About six months ago I saw a documentary on Nader on HBO. In not one frame of the two hour film did he look like he was having fun. He had a few moments where he looked like he felt satisfied. Other than that he just looked serious and driven - generally he just seemed pretty frustrated by the greed.

Lincoln, Gandhi, Nader, Martin Luther King, can all be held up as models but they are not a realistic expectation for the common man. Not all of us can be super smart, get law degrees and give up almost everything in our life but our goals. Where then does the common person go to have their beliefs recognized when high entropy consciousnesses in positions of power are ignoring all their needs? Unfortunately the 99-1% protesters are not well organized nor do they have common goals unlike the Tea Party. The Tea Party was actually able to get people elected to office.

There doesn't seem to be any itch to scratch in high entropy consciousnesses - that is why they don't think in terms of "others." Megyn Kelly on FOX News yesterday actually said to a panel of doctors, “What will this do to those of us who already have health insurance? Will it mean that we will have longer waiting times and less access to our doctors because of the influx of new patients?” Can you get any more selfish than that? Where is "other" there?

There isn't much of a challenge to your political ego when all your neighbors are just like you - think Mitt Romney.

Linda,

You bring up something which I have been noticing and I think I might understand it and be able to clearly describe and analyze it.The Occupy movements, the 99-1% protesters as you call them here, have specifically stated that they are trying to avoid a top down organization and trying to lock into 'common goals'. This is what I see as a contrast between the 'left' and the 'right' in politics. One could readily see that the left is aligned with individual free will, in agreement with MBT. The right talks a lot about individual free will in terms of having the right to make money however they wish without government interference, taxes, social restrictions, etc. with libertarianism as a sort of ideal. This implies that they are all seriously locked into expressing their free will. However just a cursory examination of how they operate, as you mention the tea partiers actually got people they liked elected to office, raises a lot of questions about this presumed devotion to free will. If you look at the Republicans as they operate, as the party of the 'right', what you find is that they function in locked step. When you get information out of their caucus meetings, what is said is that the leadership tells the rank and file what to do, what is the plan and how they are to vote and there is no permission given for the general membership to even speak. There is no caucus of the membership as in terms of finding out what the membership thinks and wants. There is instead a statement from on high by the leaders as to what the party membership is going to vote as their position. Look at the definition of the word caucus from the Merriam-Webster dictionaryThe function of their caucus is not to 'decide upon policy'. That policy is already set in stone by the leadership, not to be questioned or commented upon in the caucus. The Republican caucus is strictly out of the second meaning given. It would appear to me that once they join, they give up free will to the leadership's control and this can be effective as a way to function. This was exhibited by the tea partiers I would say. You have to adhere to their group think, you have to maintain the 'purity' of your adherence to the party line, to become a member and remain a member in good standing. Would you say that this represents free will as Tom talks about, using the metaphor of the 'rats' or would you say that this represents the control espoused by the 'anti-rats' of Tom's metaphor? As an example, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, just passed approval on so called Obamacare joining the more left leaning members to approve. John Roberts was immediately jumped on and castigated as a "traitor" and an immediate plan was hatched, so is said in the news, to impeach him. Is that an example of thinking for yourself, expressing free will, or is that an example of group think control?

In the past, Will Rogers, the 'folk' philosopher joked about how he was not a member of a political party but rather he was a Democrat. Making joking reference that Democrats could not be counted upon to vote or adhere to a party line. This has been a long standing situation. I seriously think that those inclined to thinking in line with the politics of the right should seriously reconsider and rethink their positions and allegiance to their chosen party. This on the basis that while the right rants on about free will and their right to this and their right for that, what they really are expressing is the giving up of their right to think individually for the security of collective membership and group think. I think that it will be very difficult to argue against my analysis based upon what you constantly see occurring within American, and world, politics. Always the party of the left approaches things on the basis of cooperation, sharing in the results, making compromises. The party on the right always, and especially in the last year, if you have not already forgotten last year in Congress, goes into enforced lock step, no compromise, take no prisoners and bayonet the wounded, total war. Could you seriously argue that that is in alignment with the principles expressed in MBT?

Ted

Have you been to an Occupy Event Randy?
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

I think it boils down to fear once again, we give up our freewill because we are afraid to empower ourselves with independence. We give our recover to the medical system, thinking they have all the answers for what is best, we stay at jobs we hate instead of finding ones that suit us. We stay stuck in fear and believe we are powerless, and so we become that way. The more independent we become, the less dependent we are on other people, we become less fearful and regain our will to choose what is best for us, and stop letting someone else choose for us, because it is good business for them. The feared 1% is not taking our freewill away from us, we are just handing it over to them, just as they plan. The only real difference we can make is by choosing to change ourselves. Real change starts from the bottom up and that starts with us. Sabby

Fred,

Just be sure that it is not because of fear that you advocate That the real change of our individual being as entropy lowering is all that we can do to make an absolute change is no excuse for not working towards system level change as well. From that point of view, why not just be a peon, interact well with the other peons, and till your own tiny garden patch and work on your own entropy as you and the other peons slowly starve with no way out? Rather if you have the capability, defend the other peons? Create a peon cooperative. Protect your less functional fellow peons from the landowners and bandits?

The idea is to do everything that you are capable of. If Tom took the attitude that you express here, we would not be posting on his bulletin board after having read his books and Tom would be relaxing at home, enjoying his retirement and visits from his children and grandkids instead of going out and lecturing and teaching and all that he does.

The proverbial ostrich with its head hidden in the sand represents fear just as much as anything else. Better to take the warrior's path and do what one can. One does these other things for others, not for oneself, knowing perfectly well that it does not improve one's own QOC. It defends the free will of others however.

Ted

I would agree with that Ted, but with keeping in mind one should clean ones house before they start to help others clean theirs. The way of the warrior is the way to lower entropy, one must start becoming one, before putting the carriage before the horse. It just works better that way, logic i think would dictate that. Most of the ones i see complaining and pointing fingers, seem to be pointing back at them. It seems they are the ones with the problems, not the ones they are pointing at. This i try to stay focused on, as not to forget where i came from. As always i suggest to one, to find ways that best suit them, as to reduce their entropy, and live a productive love filled life Sabby

Fred,

When you actually listen and have something to say in return besides platitudes, I will be happy to hear it. It will be a great improvement and I will be much enheartened by your progress.

Ted

One should do no such thing; the clean your own house thing is B.S. It's much more interesting cleaning someone else's house as anyone who has actually had houses knows, jeez...Belief Systems much?...
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Ted, one might think that also of you, usually when we see something we do not like in someone, it is us that has that same characteristic. I try to remember this myself, as to not fall into a trap. You have hearten me several times, because of you choosing to be yourself. Sabby

sabby,

we can help others, but we have to respect their free will and not impose our beliefs on anybody. None of us will reduce our entropy in this life time to the level of the Higher Being. :) We are kindergarten kids, as the rest of PMR inhabitants. Do your best and check your intent as often as you can.

Lena

_________________
'Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.' Confucius.

Very good advise Lena, had a discussion the other day about checking our intent, as being the main thing in how we interact. It is not so much how it turns out, it is about the intent of why we are choosing to do what we do, that really matters. We learn from the feedback. Sabby

Well, that's not how I hang these days. I am saying engage in the direction you lean.

I have engaged through the normal evolutionary process, which begins with ineffective street protests when young, and ends as a Conservative bag man with direct access to decision makers.

Perhaps the real end is leaving that which is Ceasar's, to Ceasar, and focusing on NPMR affairs.

The key to moving forward with political maturation is gathering data and seeing things up close and personal.

As left wing religious radicals, our idea of a good time was a sit-in protest against the Soviet gulags in a public park or handing out pamphlets against consumerism at a mall.

My core point is that one should focus on organizing one's household, before taking on changing society, as a matter of personal and planetary effectiveness. Apart from NPMR affairs, your principle responsibility is to pay down your credit cards and build up your credentials and earning strength, become a surplus generating entity supporting those in your family/clan love circle, your neighbourhood, and then, and only then, start to play with the big levers.

Generally, a person who's personal practical affairs are not properly organized, who engages intensely in political affairs, will transmit and magnify their PMR entropy to the larger system.

As with most things, the system is balanced and self correcting - mental or quality disorganization which blocks you from understanding this principle, suspends you in a pain pattern that is highly profitable, in the bigger picture.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?

fighting for justice is part of NPMR feedback, and though it may not look like fun on the surface, he is having a lot more real fun than a trust fund kid moving through life high and with hookers in Vegas.

the thing is, there is this darn higher ruleset which changes everything.

I hold up Nader as an example of effective leftism. What I am warning against is armchair leftism, which looks more like sitting in front of your computer whining about the world, blaming others for your problems, and not actually doing anything for yourself or society.

You can't find out if your values are real or not, if you do not live according to them.

At each stage of the process, there is the next thing. Your actual data will determine how you respond to these hints. Someone with an even greater understanding may have a hint for me, which triggers me to move on to something else.

Its possible that the next thing for myself would be to start engaging with the occupy movement. It does sort of conveniently gather the confused in one spot.

The broader point, which Tom has made, is that these issues relate to civil society, and not the core issue of quality of consciousness. To a great extent, politics follows conciousness. A better investment would be to invest in propagation of the MBTOE model, and most inportantly, change people through our loving intent.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?

No kidding, and take a look at the ego:



His path is the "normal" evolutionary path, with him of course sitting atop the upper end of the evolutionary spectrum

This is why I'm wary of the MBT model going mainstream...you may see breeds like this who are given to evangelizing "to the young and confused" and who are convinced that their path is the only conceivably "low entropy" path, and that anyone who hasn't followed their path must be "childish" or "not as evolved." So they are constantly are trying to convince others that they are so un-evolved, and they only have to replicate these certain steps in order to become evolved.

_________________
Everything is simpler than we can imagine, at the same time more complex and intertwined than can be comprehended--Goethe, Maxims & Reflections

Not too many can be fooled again I'd say.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.