Watch videos with subtitles in your language, upload your videos, create your own subtitles! Click here to learn more on "how to Dotsub"

Peter Joseph - When Normality Becomes Distortion: Reflections on a World Gone Mad (Repository)

0 (0 Likes / 0 Dislikes)
This is probably the first presentation I've made of this nature because the majority of my work surrounds the Zeitgeist Movement or things that are related to my film series but I've tailored this very carefully to what I felt the audience of this event would find interesting. The working title as noted in the program is: 'When Normality Becomes Distortion: Reflections on a World Gone Mad' but as the talk developed I experimented with a few other less sensationalized titles to see what would work better. The 2nd one I came up with was 'When Intuition Fails: The Inevitable Breakdown of Human Assumption and its Social Consequences'. Not bad, a bit too wordy, though so when I finished the presentation it struck me to have a little more intellectual one 'Limited Dimensional Thought in a Multi-Dimensional Reality'. All right, annoyingly intellectual but still OK. Regardless, I point this out so you can make your own decision which title you think is more applicable because they cognitively highlight different context of what I am going to present here. As far as myself, as introduced, it's usually at this point I might say something about who I am, my credentials and experience as though frankly, any of us should care. One of the great failures of critical thought is the assumption of authority around a given data set. People might think "This person's considered an expert in a given field due to the standard set forth by culture, so therefore I can just trust blindly anything they say without critical evaluation." A rather ominous perspective and I think most would agree a large number of atrocities historically can be found sourced to this blind dedication to the statements of supposed authority. Who am I? I'm just like you. I'm a compiler and a messenger. You should have no faith in anything I say here and rather be prepared to critically assess whatever issues noted on your own accord within the bounds of your logical reasoning and training. As I will expand upon later in this talk there is actually no such thing as the origin of any information. I view knowledge as a life form in and of itself. There is no empirical source and it evolves and multiplies just like any other organism utilizing the vehicle of our collective human experience: transference and like biological evolution it is self-correcting. Any false thought will eventually (even after long struggles) be seen by the environment and selected out by the collective awareness or what could also be called 'The Group Mind' which I will talk about again a little bit later. Furthermore, the premise of this talk regards not the specifics of any discipline of knowledge or understanding but the mechanics of it specifically the nature of its change. I'm less interested in what people think and more interested in how they came to think it, and how they maintain it as valid. This talk will not only consider such frames of reference as they're often called frames of reference individual people utilize to generate and support their decisions and beliefs but also the larger order institutions that arise from those referential assumptions once they are shared by a large enough group of people to define social normality which is the status quo that we all know. Then the status quo practices will be qualified or even quantified against what we could haphazardly call 'Our Objective Reality' which will draw its assumptions from a completely different referential benchmark than most of the population of the world is familiar with a frame of reference we have come to know as 'The Scientific Method'. You'll notice I said haphazardly termed an objective reality. Why? Because the concept of objective can only be hyperbole, right? How could we possibly be so arrogant to assume at any point in time in human history that we have ever been empirically right? It simply hasn't happened yet, if you take the broad view. It wasn't until the past couple of hundred years that The Scientific Method has barely been taken seriously with respect to human affairs and society. What is the core mechanism of the Scientific Method, really? Self-correction. Self-correction through testing and logical calculation and hypothesis. The self-correction attribute of science is what enables its evolution. There is no recognized phenomenon that isn't undergoing a constant change of definition as the evolution of knowledge continues. Truth itself is an emergent distinction. It's not a noun; it's more of a verb which constitutes an approach towards reality but never, ever, getting there. That said it's obvious that we're doing something right. The fact that this building we're in hasn't collapsed upon us means we have been able to come in harmony with some kind of natural physical law that exists beyond our control. The fact that we understand to a certain degree how our bodies work creating medicines that can help us in positive ways over statistical time shows that we are indeed in some kind of alignment with what we call nature as opposed to blaming our sickness on gods and demons as we did in the past as this organism of knowledge continues to evolve. There does seem to be a pre-existing logic (this is important to note because people take this for granted) a logic which dictates our reality doesn't give a damn what we think of it and impose upon it. It appears we can either be vulnerable and align as best we can and engage this harmony, or we can walk against it fight it, to our personal and social disadvantage. The unfortunate thing is (as I will continue to address later in detail) our basic social construct as a whole, top to bottom along with the dominant human values inherent to it that support it appear to be firmly walking against the natural order that exists (that we are slowly discovering) becoming more and more decoupled from reality as it were and hence, really, our life support. For the sake of argument, I would like to quickly reduce human perception into two basic modes of operations: emergent and traditional. Today the traditional element is clearly the most dominant. The cultural zeitgeist (no pun intended) is always based on institutions that are tending to perpetuate themselves non-emergent thought processes and their consequences. Why? Because they're forms of psychological security, aren't they? They're also forms of financial security. Our whole society is actually based upon institutional self-perpetuation whether it's the preservation of a political administration a corporation's market share and dominance or even a religious demographic. The traditional notion is so powerful that the very act of questioning is often met with disdain in the culture today. Some, in their defense, have even gone so far to suggest that all beliefs and values must be equal and respected and they must be tolerated in the same element of quality. Is that true? Are all values equal? Does everyone have the right to believe and act upon whatever they choose? Are we all to respect everything others want us to? If I put a gun to your head and have the value and belief that you should die, is that acceptable to you? Are you a bigot for not allowing me to express my freedom of belief? Obviously, values are not equal. Some work and some don't or more specifically, some represent a closer approximation to reality and others do not. The farther those values are from this natural order the more destructive they often become not just to the individual or group but to all of us as a collective society. There rests a distinct, social imperative that is often ignored or feared. The taboo associated with challenging what others think under the still convenient notion that all values are equal is simply not tenable. You are partially responsible for the thoughts and values of others and they are responsible for yours. There is nowhere to hide from the collective consciousness and an underlying thesis of this presentation is that until human society is able to find and share a basic, common working, responsible, near-empirical value set we're basically doomed. My hope here is to generate a personal and social reflection with respect to what you believe and why eventually to be framed within the social context I keep alluding to. It will be argued that the failure of emergent perception to be open and listen to the world we live in rather than impose upon it with these traditional assumptions we blindly hold as empirical is the psychological root of the problems we see in the world today: environmental, social. It is a value system disorder that is continually created and reinforced by the social system we inhabit and share ideologically and if uncorrected, it could lead to the collapse of human society as we know it today. A collapse which (if you're paying attention) is accelerating right now across the world fueled again by a set of detrimental perspectives that go largely unrecognized like cancer cells go unrecognized to an immune system. In 1884, a unique book was published called 'Flatland' and apart of some very clever social commentary the work gave a perspective of what it would be like to live in a 2-dimensional reality as opposed to the 3-dimensional one that we share. One can go left and right, forward and back but there was no such thing as up and down. Perspective was hence restricted. If something from the 3rd dimension was to come and visit this 2-dimensional reality the perception of that object would be confined to the properties enabled by the 2-dimensional view. A 3-dimensional object moving up and down through the 2-dimensional plane, would be perceived by the inhabitants as this mysterious mutating 2-dimensional line. I would like to use this abstract notion as a very loose metaphor with respect to cultural perception. What if those in the 2-dimensional flatland had actually always been in the 3-dimensional space but their frame of reference was so limited by the tools of measurement they had their experience so consistent with the 2-dimensional world their associated values so ingrained and stubborn as generations past that they were simply unable to reconcile its presence even though it was obviously there? They might have even established whole philosophies and institutions based on the appearance of their world perhaps 'The Church of Squares' or 'Linear Economics' or the party 'Line of Politics'. But as time went on and their tools and education grew the consequences of their perceptual folly started to manifest and the beliefs and institutions they had created started to draw a confusion and disorder as a natural evolution. They might have thought "How could the very fabric of our assumptions that we all share of this reality that seem correct and almost provable over long periods of time how could they actually be wrong?" Around 200 BC a Greek mathematician named Eratosthenes estimated the circumference of the planet Earth likely the first mathematically to solidify that it was truly round and not flat a rather dramatic finding since, it certainly looks flat, doesn't it? In Psalm 93 of the Bible it states "The world is firmly established. It cannot be moved." In another passage it states "The sun rises and the sun sets and then hurries to rise again." That would make sense too, wouldn't it? After all, when you look at the sky it appears to be moving around us. We still use that premise of thought in our language: We still say 'up and down' when it's really 'out and in'. We even still say 'sunrise' and 'sunset', interestingly enough. It wasn't until Galileo really introduced our now obvious heliocentric universe solar system, excuse me and it was confirmed, obviously among much traditional controversy. Since we're on the subject of the stars (to continue this type of example as I inch into value systems that might be shared in the common community) one of the most persistent pastimes of human indulgence since the beginning of recorded history a practice that has generated a flourishing economic industry to this day spreading across virtually all cultures is the practice of astrology. In Western astrology, the signs of the zodiac depending on their positions at a certain time are thought to have predictive power in some interpretive form horoscopes, etc. Astrology is so popular today across the world that you can't really read a newspaper without finding a column on it. I even tend myself to be asked what my sign is a few times a month when I engage in different conferences. It's very, very common. But what is the basic perceptual source of this belief especially Western tradition? It might as well be straight out of the book 'Flatland'. First of all, the view of all constellations are seen as 2-dimensional yet the luminance of those celestial bodies that make up those forms are actually distributed across vast distances in 3-dimensional space. Constellations as we know them simply do not exist outside of the prima facie pictures we see in the night sky. Second, stars are not fixed as we came to understand. They are born and they die like us. It is the illusion of permanence given a very short duration on this planet in regards to human evolution in cosmic time that we think these 2D pictures will be the same for eternity holding empirical value. Third, to reintegrate the 2D flaw: It's only a fixed perception from the planet Earth. If we are viewing these same stars from another side of the Milky Way galaxy from a different angle they would not represent anything close to the forms we see from here. Despite the popular culture's interest which is actually quite romantic given the deep yearning to understand our place and relationship to the universe (relationship by the way is the most common definition of spirituality) we are only left to realize that in what I will call the 'Expanded Dimensional Reality' debunking the limited dimensional perception no different than thinking the world was flat or that the sun moved around the Earth most today won't argue those facts as adamantly as they will argue their belief in astrology. Another example of this limited dimensional perception comes from the cultural characteristics of the period of origin of certain ideas. Just as the constellations still today are recognized for their names after spoons and oxcarts and scales and common animals as opposed to space shuttles and TVs, laptops and smartphones the projections of thought of any point in time can only reflect the state of knowledge at that point in time. It's a dead give-away. The traditional religious systems of belief contain the rhetoric, not of an advanced technological society or a society of advancements in civil rights or advanced medical treatments, no. It contains the period-based, cultural values that occurred thousands of years in the past. Did God invent man or did man invent God? Do the depictions of monotheistic gods appear like us? Why do they? Why do they appear like us? Why do they have tempers like man? Why are they emotional and judgmental and volatile and retributive? Why is it that monotheism is common to desolate, desert cultures while polytheism is common to lush, diverse, rainforest cultures? Is it random chance that nearly all the early gods of Greece and Egypt actually related to natural phenomenon? The sun, the moon, the stars, the ocean, water... It's almost as though the minds of those who created these stories and ideas were trying to figure out what the natural world was and what it was doing and they could only impose their culturally specific ideas upon them as the organism of knowledge continued its evolution. Why are the gods in traditional African religions black and the gods in the West white? Why are the gods of patriarchal societies always male? And why is it that people born in the cultures that support these beliefs tend to perpetuate them? How often do you hear of an Arab person born in the Muslim culture magically becoming Jewish as a child? I'm sorry to stand in what could be a controversial opposition to the beliefs of what are really billions of people that ascribe to say astrology or theistic religious belief but when the perceptual context of origin of these belief systems are taken into account we find a clear, limited, dimensional perception cloaked as relevant through traditional perpetuation denying the emergent nature of our reality. This leads me to the true focus of this talk (believe it or not) for the limited dimensional perception (and I apologize for the annoying techno jargon but it's the best I come up with)... This limited dimensional perception is not limited to these obvious examples. In the very fabric of modern society with respect to our economic, legal and political system, is no different not to mention the vast number of contemporary value distortions that continue to masquerade as viable, applicable and normal. How many people here are Republicans? How many people here are Democrats? How many people here are Independents? How many people here reject all political parties and find the political concept itself as outdated unscientific and detrimental to social progress? Wow! How many people here are Capitalists? How many people here are Socialists? How many people here find such notions to be equally as outdated, arbitrary and useless with respect to truly efficient economic management? Thank you! Just as people were born into a culture that supports traditional, religious belief tend to conform their values and perpetuate those values without critical thought so do almost all of us when it comes to our modern social institutions which we think are intellectually viable and separate from the religious dogma. Let's take government and politics. Politics in Greek means of, for, or relating to citizens. It's essentially a decision-making method of social operation and while variance does exist, the most dominant form today is that some kind of representative government where the interests of the people are said to have some expression through the representation. In the United States we are said to have a constitutional republic. This is basically a form of representative democracy which must govern within the confines of existing constitutional law which is a fairly rigid set of preconceived declarations that apply not only to the conduct of government but also to the people. Why not pure democracy? Because pure democracy is 100 white men hanging one black man. The originators of this country had a decent intuition about the dangers of crowd mentality. In the words of Thomas Jefferson "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule where 51% of people may take away the rights of the other 49%." Democracy, to be applicable, is really contingent upon the masses being educated about their environment so their votes have quality. Since that's very hard to qualify a benchmark of 'rights' hence the Constitution had to be created to enable some form of regulation. I hope that makes sense because this train of thought is going to carry farther. It's a benchmark. The issue of a benchmark as I'd like to present in this exercise doesn't just occur with democracy. It's also applicable to the monetary system or the market system of monetary economics to be specific. Today we have what is called a 'Free Market'. It has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? It seems to feed the same value association we have regarding democracy the so-called 'Freedom of Choice'. The 'Free Market' means that through the movement of money power and property can be bought and sold the only limitation being the state of your wealth your purchasing power, the actions of your competitors and the laws created to maintain order within the system and it's the law attribute that I find the most interesting. This is the benchmark: the legislation or the regulatory 'game rules' because it's just a game. This benchmark regulation is inherent in both the Free Market and democracy two ideas based upon the broad, romantic view of free choice. This to me is really interesting for these benchmarks basically imply some type of third party, external, empirical reality an empirical reality that would have to inherently be absent of some form of choice and freedom for them to exist as they do. Think about that for a moment. It's a contradiction and this contradiction can be seen as an influence coming from the new emergent understandings that arise to the evolution of knowledge new experience-driven information trying to self-correct prior beliefs through trial-and-error or intuitive, step-by-step adaptation. The very foundational premise of democracy and the Free Market as far as theory is intrinsically flawed. Obviously something is missing, or many things are missing because it can't work on its own. It requires influence of a third-party decision process. Democracy is contingent upon an informed public along with certain ever-present rights which are essentially there because it is assumed that the public doesn't know them, but they should. The Free Market requires third-party rules to maintain order rules which often demand certain environmental safeties: pollution and basic-efficiency protocols. We all know that the system as it stands in the Free Market left to its own devices would use up just about everything as I will allude to here in a little while. The system can't stand on its own; it will self-destruct. These rules are needed to protect the Free Market and democracy from itself otherwise, they will self-destruct. As an extended example, if it wasn't for the regulations existing against corporate monopoly the world would've been taken over by one corporation a long, long time ago. Despite the statistically void utterly false notions perpetuated by economists that the more 'free' the market, the more efficient free market competition is one of the most hegemonic concepts ever invented. While mob-rule democracy (again, continuing our comparison) can generate mass irrationality with no basis in reality if not properly collared through rights and education. I'm sorry to drill this in but it's very important. By the way, I suggest a book called 'The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind' if you want to read about how crowd mentality can override independent thought in a very caustic way. It's well documented that people lose their objectivity and lose their sense of control when involved in mass-appeal. That isn't just for a soccer riot. It happens through the media. It happens through many different forms. So, then... What is this benchmark that we keep seeing? What is really being referenced in the broad view? Using the example of rights for democracy and regulation for the Free Market what do those two issues really reach for? It reaches for the natural order or more operationally, Scientific Causality. That is what is breaching through the concrete. The most dangerous value we can have floating around the culture today... (I hope everyone can really listen carefully to this) most dangerous value we have floating around the culture today is the idea that any of us have freedom of choice or the right to our own opinion especially when it comes to issues of human survival and sustainability. We cannot choose; we can only align if we wish to survive and prosper, period. There is simply no such thing as freedom when the benchmark of Scientific Causality is brought into the equation with respect to any action or goal. The only caveat is the emergent uncertainty of the evolution of knowledge which does require a threshold of flexibility. Why? Because we don't know everything but we do seem to get closer and closer to more empirical understandings as time moves forward. Is there really any freedom to how we organize our economy on a finite planet if the goal is to create the most efficient, sustainable means of production distribution and regeneration? No, there isn't. Industry is a technical process, a calculation problem where the variables of human needs physical science and earthly resources are brought into a single, regulatory equation. The properties of our resources can be scientifically quantified now strategically assessed as far as their purpose strategically oriented as far as the design and the most logical manner distributed through the exact same logic of pure efficiency. We have globalization on this planet! What the hell are we doing? We're taking stuff from all over the world exploiting labor, moving it around, wasting tons of energy when we could easily develop production methods in local communities where you'd save X-fold amount of energy. The distance between elements moving is X-fold less... It's insane but yet, the system perpetuates that. That's for a larger order subject that I've not enough time to go into). We could strategically orient industry, in itself evident as we do based on the physics of our reality in where things are. We could enable in a efficiency never known before. It becomes self-evident, and why would we possibly with regard to sustainability, want to do anything less? As counter-intuitive and culturally obtuse as it may seem there is no freedom or opinion in our technical reality. There is only the most efficient way up until now and the rest, is simply, inefficient. The definition of economy in Greek means: management of a household. A reduction of waste and maximized efficiency is inherent in this premise. Is this the way our current free market system is operating? Let's take a step back again. What drives the global economy? Consumption, and the more the better. More consumption means more jobs, better GDP and hence enabling more consumption through purchasing power that's enabled. Is that efficient? Shouldn't preservation and reducing waste be the basis of an economy of a finite planet by definition? How can an economy based on the need for constant growth and turnover and even an economy based on constant need of employment be 'economizing' anything at all? Then there's this thing called 'cost efficiency'. Cost efficiency demands cutting expenses to remain competitive in the market place. Every single product created by any corporation today without exception, is immediately inferior by design for the market requirement to cut creation costs in favor of lowering the output purchasing price to maintain a competitive edge automatically reduces the quality of any given item by default. It is impossible to create the strategically best long-lasting 'anything' in our society and this translates into outrageous amounts of wasted resources. Likewise, the same mechanism is also reinforcing environmental disregard, depletion and pollution. Everyone is trying to save money. Why do you think they are really going to care about the environment? The logic is against it. We see this constant in the world today among many other issues I could list. If you take a moment to really step back and think about this not only is this inefficiency a characteristic of the market model it's actually the fundamental driver. Having clean, unpolluted water in your home might seem like a nice thing in gesture but the fact that money is not being exchanged for that is anathema to the economic sustainability that we've come to understand. More pollution means more profit. More disease means more jobs ad infinitum. I would go so far to say as pointed out here that sustainability, efficiency and preservation empirically are the enemies of our economic system and that's unfortunately, the firm reality. Those out there who talk about a green economy as though there is such a thing that could possibly exist in this system posing solutions within this structural order such as renewable energies, energy credits carbon footprint stuff they are not understanding what's actually at work here. You cannot have a true green, or even close to whatever you consider a sustainable economy in the market model of economics. It is technically impossible. The system would fail if we ever wanted to operate on a truly technical, sustainable level for the system is fueled by the exact opposite set of mechanics. I would even go so far to challenge for those out there that basically are not in favor of the complete abolition of the market economy as the solution to the destruction of our environment not to mention the collapse of the social order itself we are seeing while working to replace this system with a truly technical approach for resource management: proper scientific allocation seeking the highest level of efficiency possible at every turn in production and distribution for maximum sustainability which is a technical distinction including proper allocation of labor and everything else really, we're just engaging in patchwork. It's not going to do anything in the long run and we're wasting time because time is literally running out. This again, coming back to my premise is the result of our limited dimensional perception. We have based our economy on outdated notions of human behavior and convoluted notions of supposed freedom and ignored the true technical reality, true environmental reality that actually supports and sustains our lives and creates good public health. This realization that our true economic benchmark is science, and hence the self-evident calculation requirement needed to streamline our efficiency inherently voids the entire basis of free market economics itself. I can't reiterate that enough for it simply makes zero technical sense scientifically and is provably now working against our survival and accelerating. Coming back to politics, let's take a quantum leap outside of our traditional assumptions for a moment. What does the political institution and government really do? Why do we even have it? They work to compensate for the inefficiency of the economy. That's it! That's the only reason they're there. When people are not getting their needs met they often resort to so-called 'crime' so, government invents laws to silence those victims of the economic efficiency. Likewise, if we need resources being held in another sovereign nation aka region of the planet and we are not economically getting along with them we engage in war to steal those resources not to mention protect ourselves from others who might want to steal ours. There is no war in history that has not been based upon resource acquisition or protection. Likewise, the world's divided into gangs, ever noticed that? We still have these things called countries. We still assume a socially Darwinistic pretense with the very existence of these nation states not to mention the divisive, patriotic value distortions that are born out of it. Here once again, we have the limited, dimensional perspective clashing with an emergent, multi-dimensional reality. Are countries relevant in technical terms? How could we possibly define them outside of our opinions? a) All humans share the same basic needs and b) the resources that we all need have no idea what a country is and they are dispersed everywhere on this planet in one single, unified ecosystem. If there's anything positive that came out of the US and Russian Cold War that almost triggered complete nuclear disaster decades ago it was the realization that radiation fallout in nuclear winter never heard of countries, flags or sovereignty. Just as the pollution from the Japanese power plants that melted down a while back it didn't need passports to cross over to other countries' atmospheres. I hope my point is clear. The fact is there is only and can only be one global economy and there is only one, and can only be one global society for our economic premise is what defines us and that's what our survival is. The socioeconomic system of our time is as archaic, dogmatically religious and pseudo scientific as any dogmatic religious belief. They are completely decoupled from the benchmark of our scientific emergent reality which is being denied held in place by traditional, non-emergent institutions which, mark my words will be what destroys life on this planet as we know it if the multi-dimensional reality that is springing up is not realized and brought to the surface quickly. The central problem we face is that the economic system is actually still systematically reinforcing itself continuing to hold this paradigm in place by the ongoing values and actions of the masses who do not see the true source of the problem because they're trapped inside of it and they are accelerating its effects. If anyone out there frames their sense of leadership or success, based on money or a claim you have a rude awakening coming to you. I couldn't help but notice reading the pamphlet of all the well-meaning presentations in this event and they seem to frame things in a very similar way as far as the way they orient themselves in this system. I don't blame them and I don't put them down but I hope this definition can eventually change. What is true success? Is success how well you manage your company sell a book, gain a profit or anything that engages the current socioeconomic paradigm? If you agree with what I have just described with respect to the economic system those focusing on short term material success might very well be assisting in their own long term failure and demise for they're only perpetuating a detrimental social system in the end that will get the best of all of us if it isn't stopped. Shouldn't true success be your ability to adapt to the emergence of new information improving your relationship with the natural order benchmark that we've spoken of? Is there really anything else that that can possibly define success in the broadest possible terms? Proper alignment with whatever reality happens to be advancing itself and you being with it. Do our relationships and marriages and bank accounts and even our children, our status, our acclaim really mean anything when it's stepped back to a larger order of what it means to relate to the world that you live in? There's a common term we frequently hear these days: corruption. It seems to be all over the news and you can't possibly escape it. How would you define corruption, broadly? I would define it as the initiation or support of deprivation exploitation and/or abuse either social or environmental. If this definition is accepted then it is logically correct to say that all acts of commerce are inherently corrupt. If you define corruption as deprivation, exploitation or abuse every time you mark up a value on a good you sell or cut corners to save money you are engaging in deprivation, exploitation and abuse by its systemic causal effect and intrinsic rationale. That is the behavior our social system requires to continue and that distortion is currently masked as normality. In conclusion and as a final rogue example of this limited, dimensional perspective meaning an emergent, multi-dimensional reality that is forcing its hand there is no 'you' and there is no 'me'. We live in a world which assumes division, why? Because that is what we perceive with our five senses limited sense organs but molecular study has proven the opposite. It doesn't see it that way. There is a perpetual ebb and flow and exchange in the molecular data constantly happening within you and outside of you interweaving with your environment at all times on many levels. Concurrently, our life support is explicitly symbiotic as well. We need resources to live and the connection to our evolutionarily adapted habitat that basically created us over generational time. There's absolutely no disconnect. In the words of Jacque Fresco "You don't see the plug up our ass but it happens to be there." And then we have... Then we have the knowledge level as well as I alluded to before. We exist in a group mind. Newton did not invent gravity just as Einstein did not invent relativity. For him to do so, he would have had to invent the whole of mathematical development since the beginning of time along with all the tools and supporting provisions and everything else that comprised his state of knowledge naturally, at that point in history. Every word coming out of my mouth has been learned. We only have the illusion of novelty because each of us appear to originate in seemingly separate pockets of experience in this connected unison that we share. Our supposed creations seem unique and original and novel but they're only expansions. As stated at the beginning, there's nowhere to hide from the collective consciousness and we're all responsible for each other. The underlining meaning of this presentation is that, until human society again is able to find a basic, common, working, responsible value set which we can basically agree upon which is consistently pinged against the emerging benchmark of our scientific reality we have a very difficult road ahead. Within this context, as we listen to the world around us I consider the most active value orientation we can have which almost guarantees an empathetic reaction which hopefully can maintain this social diligence that's required I consider the acceptance of our intrinsic unification to be the most powerful form of expression of these ideas: an acknowledgment of the oneness as it is poetically termed. This oneness over division value seems to be the ultimate example (at least in this point in time) of our limited dimensional perception being overcome by the multi-dimensional reality and if properly understood there could be no basis for war. There could be no logic for greed. There could be no such thing as inefficiency and waste no basis for poverty. There can't possibly be class and as abstract and misunderstood as it might sound there could be no basis to define you and there could be no basis to define me. Thank you.

Video Details

Duration: 43 minutes and 35 seconds
Year: 2011
Country: United States
Language: English
Views: 171
Posted by: ltiofficial on Dec 4, 2011

Presentation given at the LCL Conference on October 8th, 2011. It focuses on the quality of our beliefs, actions and intents within the overarching context of what supports good public health, prosperity and sustainability and what does not.

Note: This LTI Repository location contains only "official", fully proofread versions of the transcript & its derived translations. More translations will be added as they are completed at

If your language is not yet represented here, consider helping these efforts by joining your language team at (LTI Forum)

Caption and Translate

    Sign In/Register for Dotsub to translate this video.