This is brilliant – I love it.
The website where I found it:
RepRap
Archive for the 'Commentary' Category
29
Apr
10
RepRap
28
Apr
10
You Can’t Eat Money
Money does not exist. On some level we all know this to be true – and the thought scares us to death.
The essential problem of money – the lesson we have set ourselves up to learn – is to be able to differentiate between abundance and wealth.
Abundance is absolute. Wealth is relative.
I have two anecdotes to share, to illustrate how common it is for humans to confuse wealth with abundance:
For my first year of University, I had to commute daily by car. My University was plagued by a shortage of parking spaces so students would arrivie early for classes and and line up in front of B-lot waiting for other people to leave. One day I was stuck so long that I missed the exam I had come to write. When I finally got to the front of the line, I vented my frustration to the parking attendant.
Unsympathetic, she said to me: Perhaps you should have come a little earlier.
But if I had been earlier, someone else would have had to wait longer for their spot. Her solution to the problem did not address the shortage of available parking spaces. Her solution addressed my problem – but only by shifting it onto somebody else.
On another occasion, I saw a TV commercial in which a police officer was endorsing “the club” – a device which reduces the likelihood that one’s car will be stolen. I wondered – why would a police officer be enthusiastic about the club? The club does nothing to address the issue of car theft. The club is effective only because most people don’t have one. Let those people lose their cars first.
Most humans on this planet spend much time “making” money. But money does not contribute to abundance. We all have more and more money, but this money is worth less and less.
When we feel constricted, we always seem to believe that the solution is to make more money. But this attitude is responsible for our woes in the first place. We have become so adept at making money that we are literally drowning in it. The only problem is that all this money is not really worth anything.
This subject is never far from my mind. I firmly believe that the days of money are numbered. Soon we will stop using money and marvel at how easy it was to break the habit. It will seem easy when we look back on it, but it doesn’t feel that way from our current perspective. We are in a stuck moment – the last gasp of money.
I have often tried to inspire people to imagine a world without money. I wanted to illustrate that such a world is easily possible. What’s more difficult, is convincing people that money is not something we really want. After all, we all have money and it makes us feel rich. Doesn’t it?
Actually money does not make us feel good about ourselves at all. Predominantly, if you ask people, they would tell you that they do not have enough money. If you asked them about food to eat, clothes to wear or gasoline for the car, they would reply that all their most urgent needs are met. But when we turn the focus to money, the feeling immediately shifts from abundance to lack.
Money makes us feel poor because we always wish we had more. Is it really so strange to suggest that the time has come to give up our obsession with money?
I don’t think that money was always a bad idea. The problem is that money no longer functions the way it was originally conceived. Nor are we the same humans who invented money. We are the same beings, perhaps, but we have evolved. It is likely that at some point in our history, money served humanity. Perhaps it even served us well, but this time has now passed. Not only will money longer be able to serve us in the future – it will literally not survive our current shift into a higher state of being. Therefore it has to either disappear, or else transform itself into something new – something that may resemble money in some ways but functions very differently.
In this moment, we are still buying lottery tickets, (mistakenly) believing that we seek wealth. Wealth can serve us only if we believe ourselves to be separate from everyone else. As we re-awaken to our connection to spirit, we can’t help but become aware of some form of universal oneness. As this shift continues to unfold we are realizing that the time has come to relinquish wealth in favour of abundance.
This is an incredibly clear and thoughtful presentation by Shawn Buckley. I like the fact that he stays clear of drama or unsubstantiated allegations. Ponder this and draw your own conclusions.
We need to ask ourselves: Do the people who run our Government care one bit about Canadians or their welfare?
12
Oct
09
ED – the open-source TED
The premise is to create an open-source version of the popular TED talks. The basic principle is this: No matter who you are, or what your station in life, everyone has a story to tell. Everyone has something to teach.
To explain how ED (or FRED? or NED?) relates to TED, let’s have a brief look at the orginal:
The TED slogan is: Ideas worth spreading.
TED is an internet phenomenon. The organizers have created a community around a series of live presentations that become short (ten min) internet movies. Presentations are given by the most interesting people of our day – as decided by the creators of TED. Presentation at TED is by invitation only. Presenters are typically highly accomplished individuals (mostly intellectuals) and can always lay claim to being experts in their field. Consequently, there is a certain amount of prestige surrounding TED. It is an honour to present at a TED conference.
It is rare to see an absolute dud.
TED’s greatest strength may also be it’s greatest weakness. On the one hand, the quality of the presentations is undeniably high, but there’s also a sense of exclusivity about TED. Anyone may tune in, but you have to be a “TEDster” to get it. The subtle message is: TED is not for everyone.
“TEDsters” of course would deny this, but I would say that these “TEDsters” fit a certain profile. Most attendees are university educated “liberals”. A typical TEDster uses a Blackberry, drinks fair-trade latte, drives a hybrid and is concerned about global warming.
To see the profile of a TEDster defined, consider this somewhat self-referential talk:
The idea that intellectuals can, at times, sound a bit pompous or arrogant (I’m not talking about Jonathan Haidt) is not radical. On some level a “common man’s (or woman’s) TED has instant appeal. But our aim is greater because there are philosophical reasons to democratize TED.
Another TED slogan: “Remarkable people, unmissable talks, now free to the world”.
This is all well and good, but what is a “remarkable person”, and who gets to decide? In the case of a “Stephen Hawking” or a “Ray Kurzweil”, the answer is obvious. Other remarkable people are less well known. The best TED talks were given by people I had never heard of:
Willie Smits
Jill Bolte Taylor
In the case of Al Gore, Bill Clinton or Bill Gates, the answer is not so obvious. These people are certainly famous, but how “remarkable” are they really?
There are three reasons we need ED talks.
1.) Academia and by extension TED, is mired in orthodoxy. As such, there is a certain predictability to TED presentations (in the choice of speakers, as well as the treatment of the subject matter). For example, there are many speakers proposing interesting solutions to Global Warming, but there will never be a speaker questioning the science behind the theory. (Al Gore is featured, but his critics are deemed to be beneath contempt).
TED is pro-peace. TED speakers may well lament the war, but you will not anyone to question the prevailing paradigm as to our understanding of the series of events that precipitated the Iraq war.
To see an example of this bias:
Bruce Bueno de Mesquita
Deborah Scranton
Physics is represented by Stephen Hawking (mainstream respectability), not by Nassim Haramein (heretic theory). And so on.
2.) The second reason is political. One thing the “left gatekeeper” phenomenon has shown us, is that academia has let us down. The Noam Chomskys, Howard Zinns and George Monbiots have betrayed our trust by ignoring their own principles.
The “experts” and those who control them (follow the money) are trying to shape our reality for us. Ironically, they’re overplayed their cards and destroyed their credibility. Consequently, people no longer trust the experts.
3.) People want to participate. This means more than simply sucking in information. We all want to share, to give something back. Rather than being told what to think, we can participate in the creation of a stimulating dialogue.
Everyone has a story to tell.
06
Oct
09
the end of money?
The red blood cells have had enough. The price of oxygen keeps going up and the profit margin is down. Also, there are no days off. There are talks of layoffs and possibly a general strike.
The white blood cells on the other hand get better compensation and rarely have to work. Mostly they just patrol the area and hang out in case any virus comes around. They are prone to abusing their power because they are secretly funded by the lungs.
The lungs control the oxygen supply and are in the business of gouging everybody. They keep getting richer while everyone else is barely scraping by. The heart is becoming weaker and the brain is getting stupid because there’s no funding for maintenance. All the money is being syphoned off by the lungs. Much of it goes into vaccines and other defense spending.
The idea of money is tied to the concept of separation – the feeling that Michael, Sandra and Kate are separate entities. This is an illusion. We are separate only in the sense that the lungs are separate from the heart.
The parts of our body seem to have found a way to cooperate quite nicely without the artificial burden of a financial system. This is not to say that our body is without governance. Government can loosely be said to reside in the mind (inaccurate but for the purpose of this metaphor we’ll run with it), though various parts of the body (the stomach, the penis etc.) can hijack the agenda from time to time.
In most bodies, this form of governance seems to work quite well, though this is not universally true. In some instances the parts do fall into dissonance. In such cases serious health issues result.
Money has no intrinsic value. Legal tender functions as a medium of exchange for as long as people are willing to honour it. One day, when all the world’s money is concentrated in the hands of a single individual, the people will collectively opt out of the game. Money will cease to exist.
Imagine the day we wake up to the realization that we are one. Our current reality will resemble a really confusing, vaguely disturbing dream. It seems to me that the changes are already all around us, but most of us are subconsciously resisting them. We are heading into the great unknown, and it’s a little bit scary. That’s why things keep getting uglier and darker (on some level), though they are getting much brighter on another.
As Janis Joplis sang: “Freedom’s just another word, for nothin’ left to lose…” We still have houses and cars and mutual funds – perhaps we have to lose everything before we are ready to let go of a a way of life that is coming to an end.
“But wait a minute”, someone is heard to exclaim. “We still need money to exchange goods and services”.
Explain that to the three trillion cells in your body. They exchange goods and services each and every millisecond without the need for financial instruments to do it.
Money exists in a world of scarcity. We have created no shortage of shortages. Not enough food. Not enough water. Peak oil and so on. In this kind of environment we need money to sort out who gets to feast, and who must starve. The system is barbaric and one day (soon) we will surely outgrow it.
The alternative is that we create a world of plenty, with enough food, enough clean water and enough energy for everyone. This is both possible and necessary for our continued survival.
It may be hard to imagine for a lot of people, but one day we will realize how superfluous money is.
Of course I can make no claims to know what the future will actually look like. As with anything I write, these are just rambling thoughts. However, if I had to place my bets, I would guess that in pondering the possibility of a brighter future, most of us vastly underestimate just how different that future will have to be, for life to continue on this planet.
Are we ready for change, or is fear of the unknown holding us back?
05
Oct
09
One
One recurring problem that people have with the idea of oneness is that we appear to live in a world of distinction and separation. We tend to think of ourselves as separate autonomous entities. Is there a way in which this apparent separation can be reconciled with the idea of interconnectedness?
I like the metaphor of organs in the body. The lung and the heart each have a unique identity, but ultimately, they are both part of a greater whole. So it depends on your perspective. Oneness and separation co-exist, but oneness is the deeper reality. Oneness encompasses separation – not the other way around.
To see why this is so, it is important to understand that there is no particular place in the body where the heart ends or the lung begins. If you want to pull an organ out of the body, you have to cut somewhere – but the exact points you choose to cut are arbitrary. There is no clear delineation in the body anywhere. In other words: The parts are so tightly integrated, that the sense of unity (the body) is stronger than the sense of uniqueness between each of the parts. That’s one thing.
More importantly though – neither the lung nor the heart can exist without the whole. So the whole is the greater reality. Any reference to either the lung or the heart makes it clear that we are not talking about an autonomous thing, but merely about an aspect of a greater whole.
It’s relatively easy to see that the heart and the lung are related this way, but harder (for some) to see that the relationship between the flower and the bee is identical the the relationship between the heart and the lung. Bees cannot exist without flowers anymore than flowers can exist without bees. They are both merely aspects of a greater whole that encompasses both flower and bee.
And so we can expand ever outward, from organ, to body, to biosphere, to galaxy, to universe and so on, to understand that nothing that exists in creation can be said to exist independently of any other thing. So oneness is always the “greater” reality, and separation is always an illusion of sorts.
05
Oct
09
The Drop and The Ocean Are One
“The drop and the ocean are one – even when the drop can be distinguished.”
I borrowed the follwing excerpt from page 270 of my copy of “Hidden Truth – Forbidden Knowledge” by Dr. Steven Greer:
“The question is: Is there interplay between oneness and duality?
They co-exist. They are not mutually exclusive. In other words, the relative and the changing, time and space and matter and the infinite silent absolute are one and the same. There’s no separation and therefore there’s no duality.
Now, that which is relative has differentiation. We have individual bodies, there is male and there is female, there are different energies, there are different elements. But at the same time, there is this perfect divine unity and awake-ness that co-exists with it, suffuses all of it, and permeates all of it.
There is a balance in being able to see the differentiation and the duality of things, and at the same time see the oneness that is permeating all duality.
So it isn’t an either-or question.
Everything is established and emanating from unbounded, absolute, undifferentiated, pure Mind. But it is perceived as one or the other. Our task is to evolve to a point where we see it not as either-or, but all as one, even while we see the distinctions.”
Canadians watch the CBC to catch a glimpse of themselves. This particular taping of The National illustrated to me that the reflection we see is not quite as genuine as one might believe. There is a subtle distortion that occurs, raising questions about the integrity of the CBC itself…
…What I am suggesting, is that the CBC is misreprenting Canadians to themselves. By choosing pundits to tell us what is “at issue”, the CBC is framing political discourse inside a very narrow box. While the CBC openly solicited questions from the audience, the apparent spontaneity we see on television is entirely fake. What viewers are not told is that questions had to be submitted by email, days in advance. This panel may pretend to be addressing the topics we want to examine, but the reality is that they are playing Q&A with themselves.
The December 13 “At Issue” panel is archived here. In this edition, the panelists address questions presented by members of the live Chan Center audience.
Two weeks later added the following follow-up:
The story bears updating because 2008 has begun with some major developments that most people are not aware of. The big story is what took place in the Japanese Diet on January 11 of this year. The house was debating whether or not to continue to support the US-led “war on terror”. Japan’s contribution is in the form of a refueling mission, the renewal of which was up for discussion.
Yukihisa Fujita of the Democratic Party argued for thirty minutes that the mission could no longer be supported until it is established who the actual terrorists are. In the words of Mr. Fujita:
“So far the only thing the government has said is that we think (9/11) was caused by Al Qaeda because President Bush told us so. We have not seen any real proof that it was Al Qaeda.”
“It’s not about opposing the cause, it is the political sophistication, or lack thereof, of those most stridently advocating for the cause. The 9-11TM doesn’t get how the world actually works. They think the same way that most folks think when that moment in life comes. Something big happens that turns their worldview right side up. At that point, they come out of the cold of not being political or supporting the struggles of others and think that everyone should get behind this thing that rocked their world. Idealistic as it might be, the world just doesn’t work that way.
Here is the crux though. When most folks, do this, they usually quickly see that the world doesn’t work this way, at which point they either go back to watching television or they join in the popular struggles that they had previously been ignoring or ignorant of or just not turned on by.”
regarding unlawful use of the writing stick
Tags: legalese, liscense agreement
End User License Agreement
Please complete and return any accompanying registration form to receive registration benefits.
NOTICE TO USER: PLEASE READ THIS CONTRACT CAREFULLY. BY USING THE WRITING STICK, EVEN ONCE, YOU ACCEPT ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING, IN PARTICULAR THE LIMITATIONS ON: USE CONTAINED IN SECTION 2; TRANSFERABILITY IN SECTION 4; WARRANTY IN SECTION 6 AND 7; AND LIABILITY
IN SECTION 8; IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT USE THIS WRITING STICK AND RETURN THE BOX IT CAME IN, UNOPENED, TO THE PLACE OF PURCHASE, WITHIN FORTY FIVE (45) MINUTES OF THE PURCHASE TIME.
1. Definitions. “Writing Stick” (Hereafter referred to as W. S.) means (a) the plastic tube with its little ball point at one end, or (b) all the ink contained therein. Use of W.S. shall imply depositing of ink on paper or any other media, creating markings resembling alpha numeric symbols, of any alphabet or language, legible or not, intelligible or gibberish or otherwise indecipherable.
2. W.S. License. As long as you comply with the terms of this End User License Agreement (the “Agreement”), the manufacturer grants to you a non-exclusive license to use the W.S. for the purposes described in the documentation, as further set forth below. Some third party materials included with your W.S. (such as the cap, if so equipped) may be subject to other terms and conditions.
2.1. General Use. You may use your W.S. on any compatible paper, up to the
permitted number of sheets and in accordance with local and international obscenity laws.
2.3. Backup Copy. You may make one backup copy (photocopy) of any document created using the W.S. as long as such copy is not intended for public distribution or exhibition, or is otherwise read, seen or looked at by someone other than the primary license holder of this W.S.
3. Intellectual Property Rights. The W.S. remains the sole intellectual property of the manufacturer. You agree not to modify or adapt the W.S. or to use it to create modifications or adaptations. You also agree not to reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the source reservoir of the ink inside the W.S. except to the extent you may be expressly permitted to decompile under applicable law, it is essential to do so in order to achieve operability of the W.S. and you have first requested the manufacturer to provide the information necessary to achieve such operability and the manufacturer has not made such information available. The manufacturer has the right to impose reasonable conditions and to request a reasonable fee before providing such information. Any information supplied by the manufacturer or obtained by you, as permitted hereunder, may only be used by you for the purpose described herein and may not be disclosed to any third party or used to create any W.S. which is substantially similar to the expression of the W.S.
4. Transfer. You may not, rent, lease, sell, sublicense, un-bundle and/or repackage for distribution or resale. You may, however, transfer all your rights to use the W.S. to another person or legal entity provided that: (a) you also transfer (i) this Agreement, (ii) the serial number(s), and you do not keep a copy of documents writings texts letters novels or poems created using the W.S.
5. Inappropriate use. You may not use this W.S. to condone same sex marriage, sex before or after marriage or homosexual anal intercourse before or after marriage, or to mock, ridicule, trivialize the importance of or in any other way attempt to subvert international copyright law, any other kind of law, or to write in the style of legal document for the sole purpose of mockery.
6. LIMITED WARRANTY. For warranty information, please see the bottom rear flap on the underside of the about box. Warranty void if product is not registered with the manufacturer within forty-eight (48) hours of its initial use.
7. DISCLAIMER. THE FOREGOING LIMITED WARRANTY STATES THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDIES FOR THE MANUFACTURER’S OR ITS SUPPLIER’S BREACH OF WARRANTY. THE MANUFACTURER AND ITS SUPPLIERS DO NOT AND CANNOT WARRANT THE PERFORMANCE OR RESULTS YOU MAY OBTAIN BY USING THE W.S.. EXCEPT FOR THE FOREGOING LIMITED WARRANTY, AND FOR ANY WARRANTY, CONDITION, REPRESENTATION OR TERM TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE SAME CANNOT OR MAY NOT BE EXCLUDED OR LIMITED BY LAW APPLICABLE TO YOU IN YOUR JURISDICTION, THE MANUFACTURER AND ITS SUPPLIERS MAKE NO WARRANTIES, CONDITIONS, REPRESENTATIONS OR TERMS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WHETHER BY STATUTE, COMMON LAW, CUSTOM, USAGE OR OTHERWISE AS TO ANY OTHER MATTERS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS, INTEGRATION, SATISFACTORY QUALITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
8. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE MANUFACTURER OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE TO FOR INJURY OR DEATH AS A DIRECT RESULT OF FATIGUE, OVER-CROWDING, LACK OF FIRE ALARM OR WASHROOM FACILITIES IN ANY OF ITS SWEATSHOPS. THE WRITER OF THIS AGREEMENT IS EXEMPT FROM ANY PROSECUTION OR DAMAGES ARISING FROM THE PLAGIARIZATION OF ANY OTHER LISCENSING AGREEMENT WHICH HE COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE COMPOSED HIMSELF.