01-20-2016, 10:40 AM
one thing I have been struggling to terms with is the notion of 'hierarchical structures without superiority".
I think this was first triggered by the question that was posed at Homecoming 2015 - which had to do with how we envisioned 4th density (4d positive of course ).
The thing that caught my mind, and that I couldn't get away from, was the question of governance. All societies require some form of structure and organization, some way to allocate functions, expertise, and distribution of resources. Most of the models that we have from Planet Earth are rooted in some kind of siphoning, or pyramid process, where those at the top of the structure benefit unduly from the efforts of those at the bottom of the structure. This is best represented by money, and how it's paid out. Those at the top are more 'worthy' and their decisions count for more in terms of how things play out for the structure/organization, and so they are more duly compensated.
However - there is a small sideways mental step from feeling that one has expertise/governance over a group, and then assuming superiority because of that expertise. Ra referenced this here:
So I'm struggling with the notion of 3d societal organizations (which include money), where superiority is not present.
* charitable groups - where they are ostensibly there to serve others.
* volunteer groups - who give their time and efforts, not seeking a material return for themselves
* companies/corporations with strong ethical considerations encoded into their operating/decision making process.
/ /
this is somewhat difficult for me to grok, because I don't really have a firm grasp of what I'm trying to understand. This seeking/question is of a diffuse nature.
Ra also brought up questions of bartership vs money, and non-ownership vs the concept of individual/group ownership. We could only go back to more simpler social structures like the aborigines in Australia, and indigenous groupings in America and other parts of the world as models. But most socialogical examinations would probably find that these tribal groupings had their own issues, and are in no ways idealic. War and violence, and male domination were still present in such social groupings.
It's hard to even imagine the concept of 'non-ownership' after having been implanted into a culture based on property rights that extend down to every last square foot/metre.
Once there is 'ownership', it creates a disparity between the person who owns it (has access to it, and defends those access rights - ie 'enforcement' of a physical/legal nature) and those who can't access it.
I'm not trying to throw our economic system out the window; I'm not fighting against it as such. I'm just trying to grok or conceptualise a way of doing things (hierarchical structure) that assumes a greater amount of positivity. And, of course, you can't have such a structure, unless the individuals within it are choosing, voluntarily of their own will, to align with those values and decision-making process. So it's almost like a chicken-egg scenario. Positive individuals, if grouped together, will form structures based on positive values. They will just do it of a natural accord.
I think this was first triggered by the question that was posed at Homecoming 2015 - which had to do with how we envisioned 4th density (4d positive of course ).
The thing that caught my mind, and that I couldn't get away from, was the question of governance. All societies require some form of structure and organization, some way to allocate functions, expertise, and distribution of resources. Most of the models that we have from Planet Earth are rooted in some kind of siphoning, or pyramid process, where those at the top of the structure benefit unduly from the efforts of those at the bottom of the structure. This is best represented by money, and how it's paid out. Those at the top are more 'worthy' and their decisions count for more in terms of how things play out for the structure/organization, and so they are more duly compensated.
However - there is a small sideways mental step from feeling that one has expertise/governance over a group, and then assuming superiority because of that expertise. Ra referenced this here:
Quote:Specifically those who are strong, intelligent, etc., have a temptation to feel different from those who are less intelligent and less strong. This is a distorted perception of oneness with other-selves.
It allowed the Orion group to form the concept of the holy war, as you may call it. This is a seriously distorted perception. There were many of these wars of a destructive nature.
So I'm struggling with the notion of 3d societal organizations (which include money), where superiority is not present.
* charitable groups - where they are ostensibly there to serve others.
* volunteer groups - who give their time and efforts, not seeking a material return for themselves
* companies/corporations with strong ethical considerations encoded into their operating/decision making process.
/ /
this is somewhat difficult for me to grok, because I don't really have a firm grasp of what I'm trying to understand. This seeking/question is of a diffuse nature.
Ra also brought up questions of bartership vs money, and non-ownership vs the concept of individual/group ownership. We could only go back to more simpler social structures like the aborigines in Australia, and indigenous groupings in America and other parts of the world as models. But most socialogical examinations would probably find that these tribal groupings had their own issues, and are in no ways idealic. War and violence, and male domination were still present in such social groupings.
Quote: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.
It's hard to even imagine the concept of 'non-ownership' after having been implanted into a culture based on property rights that extend down to every last square foot/metre.
Once there is 'ownership', it creates a disparity between the person who owns it (has access to it, and defends those access rights - ie 'enforcement' of a physical/legal nature) and those who can't access it.
I'm not trying to throw our economic system out the window; I'm not fighting against it as such. I'm just trying to grok or conceptualise a way of doing things (hierarchical structure) that assumes a greater amount of positivity. And, of course, you can't have such a structure, unless the individuals within it are choosing, voluntarily of their own will, to align with those values and decision-making process. So it's almost like a chicken-egg scenario. Positive individuals, if grouped together, will form structures based on positive values. They will just do it of a natural accord.