current manor of thinking. We focus ourselves outside of nature, so little of what we actually "think" is naturally relevant. If we're having to treat the term "love" as a concept, (that we should then attempt to adapt as a method of interaction) we are then clearly admitting that we haven't a clue of what love actually is!

We have objectified ourselves into a world of external concepts, and we then attempt to live our lives accordingly.

It seems to me important that we realize that we've done this! In our own minds we are no longer a species, we're an "idea" of what a species may look like.
And, in having done so, we are entertaining our imaginative-self, as our number-one priority, at the expense of what's actually real.

[Baile]

Originally Posted by organic born

In our own minds we are no longer a species, we're an "idea" of what a species may look like.

And with that one. [See: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...&postcount=13]