On one hand, the measures undertaken by the national governments and the world as a whole, practically put the society in a mode of existence previously unknown in the life of most of us.
Things that most people would not consider possible at all in their daily lives, became not just a fact but a norm. Home became workplace. Something as simple as going out became subject to rules and regulations. Families and partners began to spend almost all their time together (with all the the positives and negatives to their interpersonal relationships). The topic of death and dying became a central focus of our attention. Every sneezing or coughing stranger in the street turned into a deadly threat. One of the most basic biological aspects of our existence – breathing – became subject to regulations with the global introduction of requirement to wear face masks.

Leaving aside the external expression of the consequences of the Covid-19, if we read “between the lines” of what happened, we will find things, processes and attitudes in society that are in no way new but existing since long time. Existing but covered – either consciously suppressed or unconsciously ignored. Much of what we discovered for ourselves as society (if we are honest) in terms of social order, norms of communication and interaction with those around us, came out as not so nice.

The thoughts and observations expressed further below are mostly about what we can label “a Western-model society” with its underling values and paradigm, which are both result of but also the reason for the way in which Western societies experience and react to the circumstances related to Covid-19.

Societies based on falseness and principles “on paper”

For decades the Western civilization has been taking pride in claiming to respect fundamental human rights. Principles such as democracy, solidarity, tolerance for differences are inseparable part of the way in which the West sees itself and an image that is persistently projected onto all other cultures and nations. We do not mean only the claims of a particular nation/country as a whole. The average person sincerely believes (and continuously convinces himself), that he is bearer of those values. In his expressed opinions for example, he would support military interventions for overthrowing a “dictator” in a country on the opposite side of the globe in order to “allow for a dignified and free existence of the local population”. He respects the right of personal opinions, of freedom of expression etc. …. or at least claims to.

But is this indeed so? The true test for a system of moral values of a person or society is when confronted with a situation in which the (non)-application of those principles bears direct impact on his own existence and functioning. If we stand “against” death penalty for example, would we maintain this position towards a killer of our relative? If we stand “for” death penalty, would we continue to do so, if our child happens to be sentenced to death?

What has happened in the situation of Covid-19?

• Solidarity showed as a myth

Each country began to care only for itself.
Previously free, the trade with medications and goods for personal protection all of a sudden became subject to limitations. Instead of undertaking steps for easing the delivery of products of basic necessity to the most impacted regions, all countries started to stock up. Information was published on a case where 200 thousand face masks purchased by a Western country with no grounds of legal violation whatsoever were confiscated by another country solely at the discretion of the latter which simply decided that it needed those masks. International agreements and regulations on international trade between countries claiming to function on the basis of lawful order and rules were completely ignored. Even within the EU (meant to be a closer community of countries sharing common principles and interests) there were countries where it was not possible to order for delivery abroad something as simple as vitamins.

• Tolerance showed as a myth

People were divided into believers and non-believers in the existence of Covid-19, into “pro” and “against” the measures of the governments, into scared to death and not that scared or even outright „do not care at all”-s. And while the existence of different opinions and beliefs is completely natural, all of a sudden some people were denying the right of others. In their personal interactions and also in the social networks people started to argue and hate each other, to be judgemental about any opposite view and demanding to all those who perceived the situation differently. Started to insist that others should adopt their point of view and react to the situations as per their views.

The subject of wearing face masks is a good example. Leaving aside the question whether and how much effective face masks are as protection against Covid, the tolerance which we claim to have, should have made us take the responsibility only for our own choices and let others do the same. If I think that for me it is beneficial to wear a face mask, everybody else has the right to decide that for him this is not beneficial or even harmful. Terms such as “right” or “not right” do not apply to authentic tolerance. The right of one to breathe through a filter is not a right to deny somebody else’s right to breathe freely. Same pattern has started to be seen since recently in relation to the vaccines where in various ways (at this stage not yet enforced by law), people are being pushed to get vaccinated without their opinion as to the efficiency and safety of vaccines being of any importance at all.

Societies claiming to be tolerant for differences in much more inconsequential aspects such as sexuality, ethnic belonging etc., have most ruthlessly denied tolerance to the individual to breathe as he deems appropriate as per his own views of what is healthy, and maybe soon (in relation to vaccines) – to be able to choose what to put or not into his own body.

• Democracy showed as a myth

The biological right and need to breathe of the average person became subject to administrative dictatorship by governments and officials, which (beyond their functioning as collective bodies) are just individuals limited by their own subjective views, fears and biases towards one particular point of view or another. Those individuals, through the blind and uncritical acceptance by the masses, are being allowed to interfere with the most fundamental biological aspects of our existence.

The post Covid-19 and society appeared first on Ponder Dimension.

Maybe however, the true significance of this event is not its factual side but the way in which the civilization goes through that experience. In the present and few subsequent articles, the main focus will not be about what is the virus, how deadly it is or how contagious, where it originated etc. (even though those question cannot be completely skipped as a basis for further consideration). Instead we will try to answer how and why our experience of the situation is exactly what it is and why (possibly) it is different than other similar situations. Why do we feel so “shaken” both personally and collectively?

Let us start with some basics. What I am will write below I no way aims to belittle any aspect of the situation but rather to emphasize the fact that that the features of the situation by themselves are not something “unseen or unheard of”, that we have been face to face with similar situations before.

The virus is…just another disease

From scientific point of view every virus, bacteria or any other form of illness can be studied and described in various ways with their specificities and distinct features (e.g. their symptoms, means of transmission etc.).

On experiential level, however, the coronavirus as well as any other microorganism causing illness and even the aging process itself ultimately boil down to the same thing – disruption of the normal functioning of our body temporarily or permanently, which by itself or in combination with other causes can ultimately lead to a final halt.

In practical terms whatever ideas we may have as to the virus, whether we perceive it in a different way, whether we are more or less afraid of it is of absolutely no significance – it is just another companion as many other similar what are around us since our birth. Whether we see them or not, whether we pay attention to them, all those companions – all possible reasons of deterioration of our health and our eventual death are around us and have always been.

The coronavirus does not put us in any novel situation, nothing “new” that has not been previously there. The only difference is that under the current circumstances we have to look this companion in the eyes, not that it was not there before. The possibility to get sick from any possible disease, known or unknown, the possibility to be destroyed physically at any time and by any means – we were never free of that and will never be even for the fraction of a second. The virus does not make us more mortal than we used to be but just reminds us that we have always been such.

The purpose of the above short introduction in the topic on the coronavirus is to reject or at least reduce the perception of it as somewhat “objective” situation independent from us to which we are the helpless victims. As with anything else in life, everything boils down to our perceptions.

To be continued…

The post The Covid-19 experience and the things it teaches to us appeared first on Ponder Dimension.

From the point of view of each and every individual – life is only what one perceives it to be. In that sense life is not a thing – it is a flow of perception. This is the only personally verifiable truth – when perceiving is gone, life is gone as well – literally. Something might or might not exist outside our individual perception but it is only a speculation, not a verifiable truth.

Above introduction is to encourage relating to our own life experience (rather than referring to any external source) in an attempt to pinpoint the defining characteristic of life, its core aspect.

A sequence of separate moments rather than a time-frame

The moment we are perceiving something, we are not perceiving another. As far as one perceives a flower, one does not perceive a tree. In the next moment, a tree is perceived and a flower is not. Irrespective of how many things we perceive in the the same particular moment, the fact is that in that moment, we do not perceive all the rest. Each single moment of our individual perception is life in its entirety in that particular moment. The moment when one feels angry – in that moment calmness is not part of life and vice versa.

Unique, fleeting and never exactly the same

No instance of perception can freeze or remain with us continuously – it is bound to be replaced by a next instance. No instance of perception is exactly the same as any previous or any future one. While in a more generalized way we can say that we have experienced certain feeling many times, if we think twice is that really so? When we eat an apple, does it feel exactly that sweet or exactly that sour as on a previous occasion? In fact, when we are experiencing “now”, the “before” is already not part of life and we can only compare from our memory, not the actual experiences.

With a life being a sequence of individual, unique and ever-changing moments of perception аn essential aspect of its nature is impermanence or change.

What does it matter for us on a practical level?

If we honestly analyze the motives, the reasons and the attitude in everything we do – it seems that all the time we strive to achieve for ourselves some “ideal” life. A life to which we can then hold on to and have the guarantee of keeping it that way… forever. In having that approach, we basically resist the nature of life itself. While we might intellectually understand and accept impermanence and change, we suffer because of our psychological resistance and escapism from the reality of it.

In simple terms – all difficulties in our experience of life, boil down to our incapacity or rather unwillingness to be “realistic” about it. Until our mentality matures enough to truly embrace impermanence and change, whatever we do is bound to take place in a manner of resistance, effort, struggle and therefore can only bring us dissatisfaction and suffering in one form or another.

The post Denying the nature of life appeared first on Ponder Dimension.

Needs of body or needs of mind?

In its roots, the model is based on materialistic/utilitarian approach where it is assumed that ever increasing material possession and consumption are the means to ultimate well-being and happiness. If we examine carefully, however, what we are going to discover is that beyond the immediate survival needs of the physical body, materialism is just a form of entertainment for our mind or psyche.

As far as this mind or psyche is non-material, it does not have a practical way to benefit from material possessions. Beyond the natural physical needs, all material possessions can be enjoyed and bring satisfaction only as an idea and not as something physically useful. You can physically wear only one pair of clothes at a time and can only enjoy the thought about a wardrobe full of clothes that you have at home. Once you have had an abundant dinner, you can only enjoy the idea that there is more food on the table.

In that sense, as far as the mind is concerned the constant craving for ever-growing material abundance is in no way inherent to its nature. It can (and has been) trained to enjoy it as it can be trained to enjoy any other idea. However, the assumption that people are naturally driven towards gaining more and more material possessions is no way a fact supported by hard and undeniable evidence.

Think about marketing industry. If the materialistic inclination was natural, why the need for such industry at all? It is all about manipulating people into believing that they need a product they often do not. Elaborate techniques are used to trick you into buying (for example a smartphone with functionalities you never use) or newer TV set with several million new colors (which the eye of the average human might never distinguish).

Subtleties behind the scenes

In terms of production, while we have more fancy products, it seems that they are less and less durable and it is not by chance. The sophistication of product life cycles and the progress in technological knowledge has opened new possibilities to the insatiable greed of corporations. Nowadays the usability of the product can be to a large degree “pre-programmed”.

Have you ever wondered while your electronic devices often start to malfunction shortly after their warranty is expired? Why the shape of charger cables for mobile devices is regularly revised by the producers? Do you have a TV purchased 7 years ago which has outlived 2 or 3 “state-of-the-art” ones? Much of those (if not all) happen by design, where the manufacturer has as its goal to make you buy the same product repeatedly rather than trying to satisfy your need in a long-lived manner.

We can bring further arguments (and I am sure anyone of us can find evidence from own experience). The point is that in many ways, the materialistic/utilitarian approach is something that we have been taught to adopt and is being carefully maintained. It is not something that is inherent to our nature.

Therefore, the whole economic model that is centred around the idea of insatiable needs of human beings, cannot be in any way asserted as either the only possible nor the best model. In fact, in its initial form the emerging scientific discipline of economics was more focused on trying to understand the underlying logic in economic interactions. Nowadays it seems to be focused on conditioning us into what economic interaction should be like.

(Un)knowingly helping the shift

At first, on an individual level we should re-evaluate what really counts in life for us personally.

Do we really need all the things that we buy? Do we buy because we need or we just follow suit? Do we work more than we actually want to be able to buy things we do not actually need? Are there any things that give us more sense of fulfillment that are not in any way related to buying and possessing things? Can we work less, spend less and have more time to do things that we actually like? When we buy more, do we get closer to being satisfied with what we have or actually find ourselves craving for ever more?

One of the reasons why the economic model is failing nowadays seems to be that more people start to ask such questions to themselves. It might be just a somewhat unconscious hint of doubt but it is there. A hint that there is something fundamentally wrong and unhealthy about materialistic mentality. A hint that constant craving for more is a burden and being satisfied with less is a release.

The more evident this revelation, the more people seem to discover that they do not actually care for their long-held priorities in life. They start getting some intuitive insight that beyond meeting certain natural needs, chasing of material possessions and never-ending consumption is a form of madness. It makes our lives complicated rather than simple.

Such people are less and less supportive to the system in their choices. The inner turbulence and restlessness resulting from the subtle (or sometimes evident) dissatisfaction with materialistic mentality, manifest externally. And while its manifestation is often random and confused, it dismantles the efficiency of the model. People become unpredictable in many ways – in the way they do their jobs, in their non-professional activities, in their relationships. All these tremors translate into the existing social and economic structure putting it under pressure.

Bound to disappear

Eventually, the current economic structure will fall apart … because by its very design it can thrive only upon our acceptance and willingness to support it. The more we break free from the illusion that material wealth can be the ultimate purpose and means towards personal fulfillment, the closer we get to the imminent collapse of the old paradigm.

While we do not know what will come out from the ruins of the old, there will be at the least the possibility for something better. The old economic framework is too deeply rooted and does not allow for alternatives. Only from its ashes such alternatives will come into existence. Alternatives that might be better suited to cater for our real needs rather than artificial desires.

Ultimately you can face the global economic turmoil with a smile – in the end of the day, it is good news.

Part 1 | Part 2

The post Economic model failure is … good news (Part 3) appeared first on Ponder Dimension.

– Postulate or imply the existence of some other or extended version of what we experience as the reality of existence in our waking life. Whether we call it other life or lives, parallel realities or whatever have you, without the idea of “something more” to life, the whole point of a religious or spiritual search becomes irrelevant

– Assert in one way or another that knowing (and acting accordingly with) the “truth” of ultimate or extended reality, will somehow help us “get better” – either by reaping immediate results in this life (e.g. making us peaceful, healthy, happy) or by rewarding us in the future (e.g. going to a heavenly state).

In brief, any authentic spiritual path aims to get its followers into the knowledge of ultimate reality and its rules, which it perceives to be of ultimate short- or long-term benefit for the individual.

Here we do not mean to go “pro” or “against” any particular religion or spirituality. It is rather about the practice at the level of the individual, which often involves mistaken approaches that seem to ignore and actually contradict the very aim of the spiritual practice – which is to know ultimate reality and by knowing it, to improve our existence.

Blind adherence

By missing the aim of the particular path/religion they try to follow, people are often conditioned by the idea that they are born into particular tradition and therefore are obliged to go with it. Being born in a Christian family, one feels stuck that he has to believe into Christian dogma; has to believe even if his personal life experience might show him exactly the contrary of what the tradition teaches.

Letting their tradition be predefined by their cultural or family milieu, people give up the very idea of questioning the truths and/or methods of practice. Every ritual, every idea that comes with the particular tradition is taken for granted and followed blindly. Nobody bothers to give a second (or even first) thought about the real meaning and function of what they practice.

The conditioning (conscious or unconscious) becomes so deep that while there is uncritical acceptance by the individual, any trace of inquisitiveness is lacking. The person never seeks personal validation of the truths presented to him.

While above defects in our personal practice of spiritual/religious paths is not exhaustive, those seem to be some of the root ones. By naming them “defects”, we do not mean it in pejorative or judgmental way but rather in terms of efficiency as to achieving the very purpose of spiritual paths.

What is the ultimate result? We end up having countless “paper” Christians, “paper” Muslims, “paper“ Buddhists etc. and very few who actually embody in their personalities the fruit of spiritual practice. People “belonging” to a particular tradition rather than living it as their own personal truth. People that never experience and integrate within themselves even a piece of the virtues of their tradition. People that never question and are never eager (nor encouraged) to explore the truths.

Taste it for yourself

By never applying a healthy level of doubt and unwilling to have personal taste of truth, people end up living in accordance with truth which is not their own, a truth which is hoped for or feared of but never personal. Common religious ideas like “do not do to others what you do not want to be done to yourself” or “karmic consequences” of your actions, become empty of meaning as their validity is based on pure intellectual acceptance with no living proof ever available.

Ultimately, the willingness to question and seek the validity of spiritual truths in our own experience and as our life unfolds, seems to be the only meaningful and sane approach for those who have authentic spiritual aspirations.

Keep an open mind and be willing to explore deeply and personally any truth before claiming it as your own. Whatever the “absolute truth” is, it is absolute exactly because it is beyond time. It will be there for you and does not need you to be in a hurry. No matter how many “untruths” you might choose to investigate and invalidate along your path, it is ok.

Any untruth that you dig into in your life experience by definition can only get you closer to the truth. In fact, while each of us approaches the same ultimate discovery from a different direction, for some of us the sidetracks along the road seem to be necessary to allow us recognize without any shadow of doubt once we have reached the end of the journey.

The post Religion and spiritual path appeared first on Ponder Dimension.

Let us take the example of money. Money in its conventional form has no useful value by itself. A banknote or a current account cannot satisfy directly any real need – you cannot eat the numbers in your bank account, you cannot use a banknote as clothes or shelter. In real terms a bank account is a sequence of numbers in a computer and a banknote is a piece of paper with a printed amount. What makes money valuable and useful is our consensual agreement to regard them as means of exchange of the things that directly satisfy our needs.

The previous paragraph is to illustrate that the economic theory and therefore the model for which it serves as a basis, are artificial rather than objective constructs. The theory is on one hand a description of certain forms of interactions between individuals and nations in particular time of human history. At the same time, it has eventually managed to promote those forms of interaction to a level where they came to be accepted as self-existing, self-evident even inherent to the very human nature. People started believing in it as undeniable objective reality and this way have allowed it to shape their mindsets.

Tricked into acceptance

By accepting the framework of contemporary economics as a natural law, we are the ones who actually make it manifest as such law. By believing that economic interactions follow certain logic which is beyond our control and thus we can only abide by it, we effectively decide for ourselves that there is no alternative. As far as we perceive it as being the only possibility, we are bound to behave in a way that can only solidify the model and make it look more like being the natural and inescapable order.

To recap – economic theory has convinced us that it is the only valid alternative and by doing so effectively became such alternative. Now, whether this is coincidence or result of intentional design is another topic. The ultimate fact is that we seem to be only subjects and victims of the model where we actually are the ones who perpetuate it and sustain it. This is the vicious circle we are in – we are the ones who suffer the defects of the model and at the same time the ones who help re-create it constantly. This is the very first thing which people should realize. Only when we understand that, we can consider alternative approaches.

Part 1 | Part 3

The post Economic model failure is … good news (Part 2) appeared first on Ponder Dimension.

There are numerous conspiracy theories and new ones appear literally on a daily basis. They vary in subject but in most cases are somehow related to alleged hidden agendas and activity of national and global elites which in one way or another are harmful to the interest (or at least are not for the common good) of the average people.

While it is obvious that much of those are product of imagination, exaggeration or even pure lies, there are those, which are backed up by solid evidence. While the evidence might not be always conclusive enough to present a true and complete picture of what is really behind a certain conspiracy theory, it is often convincing as to what is not the truth i.e. the version presented as official by the so-called reputable sources.

Often the only unit of measure used for the rejection of certain information as “conspiracy crap” is the opinion of all sorts of mainstream scientists, experts, officials who by default are credited with more trust than, say, the average Joe from the neighbourhood.

Let me tell you a real story which if it was not for the fact that it happened to me personally, I would probably not believe. I was having a discussion with somebody on the global elite conspiracy for world domination, the controlled media etc. I was sharing what I had read from various sources and what I believed to be logical extrapolations on the subject.

After listening to my arguments (which might not have been necessarily valid) the person interrupted me and asked me in a very sincere voice a question that left me speechless for a moment: “But if all you are saying is true, how is it possible that we never hear any news on that in major media like CNN for example?”

A self-defeating argument, is it not? If one just allows for the possibility that conspiracy is real and media is controlled, one would not expect the same (controlled) media to report on that fact, right? Still that person honestly believed he was making a valid point against my arguments. Here I just wanted to illustrate briefly, how far our uncritical attitude can go, thus conditioning us into sheep mentality and blind acceptance.

So far, I tried to make a point why we should not dismiss all the stories about alleged cover-ups by shadowy interests or other similar stuff, only because somebody labelled it “conspiracy theory”.

Now below are two examples of “conspiracies” that eventually proved true.

Area 51

The existence of a top-secret military facility at the Nevada desert has been reported for decades by multiple people including average citizens, civil investigators and whistle-blowers (the latter supposedly having first-hand knowledge into the subject).

While the nature of the activities taking place there had been and still is subject to much speculation, the existences itself of such a facility had been successfully dismissed by the official sources as “conspiracy theory” for decades. It was only in 2013, that the Government openly admitted that Area 51 was real.

If this part of the story proved true and not the product of somebody’s rich imagination, then how can we be sure that there is also no grain of truth in the other related topics such as reverse engineering of extra-terrestrial craft?

The central bank of the USA (FED) being a privately owned/controlled body

Contrary to common belief, the FED is not a public/governmental body. This would imply that its activity is motivated in the first place (if not completely) by private interests.

While the legal intricacies leave it open to debate whether and to what extent it is private/public body, some aspects of its organization (as outlined in official documents) seem to clearly indicate that in practical terms it is not directly accountable to any public/governmental authority. You can go further into the topic for yourself.

Above two examples of Area 51 and the FED were chosen somewhat randomly and because of the fact that information on them is abundant enough so that a willing person can make his own research. Their mention here is to illustrate the fact that sometimes “conspiracy theory” can actually be “conspiracy practice”.

Then we come to the questions like “Even if such conspiracies are indeed true, why should I care? Why should I be interested to know?” Well, everybody should answer those questions for himself. Maybe one’s starting point should be “If this is true, does it affect somehow my own life and if yes, in what way?”

Would you care to know if the prescription drugs you take are really meant to cure your health problems? Or are those actually meant by design to only relief your symptoms and keep you a long-term “customer” of the pharmaceutical industry? Is it ok for you to breathe ever more polluted air from the use of fossil fuels if there might have been for decades completely clean energy alternatives suppressed only because of corporate greed?

If you perceive those or similar questions as relevant to your own life, being open-minded about “conspiracy theories” would most probably not be a waste of your time.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

The post Introduction to the “unconventional” topics (Part 4) appeared first on Ponder Dimension.

While each perspective would explain spirituality with different terminology and ideas, it seems that all the answers still have something in common. Whether we talk about God, universal laws, evolution of consciousness etc., ultimately it seems that we always mean some form of reality that extends beyond our normal senses and beyond the reach of our measurement devices. In fact, this is exactly a statement which a spiritual teacher in one of the major religions once gave about his tradition – that it is a method for experiencing and knowing the reality as it is. So, while the different versions of spirituality might disagree on what there is, they all seem to posit that there is something beyond the reality we currently perceive.

Now, while I do have my own spiritual beliefs and experiences, I will try to stay unbiased and not try to advocate any particular version of spirituality. My point is rather to demonstrate why the spiritual search is relevant for us and how we are actually always on a spiritual path (even when we might not be consciously aware of the fact).

The rules of the game

No matter what we call “reality”, it is for sure that it affects us. If there is any structure, a framework of existence, then the logical assumption is that it functions based on some principles, rules, universal laws whatever we want to call it. As far as the individual himself is part of or functions within that reality, it is implied that the more we know those laws and abide by them, the more we ourselves will function in a smooth manner.

We can use the physical analogy of the car traffic – while obviously we can choose how to drive our car, unless we know and respect the traffic rules, we are much more likely to get into a car accident. Similarly, if there is indeed “a bigger reality” which affects us, the better we know its rules the less “crashes” we will go through in our lives. By the same example, it does not make any difference whether we believe or not in the rules – in any case if we do not follow them, we shall suffer the consequences. Similarly, whether we believe in expanded reality or not, if it does exist, we cannot avoid its effects.

Now, the next question is how do we know if bigger reality exists indeed? What would you say to a person who states: “If such reality exists, I do agree that it is useful to know it better. However, how can you convince me that it does exist? If I am not convinced, following a spiritual path seems to be a waste of time.”

Our own inner hints

This question is obviously not applicable to those who already have their spiritual beliefs but rather to those who claim to believe only in what they can see, hear, smell etc. For the latter, I might not have a definite answer but would rather challenge them with some questions:

“Are you 100% fine with every single moment of your existence? Do you sometimes feel that something is not quite right? A subtle feeling that there is something you are missing in the big picture (even if you might not have any clue what it might be)? Have you ever felt longing without any idea what you long for?”

Most people would answer with “Yes” to such questions without much hesitation. This “Yes” often comes from their own inner voice that tries to attract the attention, suggesting that there is something more to be discovered. The very existence of this voice is an evidence to the existence of a bigger picture. Whether you perceive it as your own subconscious or give it other name, you are puzzled by it exactly because it does not fit into your present perspective and understanding. And if it does not fit, by definition it is beyond. You do not know about its existence but it knows about yours (otherwise you could never hear it). Even if but one time, you have experienced a feeling without a clue as to why you have it, this is a proof of a missing piece.

Am I or am I not?

Paradoxically, it seems that no matter how we perceive ourselves (as believers in God-creator, religious, atheists etc.) in practical terms we always are on a spiritual search. As far as we look for happiness, peace, harmony, material well-being – we are effectively looking for a smooth travel throughout life experience. The very fact of seeking such a smooth travel is a spiritual search because understanding ultimately reality (whatever it might be) is the only way in which the smoothness of the travel can be attained.

The distinction between spiritual and non-spiritual people is purely artificial. We are all in the same boat. We are all spiritual seekers the only difference being whether it is conscious seeking or not. And this is exactly the reason why, contrary to wide-spread attitudes the spiritual search is relevant to each and every one of us – possibly in ways we cannot still imagine.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 4

The post Introduction to the “unconventional” topics (Part 3) appeared first on Ponder Dimension.

My friend thought that the knowledge about aliens would in no way serve a practical purpose – it would not solve any particular issue of his personal existence. Thus, the ultimate reason for his lack of interest in the subject boiled down to the following: “Ok, so tomorrow we will know for sure that we are in contact with intelligent extra-terrestrial life. What difference would it make to you?”

Instead of trying to answer his question, I replied with my own question which seemed to me more appropriate – what would be the same as before?

The problem seems to be that throughout the years, the possibility of extra-terrestrial contact has been touched upon purely as science fiction or only imaginary scenario. When one perceives something as purely hypothetical but close to impossible in reality, his attitude can only be superficial. This is somewhat like: “We all know that a contact with advanced ET race is impossible, but since you ask me, I imagine that if one day it happens etc.” The conviction is already there that is nothing but imagination thus also the analysis of the eventual implications is lacking in depth.

Let us just imagine…

If we leave aside for a moment our skepticism about the possibility of ET contact and sincerely try to imagine such a situation, are we sure that our attitude would still be “So what?”

The first and immediate effects of open alien interaction (on global level and in an undeniable physical manner) would be psychological. Whether it will be purely emotional reaction such as fear, excitement, fascination it seems unlikely that on personal level we would perceive such news as “just another headline in the media”. A form of shock will be there whether positive or negative but definitely some kind of a shock. It will bring out considerations in your life that maybe you never even imagined you could be ever faced with.

Even if on personal level you happen to be balanced enough and able to go by as if nothing happened, it is not likely that the society as a whole will not react. Whether there will be panic and traffic jams or form of celebration – people will not be working in the same manner, will not behave in the same manner, will not think in the same manner.

While many things will be happening, it will be just a matter of time that a much more important and interesting consequence will start to emerge. When the emotional reaction (whatever it might be) is somewhat cooled down, the very fact of knowing that intelligent life is here (or even has always been around), will inevitably raise questions for us. Questions whose answers we have always taken for granted. Those questions will relate to different areas of life and in many of those areas we will be in the situation where we will need to reconsider and redefine our root ideas of what is possible and impossible.

A more pragmatic consideration

A generally perceived idea (particularly in the Western societies) is that having a job (and getting remuneration in some form) is a necessary condition for our existence. In particular, we have come to believe that there is no other way in which we can sustain ourselves.

The existing economic model and predominant economic theories are based on ideas such as “Resources are scarce and never enough to satisfy everybody’s needs” or “The only way to have a share in those resources is to produce and sell to each other what we need” (where working is effectively selling our time and efforts for money). Whether we like the situation or not, the fact is the majority of people take it for granted: “This is life. You work to survive”.

How is this perception likely to change? Well maybe there will be originally smaller questions such as “How did those aliens travelled to our planet?”, “What kind of technology and what kind of energy they used?” and so on. The questions will be building one upon the other and their scope will be increasing exponentially. A moment will come that each of us on a personal level will come to the realization that the new technologies and energy used by the aliens have the potential of radically changing our whole material environment.

If we know without shadow of doubt that a zero-point energy is readily available and in unlimited quantity and the technology is available to tap into it, this would mean that ultimately almost all material needs of humanity can be adequately met in close to fully automated manner. Instead of having to do this or that as a job just in order to survive, we will have the freedom to choose what we want do with our time.

Imagine a person whose passion is painting but has to do some boring job in order to make a living. Under an economic model, which is based on “scarcity” such situations are quite common. In a new economic paradigm of automated and close to unlimited material abundance, people will have much more freedom to actually live instead of make a living.

Above is just one line of thought about the possible implications of open alien contact and of course there are many and different scenarios. The point, however, is once again – whatever the changes, our lives will be changed significantly (if not completely) and there is no question about it.

Now, suppose you never previously bothered considering “alien encounter” as a real-life scenario and maybe you just developed some healthy interest into the subject and are willing to do a bit of your own research on the information available. What are you going to find out?

Various sources of information

You are about to find tons of information. Much of it will be nonsense – coming out from the crazy fantasies of some individual or in the form of elaborate hoaxes of people making profit out of the subject.

At the same time, you will come upon stories from more serious investigators (e.g. Dr. Steven Greer) and whistle blowers (e.g. Corey Goode). You will read about investigations by the government and the formation of secret structure (Majestic 12) running secret projects (e.g. Project “Blue Book”) to find every possible information about aliens and use that knowledge to their own advantage in a game of money and power. You will also find experts and insiders (e.g. pilots, astronauts, high-ranking former militaries, scientists and officials) whose claims of first-hand knowledge on the subject while often quite extraordinary deserve proper consideration.

You will be encouraged to believe and doubt at the same time as you go through seemingly confusing and controversial information. You can get the feeling that it is impossible to find a definite and convincing answer. Still, if you dig deep enough and apply common sense and critical analyses in your research, I believe one thing will become clear for sure:

No matter what the mainstream and official sources have been telling us for decades, there is ample evidence that something is not quite right, that something is missing or has been intentionally hidden from our attention regarding the existence of extra-terrestrial life and possibly its interactions with our species throughout our known and even missing history on this planet. What is the ultimate truth may still remain unsure but it is highly possible that you will be convinced about what is not the truth – the official, edited and “cut” history of humankind.

Active interest helps disclosure

While our personal interest in the subject can only be a matter of individual choice, I think it is important to consider how our choice affects the overall picture. The more people take proactive approach and read, discuss, show interest without fear of being labelled “crazy”, the more those who are into position and are willing to reveal the truth, will be encouraged or even forced into a situation where ET disclosure will happen.

In fact, the signs are all there that the process is already ongoing and gaining momentum. It is up to us to make it happen sooner than later. It seems that aliens have been involved with humanity throughout its history and evolution. It is at this stage, however, that we need this interaction to become much more open and direct to (possibly) help us cope with the problems we are facing as a species.

Part 1 | Part 3 | Part 4

The post Introduction to the “unconventional” topics (Part 2) appeared first on Ponder Dimension.

I do not intend to try to prove above statement because if you turn around and have the courage to acknowledge what you see, the validity of the claim will be self-evident – constant shrink of middle class, bank failures, increase of unemployment, countries in the spiral of ever-growing debts – the signs are all there.

In this article I shall rather try to focus on why the system is failing and why (contrary to our conditioning by the mainstream media and so called “experts”) this might be good news.

The discussion will be a generalization to some degree. I will not talk about the particular situation of this or that country. It would be rather an analysis of the fundamental problems inherent to the contemporary (and nowadays prevalent) economic theory and practice. It is for those inherent errors that the model cannot and shall not survive in its present form.

Economics basics

For those who have no background whatsoever in economics theory below are some of its fundamental and underlying ideas.

While the theory of economics has branched throughout the decades into somewhat different versions, there are few underlying principles and concepts that are considered as fundamental and among them are the following three:

• The availability of economic resources is limited
• The needs and desires which the people would like to satisfy by the use of those resources are unlimited
• The ultimate driving factor of each party involved in any form of economic activity is to realize and maximize profit/benefit from its use of economic resources.

Above assumptions imply:

• In overall terms it is not possible to satisfy the economic needs of everybody
• The use of economic resources for the satisfaction of one’s needs by definition can be fulfilled only at the cost of somebody else’s need that shall not be satisfied

Closely related and arising as a consequence from the aforementioned notion is the idea of competition or in other words constant economic struggle between people, companies and ultimately nations in attempt to get as much resources as possible for themselves and leave as few as possible to the others.

The inherent problems

A direct consequence of the theory is that in order to sustain and increase profits, there should be ever-increasing production of goods and services and ever-increasing consumer demand for them.

When considered on a global scale, the material resources available on the planet are limited and most of them are not renewable (or at least not renewable at the rate they are being depleted). Thus, ever-increasing production of goods is physically not possible. On the other hand, considered globally, the potential number of consumers is also physically finite. Therefore, the increase of consumers can be achieved by producing goods which are short-lived and need to be often replaced.

Also inherent to the model is that to maximize the profit, the economic agents try to reduce their costs and particularly with the advancement of technologies, more and more work is attributed to machines rather than personnel. The less people work, the less income they have and the less possibility for the companies to sell their products.

Above is a vicious circle and while some companies still can extend their markets at the expense of their competitors, considered globally – the mix of production, resources and consumers makes it impossible to sustain an economic model based on the motivation for economic profit (which, as already mentioned, is a cornerstone of the model).

A conclusion of common sense

It is not a matter of personal like or dislike for the model – it is a solid fact that on a finite planet, with finite resources and with finite number of potential consumers, a model based on the premises of ever-growing production and ever-growing consumption cannot last indefinitely. In fact, there is much evidence that we are almost there – at the stage where the rate of resources we use, exceeds the rate of their extraction/renewal.

Above simplified analysis introduces a problem and so far, it seems that no working solution has been found within the theoretical framework of contemporary economics.

In fact, such a solution is not likely to be found. For maybe, just maybe, the solution lies not within the model itself but rather in reconsidering the validity of its underlying ideas. Those ideas around which the whole model has been built (either by chance or by intentional design) seem to be erroneous or at the least incomplete.

Part 2 | Part 3

The post Economic model failure is … good news (Part 1) appeared first on Ponder Dimension.