Bring4th

Ra says that the concept of ownership being chosen over that of non-ownership has much to do with our lifespans going from 1000~ years to that of 100~.

Quote:22.5 Questioner: Then can you give me a— Can I assume then that this drastic drop from 700-year life span to one— less than one hundred years in length during this second 25,000-year period was because of an intensification of a… of a condition of lack of service to others? Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is in part correct. By the end of the second cycle, the Law of Responsibility had begun to be effectuated by the increasing ability of entities to grasp those lessons which there are to be learned in this density. Thus, entities had discovered many ways to indicate a bellicose nature, not only as tribes or what you call nations but in personal relationships, each with the other, the concept of barter having given way in many cases to the concept of money; also, the concept of ownership having won ascendancy over the concept of non-ownership on an individual or group basis.

Each entity then was offered many more subtle ways of demonstrating either service towards others or service to self with the distortion of the manipulation of others. As each lesson was understood, those lessons of sharing, of giving, of receiving in free gratitude— each lesson could be rejected in practice.

Without demonstrating the fruits of such learn/teaching the life span became greatly reduced, for the ways of honor/duty were not being accepted.

There exists such ideas and systems in place to make this a reality.

Intentional Communities could be described as such. With the collective of the group taking precedence. Money is not needed. Bartering is not needed. These ideas of ownership eventually lead to slavery and ownership of one another. Karl Marx was right on the dot with his description of the Communist Society, not to be confused with a communist state. This idea of non-ownership is integral to the idea of communism. Thus, intentional communities being the new moniker for small village based communism, as to get away from some of this negative stigma.

There exists a website called ic.org , its a directory for all intentional communities. The Law of One material is so powerful it surprises me nobody has tried to implement these spiritual ideals into that of a community. I believe that was the intention of the channeling, not for us to just read and discuss the material on repeat, but to rather live the material. For just reading and learning is only about halfway there to true integration of the ideas and Love and philosophies into the soul-matrix.

My only goal in life is to escape the rat race and toxic environment that is the systematic slavery of my brothers and sisters, in its many forms. The only way to truly do this is to start an intentional community, or perhaps stage a peaceful uprising of sorts (much more unlikely of occurring currently). I'm saving up whatever fiat i can, ironically to buy land, so that i may share it with fellow Seekers who wish only to escape such a tortuous environment to one of Love.

This is a huge part of the Ascension/Harvest/Event that we are all forgetting about. We cant just go, one day addicted to smartphones, money, negativity, ownership, among many other vices. I can say with utmost certainty that most of us do not live this way instead feeding into the system. Likely we think its "too hard" to escape said trap, but is honestly couldnt be easier, the only things holding you back are the addictions.

We have to start living how we will be living in 4D+, now. This is not an option, if you do not being to ween from the 3D, Orion ran systems we call home, you'll never make it. 1 day without your phone of whatever and the withdrawal sysmptoms will be too much, thus filling the spirit with doubt, regret, amongst many other vibration-lowering thought-forms.

I will be forming a Law of One intentional community. The goal is to be sustainable, Loving, and work together in the Love and Light of the infinite Creator and thus manifest Light and Love as a reflection and aspect of the Creator, as Co-Creators, the time is now to begin this process.

And so it is.

Are we supposed to fix our community or are we supposed to love our community the way it is???

I would be interested in this. Keep us updated.

I hear you, and have shared much of the same thinking for a while now. I guess I'm just not ready yet...

(05-27-2018, 07:04 PM)Surfboard Wrote: [ -> ]Are we supposed to fix our community or are we supposed to love our community the way it is???

The great paradox! It is my belief that we are supposed to love it unconditionally and accept it (green ray), and then ideally, be moved to action/Co-creation (blue-ray) to help heal it. Creating and living examples of true intentional unity is a great service to the planet, in my opinion. If everyone just keeps doing what we're all doing in this moment, even if we love and accept it, nothing is going to change. It takes one more step. True unconditional love usually motivates us to act in new ways. That is the cycle!

What Xatu describes has been the original mode of function of human society in ancient history and it is what made us rise into an intelligent civilization despite the weak body chosen by the logos - weak compared against elements, many other species and various other factors.

But a commune concept is also very difficult to manifest today, not only due to many biases and conditioning the spirits on this planet have passed through, but also there being a lot of established interests which would try everything in their power to prevent such happenings from taking place, as history tells us - for profit, for ideology, for sociopathy. Such a community would be a challenge and threat to the system of profit/exploitation we have today. And hence it would have to face the challenges created by the establishment doing everything in their power to prevent it.

Beyond that, the conditioning of the people by the system is a major problem. For, as a recent ground breaking study has discovered, majority of people are of what we describe as 'good' nature, ie, cooperative, concerned, thoughtful, but they are conditioned by the system and culture to behave selfish:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...after-all/

The large study concluded that when people are prompted to act instinctively, they chose cooperative choices majority of the time. But when given time to think, their social, educational conditioning kicked in, and they started to make selfish choices.

To put it short, majority of people are not selfish. The system educates them to become selfish.

It is a challenge to overcome such small selfishness-es even for those of us who had spent a lot of effort on a spiritual path, because we have grown up in such environments due to society having been engineered into that form...

I saw someone who had been involved in many communes saying that majority of communes fail within 5 years. In my opinion, people who seek to establish such a commune would need to be of very strong conviction, patience and tolerance.

.........

However that said, it is true that our future seems to definitely lie in that direction, and this doesnt seem to be something that is far away like 700 years.

For a change to have completed in 700 years, it must have incrementally happened. Things cant go on for 699 years and just pop up in the last year. There must be a process.

There are some processes already visible actually. Like the open source software movement, which liberated software technology from corporate hold, and allowed millions to cooperate and prosper together in anarcho-syndicalist fashion as described in sci-fi. There is open source manufacturing developing, there are initiatives for open source energy and farming. That is leaving aside 3d printing. There are even attempts at open source lawmaking, governance.

These are methods and systems which could readily transform entire society as it stands. Just look at how much they already did - you are reading a forum coded in an open source web language, sitting on a server which runs open source server software, costing a ridiculously small amount compared to what it would take to put up such a website back in 1994 - an arm and a leg would not suffice. This availability and abundance created by open source methodology actually coincides with descriptions of Marx regarding how an actual communist society would work - you could just take from the means of production (software), run an do whatever you want with it (this forum) and if you could improve it, you would contribute back to it (participating in open source projects). The problem is that, the server still runs on proprietary infrastructure - hardware needs to be made open source.

But the impact of open source methodology and its adoption with many non-software fields tell us that actually it is possible to change the society en masse, and it is already happening.

..........

So, on the question of whether we should change the society or create new societies, the answer is possibly both and at the same time. Because, not only the methodologies and technologies that would change the society would be needed for creating new societies, but also all the new, budding 4d societies created are all participants in the grand syndicated project of planetary 4d society. Not unlike how many software projects and communities in open source world are linked in some way or another today.

I very much think that tangible, perceivable change within our lifetime is possible. And this is without even talking about the AI, which will almost certainly invalidate the entire societal construct we use today...

As the resident anarchist here, I'd just like to offer that one thing I find hampering efforts to organize from a positive perspective is what I call the "form vs content" tension (stolen from A Course in Miracles, for the record). What I mean by that is that sometimes we elevate the formal, outward appearing, structural identity over the substance of the work. We can get all caught up in building a physical, well funded, well organized intentional community, but inside the community if we haven't done the personal work to commit ourselves to those values, the intentional community is really more of a marketing device than an actual community. I think this dilemma occurs quite often in organizing, because it seems like you need something concrete to rally around, but then making it concrete becomes a bigger project than making it sincere and true to the values.

One way to build intentional community is to focus on the intention before the community. Connect with your neighbors. Deal with the tensions there, and find ways that you can all be on the same page. This sort of bootstraps the values of the community before you formalize it. Another way would be to start a forum like this one and to begin sharing more and more about your lives, perhaps meeting in person more and more often, until it just seems natural to co-locate.

This is all borne of a lot of work and thinking on startups, where often an entire corporate edifice is erected before there's an actual product built or market need identified. The "lean startup" mentality instead focuses on only building as much formality as necessary to continue iterating, where the end product is as yet unidentified, and the work focuses on discovering it and being adaptable rather than having a rigid idea of it ahead of time and moving heaven and earth to conform to that idea that may be inaccurate. I think this kind of flexibility could be very useful in organizing and activism, placing our values ahead of the way we package them up for ourselves and the public.

(05-31-2018, 11:06 AM)rva_jeremy Wrote: [ -> ]We can get all caught up in building a physical, well funded, well organized intentional community, but inside the community if we haven't done the personal work to commit ourselves to those values,

That's the most difficult part of any community.

Quote:One way to build intentional community is to focus on the intention before the community. Connect with your neighbors.

That's a bit out of the way. The thing is that chances are pretty pretty low, actually almost nil that any given person's neighbors will harbor people with sufficient orientation towards such 4d social work, leave aside any intent for it. Anyone's neighbors are a random selection in most cases. Chances of having people whom can even conceptualize, leave aside desire such a community would be very low.

Neighborly relations, if mentioned as in a rather conservative American sense (to put it in context, it existed and exists in different cultures too) is a different matter. They may be created and maintained, but they could not walk towards a satisfactory level that would be found enough by those with the seeking that is in the initial post.

Quote:This is all borne of a lot of work and thinking on startups, where often an entire corporate edifice is erected before there's an actual product built or market need identified. The "lean startup" mentality instead focuses on only building as much formality as necessary to continue iterating, where the end product is as yet unidentified, and the work focuses on discovering it and being adaptable rather than having a rigid idea of it ahead of time and moving heaven and earth to conform to that idea that may be inaccurate. I think this kind of flexibility could be very useful in organizing and activism, placing our values ahead of the way we package them up for ourselves and the public.

The nature of new tech startups (and other startups that follow their example) with their horizontal organization, participatory mechanics, egalitarian and ownership-giving finances are a good step in the right direction.

There are examples with a longer history and great success even outside tech sphere:

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/06/25-4

Of course Mondragon is not exactly a spiritual place, but the participatory nature and the happiness level of its participants compared to outside, are good indicators.

...........

My perception is that, with the new tools available, which range from open source lawmaking to open source governance, manufacturing, software etc, things that can work can be discovered and implemented bit by bit. So it doesnt need to be a one bold jump into an unknown pool, but to take and use what's already working and build up on it. These stuff can be very minor at the start, and later the communities can build up on them.