strawdog65

Hi Sunya! Yes I agree, Jacque Fresco said the same thing. It will take a complete failure of the present system before minds open to change. Because people are so caught up in having all their things and constantly accumulating more things, they don't really care that they are just a different kind of slave to the monetary system already in place. People are so content to just sit on their complacent asses and watch everything just fall to pieces as long as they have their things to prove they have some worth. At the current rate of wasting resources and not endeavoring to do the science to make the new technology more usable quicker, I would guess we will see some bad stuff within 20 years. The hoarding of natural resources will become the fire starter for many conflicts to come. If this is inevitable then it is good that there will be a change from it. Who really believes that they way governments and economies are handled today is a sustainable future? It was only controllable because of the separation of peoples and the lack of technology. Now the population is barely manageable and the resources necessary to feed clothe, and care for the world population is controlled by the profit infrastructure. There are enough resources to be shared. The act of creating scarcity to keep a profit margin growing, should be seen as the crime against Humanity that it really is. Peace!

Jock sock root lock shock, Over under sideways round, Clueless faces, mute.

Hi Sunya! You get it! Why is it so hard for people to see that this is a new concept? When we Let go of what our preconceptions are about what the world and society is able to become, we arrive at new horizons for our future. I too was deeply affected by the Venus Projects website, it's message and thought process for a future society is very deep and makes more sense than anything else I have read concerning future society and economy. More people need to see this and open their minds to what is capable of happening. Thanks for your comments! I have told everyone I know about it! Peace!

Ok ... I'm here to witness the proof of spirit. Or did I get that wrong and it's supposed to be the spirit's proof? Belief in anything immaterial can never be proved. But I guess that the point, there is safety in taking the stance that you have to believe for it be proven to you. Let's prove something that is unprovable by being obstinate and using unrelenting insistence to support it's existence. I'm so convinced!

Hi joeblast! Thanks for showing some interest. I know it's hard to see something like what's being presented as becoming a part of our reality, but when we reach a certain point of world infrastructure falling apart and economies failing, what Idea would you put forward as a means of creating a more sustainable future? It is an easy path being a naysayer. It is easy to call ourselves realists, and not face the facts that things will not change because it's what we want, but because we will reach a point where we will have no other choice. We do not presently live in a world wide fashion that is sustainable. Profit based, scarcity based, greed based economics are the perpetuators of the world wide discontent we see everyday. I have thought about this subject for a large part of my life, and I believe that the ideas being presented are a chance for the world to make real changes for the better. I'd rather be accused of being an optimist than always be looking for what is wrong with a situation. If you have a better idea then the ideas being presented, please share them. You owe it to the world after all. Peace!

Part 5 By: Jacque Fresco/ The Venus Project MOTIVATION, INCENTIVE & CREATIVITY It is claimed that the so-called free-enterprise system creates incentive. This may be true, but it also perpetuates greed, embezzlement, corruption, crime, stress, economic hardship, and insecurity. In addition, the argument that the monetary system and competition generate incentive does not always hold true. Most of our major developments in science and technology have been the result of the efforts of very few individuals working independently and often against great opposition. Such contributors as Goddard, Galileo, Darwin, Tesla, Edison, and Einstein were individuals who were genuinely concerned with solving problems and improving processes rather than with mere financial gain. Actually, very often there is much mistrust in those whose incentive is entirely motivated by monetary gain, this can be said for lawyers, businessmen, salesman and those in just about any field. Some may question that if the basic necessities are accessible to all people, what will motivate them? This is tantamount to saying that children reared in affluent environments, in which their parents provide all the necessary food, clothing, shelter, nutrition, and extensive education, will demonstrate a lack of incentive or initiative. There is no evidence to support this fallacious assumption. There is overwhelming evidence to support the facts that malnutrition, lack of employment, low wages, poor health, lack of direction, lack of education, homelessness, little or no reinforcement for one's efforts, poor role models, poverty, and a bleak prospect for the future do create monumental individual and social problems, and significantly reduce an individual's drive to achieve. The aim of a resource based economy is to encourage and develop a new incentive system, one no longer directed toward the shallow and self-centered goals of wealth, property, and power. These new incentives would encourage people to pursue different goals, such as self-fulfillment and creativity, the elimination of scarcity, the protection of the environment, and the alleviation of suffering in their fellow human beings. People, provided with good nutrition in a highly productive and humane society, will evolve a new incentive system unattainable in a monetary system. There would be such a wealth of new wonders to experience, explore, and invent that the notion of boredom and apathy would be absurd. Incentive is often squelched in our present culture, where a person dare not dream of a future that seems unattainable to him or her. The vision of the future that too many see today consists of endless days of mindless toil, and a wasted life, squandered for the sake of merely earning enough money to survive from one day to the next. Each successive period in time creates it's own incentive system. In earlier times the incentive to hunt for food was generated by hunger; the incentive to create a javelin or a bow and arrow evolved as a process supportive to the hunt. With the advent of an agrarian society the motivation for hunting was no longer relevant, and incentives shifted toward the cultivation of crops, the domestication of animals, and toward the protection of personal property. In a civilization where people receive food, medical care, education, and housing, incentives would again undergo change and would be redirected: People would be free to explore other possibilities and lifestyles that could not be anticipated in earlier times. The nature of incentive and motivation is dependent upon many factors. We know, for example, that the physical and mental health of an individual is directly related to that person's sense of self-worth and well-being. Furthermore, we know that all healthy babies are inquisitive; it is the culture that shapes the particular kind of inquiry and motivation. For example, in India and other areas of great scarcity there are many people who are motivated not to accumulate wealth and material property; they renounce all worldly goods. Under the conditions in which they find themselves, this is not difficult. This would seem to be in direct conflict with other cultures that value the accumulation of material wealth. Yet, which view is more valid? Your answer to this question would depend upon your frame of reference, that is, your culturally influenced value-system. Many experimental psychologists and sociologist have shown that the effects of environment play a major role in shaping our behavior and values. If constructive behavior is appropriately rewarded during early childhood, the child becomes motivated to repeat the rewarded behavior, provided that the reinforcement meets the individual needs of the child. For example, if a football were given to a child who is interested in botany, this would not be a reward from the child's point of view. It is very unfortunate that so many individuals in our society today are not appropriately rewarded for their creative efforts. In some instances individuals are seemingly able to overcome the shortcomings of their environment in spite of an apparent lack of positive reinforcements. This is due to their own "self-reinforcement" in which they can see an improvement in whatever activity they are engaged in, and achieve an intrinsic sense of accomplishment; their reinforcement does not depend on the approval of others, nor on monetary reward. Those children who do depend on the approval of a group tend to be afflicted with a sense of low self-esteem, while children who do not depend on group approval usually acquire a sense of self-approval by improving upon their own performance. Throughout history, there have been many innovators and inventors who have been ruthlessly exploited, ridiculed, and abused while receiving very little financial reward. Yet, they endured such hardship because they were motivated to learn and to discover new ways of doing things. While creative individuals like Leonardo de Vinci, Michelangelo, and Beethoven received the generous sponsorship of wealthy patrons, this did not diminish their incentive in the least. On the contrary, it empowered them to reach new heights of creativity, perseverance and individual accomplishments. This is a difficult concept to grasp because most of us have been brought up with the value system that has given us a set of notions about the way that we ought to think and behave about money and motivation. These are based upon ancient ideas that are really irrelevant today. It has been stated that war generates creativity. This deliberately falsified concept has no basis in fact. It is government financing of war industries that helped to develop many new materials and inventions. There is no question that a saner society would be able to create a more constructive incentive system if our knowledge of the conditions that shape human motivation were applied. In this new social arrangement of a resource-based economy, motivation and incentive will be encouraged through recognition of, and concern for, the needs of the individual. This means providing the necessary environment, educational facilities, nutrition, health care, compassion, love, and security that all people need. Comments? Thoughts?

Hi Vaj! I hope you are doing and feeling better. I do believe there was a person named jesus, it was a common name afterall. I am entirely skeptical of a man named jesus that is attributed to have done miraculous things. All mythology has the appropriate miraculous doings of said messiah figure. A jesus yes... a jesus that was a messiah? Doubt it. I am not an expert on any of the scripture( dead sea scrolls/ Nag Hammadi) I claim no information other than is available to all of us equally. The teachings proclaimed to be from a man named jesus, are worthy, meaningful teachings. Who is to say that they were not adopted from an earlier philosophy and belief system such as Tao? The philosophy of Tao and treatment of man within mankind, has precedents that predate any christian belief system. Teachings that hold "true" are common in most cultures, the only thing that changes is whom they have been attributed to. When It's something that feels inherently true inside of us then it is usually a common thread to most philosophies. Saying that jesus was the one that said these things and imposing the distinction that somehow he was the originator of this philosophy, belies an attitude that somehow these were "hidden" truths and it took jesus to bring them out. I find this idea to be ludicrous. I have more belief in the common man then most I guess. There will always be ideas that "feel" true to us and speak to us and our heart of hearts. These ideas speak to us and feel "true" because we inherently feel that this is the right way to treat someone, or some situation. The ideas and philosophy attributed to all great figures throughout history lives inside of each of us, and we see the clues of this when we read or hear something and that light bulb goes off in our minds and it just clicks, and we say eureka! That eureka moment is your own awareness telling you this is the most natural and inherently virtuous path, the designation of it being a "truth" is just a signpost leading us in the right direction. We just have to listen and be who and what we are meant to be. And if the three wise men were Taoists.... maybe they should be the ones we should be thanking for the wisdom of the jesus figure. That is IF any of this really happened to begin with.... Peace!

The lands here crumble. Like toast spread with vegamite, Salty Downunder.

The Sage is standing in the dragons mouth

Part 3 By: Jacque Fresco/ The Venus Project THE OBSOLETE MONETARY SYSTEM Although skillful advertisers lead us to believe otherwise, in today's monetary-based economies, whenever new technology is introduced, the human consequences are of little concern to those introducing the technology - except, of course, as customers. In a monetary-based system, the major concerns of industry are profit, maintaining a competitive edge, and watching the bottom line, rather than the wellbeing of humanity. The social problems that arise from mass unemployment of people, who are rendered obsolete by the infusion of automation, are considered irrelevant, if they are considered at all. Any need that may be met is secondary to acquiring a profit for the business. If the profit is insufficient, the service will be withdrawn. What industry seeks to do is improve the competitive edge to increase the profit margin for their shareholders. It does not serve the interest of a monetary based society to engage in the production of goods and services to enhance the lives of people as a goal. With rising public concern regarding the greenhouse effect, acid rain, polluted air and water, etc. some companies are also beginning to realize that for sustained market presence it is in their best interest to heed social and environmental concerns. While such trends are commendable, they are insufficient as a method of solving the overall problems of waste, environmental degradation and unnecessary human suffering. The monetary system has been a useful, but interim tool, it came into being as a means of placing a value on scarce objects and labor. The monetary system of course replaced the barter system, which involved direct trading of objects and labor. However, just as there was no universal-bartering standard in the past, there is no global monetary system today. Individuals and groups, now as in the past, however, still need to exchange objects and labor for today's goods and services. The unequal distribution of skills, resources and materials throughout the world necessitates global trade. Until the last few decades, the monetary system functioned to a degree. The global population of three billion was not over consuming world resources and energy, global warming was not evident, and air and water pollution were only recognized by a relative few. The start of the 21st century however finds global population at an exponentially rising six billion, with resources and energy supplies dwindling, global warming a reality, and pollution evident worldwide. Planet earth is in crises and the majority of world population cannot meet their basic needs because people do not have the means to purchase increasingly expensive resources. Money is now the determinant of people's standard of living rather than the availability of resources. In a monetary system purchasing power is not related to our capacity to produce goods and services. For example, in a recession there are CD's in store windows and automobiles in car lots, but many people do not have the purchasing power to buy them. The earth is still the same place; it is just the rules of the game that are obsolete and create strife, deprivation, and unnecessary human suffering. In today's culture of profit, we do not produce goods based on human need. We do not build houses based on population needs. We do not grow food to feed people. Industry's major motivation is profit. The monetary system is now an impediment to survival rather than a means of facilitating individual existence and growth. This imaginary tool has outlived its usefulness. The limitations on earth's population now caused by the monetary construct can be phased out. It is not money that people need but the access to goods and services. Since humanity requires resources to exist, the replacement system should provide those resources directly to people without the impediment of financial and political interest for their private gain at the expense of the lives and livelihood of the populous. The replacement system is therefor logically a resource-based economy. This global resource based economy would be gradually phased in while the monetary system is phased out. All of the world's economic systems - socialism, communism, fascism, and even the vaunted free enterprise capitalist system - perpetuate social stratification, elitism, nationalism and racism, primarily based on economic disparity. As long as a social system uses money or barter, people and nations will seek to maintain positions of differential advantage. If they cannot do so by means of commerce they will resort to military intervention. War represents the supreme failure of nations to resolve their differences. From a strictly pragmatic standpoint it is the most inefficient waste of lives and resources ever conceived by any creature on the planet. This crude and violent way of attempting to resolve international differences has taken on even more ominous overtones with the advent of elaborate computerized thermonuclear delivery systems, deadly diseases and gases, and the threat of sabotage of a nation's computer networks. Despite the desire of nations to achieve peace, they usually lack the knowledge of how to arrive at peaceful solutions. War is not the only form of violence in the developed and underdeveloped countries that is superimposed upon the populace by inadequate social arrangements. There is also hunger, poverty, and scarcity. As long as there is the use of money, the creation of debt, and economic insecurity these conditions will perpetuate crime, lawlessness, and resentment. Paper proclamations and treaties do not alter conditions of scarcity and insecurity. And nationalism only tends to help propagate the separation of nations and the world's people. Even the signing of a peace treaty cannot avoid another war if the underlying causes are not addressed. The unworkable aspects of international law tend to freeze things as they are. All of the nations that have conquered land all over the world by force and violence would still retain their positions of territorial and resource advantage. Whether we realize it or not, such agreements only serve as temporary suspensions to conflict. Attempting to find solutions to the monumental problems within our present society will only serve as temporary patchwork, prolonging an obsolete system. In this world of constant change it is no longer a question of whether we choose to make the necessary changes; it is now mandatory that we take on this challenge and adopt these new requirements or face the inevitable decay of our present social and economic institution. This is the dilemma we must face head-on, and the solutions we arrive at must fit the circumstances of the "real-world." There appears to be no other way than to update our outlook and create a newer direction by relegating the old values to past civilizations. Unfortunately, this may not be accomplished prior to the point of no return in the global economy. Thoughts? Comments?

Binding spells bind whom? Remove layer by layer, The blooming Onion.

Hi Prince! Just because you were taught something does not prove something to the contrary is incorrect. The myth of a messiah goes back way before jesus or the old testament, the messiah mythology is common to just about every cultural group in the world. How do you propose to prove that any astrological references are bs? What evidence do you know of that takes into account the belief systems of people prior to the time of "jesus", and what astrology and the stars meant to them. The heavens( The sky/stars) have been worshipped before any deity in the shape of men. You can not disprove something that has more historical significance than any story told of a man who may not have ever existed in the first place. Prove to me that the old testament is anything more than a story. Prove to me that the new testament is anything other than a newer story. Prove to me that there ever was a jesus as depicted in the bible. Prove to me that there is a god. You can do none of the above. Belief in what is false and stolen and purposely devised to control the minds of the weak, will never amount to proof of any kind at all. There is no historical record of jesus that is unassailable. Proof of god rests with those who advocate the belief of such nonsense. Which can never be proven because you have to believe. What if I believed in the easter bunny? Wake up and see the truth. There is no god... there never was a jesus... and the story that is the bible is the grandest piece of fiction ever told in the history of mankind. The very saddest part is that there are people trapped into believing the lies told to them as children. It's called indoctrination.

Hi Twinner! I was hoping you would respond. Hey did you get a chance to check out the essay part of the sight? I am posting the essay here a part at a time in the hopes of spreading some of these ideas to a group( TTB) that I believe can appreciate the beneficial nature of what's being proposed. I agree that things often look bleak at the horizon of mankind. But there is always hope that with calamity comes the promise of great change. There is always darkness before the light , right? I would like to hear what you think about the societal changes proposed within the Venus project. What do you think? the challenge in todays world is to see the challenges before us, and to strive to find another way. A big part of the societal issue world wide is that people have no hope of there being something else, or another way. And thats just not true. There are other ways of interaction, economy, and treatment of humans within an earth based society. If we are presented with an Idea that is so far beyond what we have today, if this Idea can be thought, what is left but to act upon it? We may never see any of this, but it's the thought that it may one day come to pass that excites me. Cooperation and pulling of world resources and a redefining of what it means to be a citizen of planet earth, these will be the challenges of the coming generations. Business as usual on planet earth is slowly but surely coming to an end. Like all change that has become permanent.... we will change because there will be no choice. Either we change as a civilization, or we die as a failure. Then it's up to whoever is next in line....... Peace! What say you?

Hi Sunya! Hey! i'm glad you are watching the Zeitgeist movies, there are 2, the second one talks about our very corrupt money system and there is a great part on the Venus Project. What a lot of people don't realize is that most religions are formed from what was before. This is so with the whole of the Christ mythology. It was an updating and adding on of other cultural beliefs and Astrology! Thats where the fish symbol became associated with Jesus. It was during the age of Pisces that Jesus was supposed to have been "virgin birthed". So all those "christians" are riding around with a Pagan symbol on the back of their cars and don't even know it! The Zeitgeist movies... real eye openers! And The Venus Project! And Yes I agree... it is entirely possible that the wise men were Taoist in nature. Thats assuming that is, IF there was a baby Jesus to begin with.

Essay part 1 by: Jacque Fresco/The Venus project BEYOND UTOPIA With the advent of future developments in science and technology, we will assign more and more decision making to machines. At present this is evident in military systems in which electronic sensors maintain the ideal flight characteristics in advanced aircraft. The capacities of computers today exceed five hundred trillion bits of information per second. The complexity of today's civilization is far too complex for human systems to manage without the assistance of electronic computers. Computers of today are relatively primitive compared to those that will evolve in the future. Eventually the management of social systems will call for require electronic sensors interconnected with all phases of the social sequences thus eliminating the need for politics. Today modern industrial plants have built in automatic inventory systems, which order materials such as bearings and other mechanical replacements well in advance. We believe it is now possible to achieve a society where people would be able to live longer, healthier, and more meaningful productive lives. In such a society, the measure of success would be based upon the fulfillment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property, and power. Although many of the concepts presented here may appear as unattainable goals, all of the ideas are based upon known scientific principles. It is not my purpose to write an article that would be acceptable to people this is not the concern of science. The social direction being proposed here has no parallel in history with any other previous political ideology or economic strategy. Establishing the parameters of this new civilization will require transcending many of the traditions, values, and methods of the past. The future will evolve its own new paradigms, appropriate to each successive phase of human and technological development. Throughout the history of civilization few national leaders or politicians have ever proposed a comprehensive plan to improve the lives of all people under their jurisdiction. Although such individuals as Plato, Edward Bellamy, H.G. Wells, Karl Marx, and Howard Scott all made some attempts to present a new civilization, the established social order considered them impractical dreamers with Utopian designs that ran contrary to the innate elements of human nature. Arrayed against these social pioneers was a formidable status quo composed of vested interests that were comfortable with the way things were, and a populace at large that, out of years of indoctrination and conditioning, wanted no radical changes. These were the millions of unappointed guardians of the status quo. The outlook and philosophy of the leaders were consistent with their positions of differential advantage. In 1898, Edward Bellamy wrote the book Looking Backward. He conceived of an ideal egalitarian social system with many advanced ideas for its time. This bestseller generated a great deal of interest, and many people inquired as to how this type of cooperative Utopian society could be brought about. But Bellamy replied that he was just a writer and did not know how to create such a society. The proposals he presented, and those of Plato's Republic, the writings of Karl Marx, H. G. Wells in his book The Shape of Things to Come, and many others all represent attempts to find workable solutions to the many problems that earlier civilizations were unable to resolve. There is little doubt that at the time of Bellamy's books the social conditions were abominable, which made the Utopian ideal extremely appealing. What appears to be lacking in most of these concepts, however, has been an overall plan and the necessary methods for a transitional system to enable the idea to become a reality. Most of the early visions of a better world did not allow for changes in either technology or human values, tending to arrest innovative efforts. Additionally, all have lacked a comprehensive set of blueprints, models, and a methodology for implementation. Finally, they lacked competent individuals to bring about such a transition. The answers do not lie in debate or philosophical discussion of values, but rather in methodology. Thus what is needed is an operational definition of a better world, which is as follows: To constantly maximize existing and future technologies with the sole purpose of enhancing all human life and protecting the environment. Today we have developed the necessary technology to surpass the fondest hopes and dreams of any social innovators of the past. The fact that previous attempts at social change have failed is no justification for us to stop trying. The real danger lies in complacence. The only limitations to the future of humankind are those that we impose upon ourselves. It is now possible to relieve humanity of many of its unresolved problems through the humane application of technology. Many years ago an attempt was made in the U. S. to understand a social and economic system different from our own. A film called "The March of Time" had this to say about Soviet Communism: "We believe that the American free-enterprise system will function better than the collective system. However, we wish you the best of luck on your new and unusual social experiment." The failure of communism to provide for human needs and to enrich the lives of its citizens is not unlike our own failures. Both failure and success are inherent in the on-going experiment that is social evolution. In all established social systems it is necessary to devise different approaches to improve the workings of the system. Science is replete with examples of experiments that have failed, as well as those that have been successful. In the development of the airplane, for example, there were thousands of failures before the first workable model was produced. In the field of medicine, Dr. Erlich attempted over 600 different approaches to controlling syphilis before one was finally proven successful. All of the technology we use today, such as computers, cellular phones, the Internet, aircraft, and automobiles, are in a constant state of improvement and modification. Yet our social system and values remain largely static. An inscription on one of our government buildings reads as follows: "Where there is no vision, the people perish." Attaining visions requires change. The major reason for resisting change is that it tends to threaten the established interests. Actually, the fear of social change is somewhat unfounded when we consider that the entire history of civilization has been, in a sense, an experiment. Even the American free-enterprise system, during its earliest stages, faced a multitude of problems much more severe than they are today. These included long work hours, exploitation of child labor, inadequate ventilation in industrial plants, lack of rights for women and minorities, hazardous conditions in mines, and racial prejudice. Despite its many problems, it was the greatest social experiment in history in terms of diversity of lifestyles and individual freedoms, innovations in architecture and technology, and overall progress in general. It is imperative that we continue the process of social experimentation in order to transcend our present limitations and enhance the lives of everyone. The future does not depend on our present-day beliefs or social customs, but will continue to evolve a set of values unique to its own time. There are no "Utopias." The very notion of "Utopia" is static. However, the survival of any social system ultimately depends upon its ability to allow for appropriate change to improve society as a whole. The paths that we choose will ultimately determine whether or not there is intelligent life on earth.

The Venus project videos on you tube. I hope these links work.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqplP-E8Dvw&feature=related Such a bright vision of a possible future earth society.

Hi Sunya! Thanks for taking the time to take a look. I thought it was very inspired, and hopeful for the future. At least he is presenting an idea for what could be the next form of economy that the world will try. With limited resources worldwide, it makes sense to do what's best for everyone. The Zietgeist movies feature a part on the venus project in movie #2. I hope more people will show some interest. Peace!

So thats what it's about. I must be really dense, not understanding all that cloak and dagger stuff.

Hello Everyone! I wanted to ask you all what you think about Peaceful disagreement. I do realize there is much to gain by the exchanging of information by people with differing views, this is a given. It is how the clashing of viewpoints has a way of reducing us to our most base qualities, that I do not understand the necessity of. When the participants staunchly disagree and take it upon themselves to use TTB as platform from which to deride others and spread their animosity of anyone who thinks differently of themselves, what use is the initial exchanging of thoughts at that point? Is the knowing action of causing strife and disharmony, compatible with the way of the Sage? I understand that Tao accepts all into it's impartial body. I understand that there is no sense in judgment of others or things they do, because it is still all Tao. But I do take issue with what we do and do knowingly. If we do something that knowingly is damaging to others, and do so because of an attachment to self, which is vanity, is this Way of living in the world compatable with the "suggestions" that are the basis of Taoism? I say suggestions because as has been pointed out here at TTB's, rather than rules, Taoism is more like a bunch of principles "suggested" for us to follow if we possibly are able. Does acting in a Way that is in disregard for all but your own self, agree with the principles of Taoism or and I am missing the point of Taoism completely? If you were given a week to live, would you feel differently? Would you think it was time well spent, being contentious and devisive? Or would you see that time as best spent enjoying every moment? Enjoying everything in those moments, and feeling connected to everything in your life? Is the concept of having time for contention and divisiveness in your life, the only reason contention and divisiveness exists in your life? What I am saying is, because we have so much time to live, is the time we have treated like it's less important because of the increased length of it? Does this somehow make being contentious ok, because there is the perception that there is plenty of time to later reconcile any differences or felt animosity? I believe this is often why we act so stubbornly when in conflict and disharmony with others. Which is why I say, we do not understand how important every moment of our lives is, when we believe wrongly that there is plenty time to be spent being in disharmony with others. We do not feel the importance of our every moment, and in fact we take them for granted. If we did, why would we waste those opportunities and not see them as windows into better understanding? Windows where we can view ideas outside of our own. Windows that can bring new awareness. It is always exciting to hear a different view. It is only our own attachment to being percieved to be right or wrong that disallow us from being open to this new perspective. I was drawn to Taoism because it brought peace and calm into my own life. I personally do not see the point to creating suffering and disharmony with others, purely for the sake of vanity. Disagreement does not equate to being destructive. You can disagree and still respect and even like the other person. Compassion is possible within the realm of disagreement. It only means to be respectful and considerate when met with an alternate view. As humans, with our unusually large brains and capacity for feeling what others feel through our innate empathy, we can choose how we act and respond. And with this ability to chose, we can choose to act in a way that embraces harmony, and allows the exchange of differing views without animosity. All views have merit to their originators. With respect and compassion towards each originator, disagreement can be accomplished without resorting to acts that are purposefully hurtful and damaging. Shouldn't we be consciously aware of how our actions affect others in our lives? By placing ourselves as last, are we not resisting the urge to contend, and therefore placing ourselves more firmly on the path of Tao? Just my thoughts on why peaceful disagreement is beneficial. Peace!

I screamed out in pain I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this!

Hi Manitou! Very beautiful! The mental imagery evoking both emotion and sound... awesome. Peace!