Horses don't know the Toe

[labelwench]

That I am more fortunate than many, is a circumstance that I am grateful to the universe for, on a daily basis, and horses continue to amaze me by their actions, even after many years of working closely with their kind. Such powerful creatures, yet such willing nature, that a small child may lead one with a hay string.....

When God wanted to create the horse, he said to the South Wind, "I want to make a creature of you. Condense." And the Wind condensed.
- Emir Abd-el-Kader

(Photos courtesy of the inter-net)

[SteveA]

"Can a horse tell you what it means to be human?
How can a horse get beyond the boundaries of being a horse and say what it means to be human?
Why do we think a human being can say what it means to be God?
And yet we’ve done that; we’ve done that and we said that we’ve got it so right that if you don’t believe it we’ll burn you at the stake.
That’s a very strange idea."

~John Shelby Spong.

We may never know what horses know, but it could be (a hypothetical) God gave us the option/freedom to add burnings at the stake, or not. Which version of things works better?

The more problems we can (re)solve inclusively means the greater bounty we share. Control and exclusion limit growth and possibilities. Most people today live better than kings a couple thousand years ago, though I don't think kings, burnings at the stake, militaries and the KGB/CIA/FBI/TSA etc. had much of anything to do with this. No, it's all been because Joe/Jane Schmoe wanted a better life, in spite of all that, and Joe/Jane Schmoe did it and continues to (of course the parasites enjoy a better standard of living as a side product of this, but if Joe/Jane Schmoe falls, the rest does as well and those wannabe rulers can be the sole rulers of the mud pit they created - and if they want to be rid of the stench, they'll have to clean up the dead bodies themselves. They actually have no power except what they're given or allowed to take, because ruling itself produces nothing).

What's the value suppose to be to having rulers? Well, if we just had any ole "randomly" select set, then the results are, on average at least, worse than having none because we're then suppose to take our natural abilities and hand then to someone else to control (as if that was really even possible - at a minimum, it's inefficient working in such an indirect manner). They can't increase our abilities or add any more intelligence than we already have etc.

Let's look at it very clearly - There is no gain, in terms of individual potential, of having something else rule over that. The expected gains are over how that potential is realized in coordination with an environment, for which a ruler is expected to be able to provide direction toward this.

That ruler cannot make a decision or do an act that you, yourself are not already capable of.

What do people want from a ruler? The expected value is only in terms of communication and coordination - an enabling of efficient realizations of individual potential within an environment. A ruler, in any dominating sense is only restrictive and limiting.

I could go on, but to keep it short - we don't need rulers in the typical sense. We just need tools to efficiently coordinate between ourselves and possibly something with a bit of intelligence to provide additional options, in coordination with others to pursue.

It could be believed that rulers can protect us because of their debilitating effects (LMAO! But it's actually quite true). If a ruler fails to live up to the "benevolent" hope, then a fallback justification is that a ruler is a lesser of some set of evils. Basically, if we didn't tolerate one oppressor, then maybe another one would be free to come along and so that's relying upon the greed of one ruler to motivate a defense of the "goose laying the golden eggs" from, yet another predator ... well, if someone didn't tolerate one oppressor, why would they tolerate another?! That "logic" makes no sense either, and if people simply left it up to some battle of domination (motivated by them complying and in effect rewarding such a position), then guess which ruler ends up dominating - the toughest one around. Gee, that's a great thought process.

Another rational often attempted is that without some ruler there would be "chaos" (this is stereotypical propaganda that those "running the show" tend to love and encourage) - technically it would be anarchy, not chaos, but once again some people want others to believe that Anarchy = Chaos, but ironically most the time there is chaos you can find that it arose from, once again, actions motivated by rulership in one form or another.

For example, this is not anarchy:



The problems experienced after the flood in New Orleans were also not due to anarchy, but instead because a group of people who'd been previously dominated were exposed to chaos and had not been accustomed to living under anarchy and they couldn't immediately acquire the social skills necessary to coordinate privately in response to the levies breaking (it's ironic (or predictable?) that those levies had been taken under "public" control also).

This IS ANARCHY:



Many private individuals and organization went to provide assistance, but others (especially the mainstream media) expected leaders to do something (how's that for bucking responsibility? First of all, I don't think anyone was specifically obligated to provide assistance in the first place. It's great when people do and I don't discourage it, but to feel personal responsibility and then to ease ones conscience by expecting someone else to do something is "loser" status. If you want to do something, do it. If you don't, don't, but to expect someone else to do something that you yourself are not willing to do, especially in order to ease ones own emotions is about as low as one could go, and then on top of this, these rulers only rule via. force and coercion, so we can additionally say that 1) not only did someone not do something they might have felt an obligation to do but 2) they applied coercion to someone to do it and 3) that person was similarly expected to coerce everyone else in order to provide the "assistance" ... talk about a messed up worldview).

Anyway, I could go on about so many common, yet conflicted and mixed views that many people appear to maintain and instead of starting over, from the ground up, the resolutions appear to be to try to maintain the same conflicted foundation and continually place more and more patches on something that will never work.

It's fundamentally about communication and intelligence - nature already gave us plenty of challenges. I don't think we need to intentionally add lots of additional social challenges (we've already got enough of those too! ).

If people really wanted to fix things and had enough desire and intelligence to see the direction to head, it's simple and easy and the first step appears to be to get rid of the idea that having people rule over each other is a good foundation to begin with.

(Sorry, I got off on politics again ... it's a tough subject for me to stay unemotional about - I'm trying though. It actually seems best to let people make mistakes and learn, either that or they'd just have to take things on faith, but then there's nothing else beyond that source of faith ... some desire, creativity and intelligence appear to be great substitutes for faith, though they come at the cost of learning and growing - I personally can't complain, though there are times when it could be nice to tone the learning down a bit and I don't think the ideal is solely based upon those either ).

[austintorn@aol.com]

Horses don't know the TOE, but a human knew the horse's hoof and bite:

A friend of mine was taking riding lessons in preparation for bear hunting. He fed the horse a fine breakfast and then the horse bit hit on the butt.

His friend said to show he horse who's boss, but may friend just gave the horse an even better breakfast the next day. The horse again bit him on the butt, this time drawing blood.

His friend again said o show the horse who's the boss.

My friend brought another breakfast the next day, but first, punched the horse in the head. There was no more biting.

[melanie]

Enlightenment is knowing you don't know.


" Even the enlightened person is never more than his own limited ego before the One who dwells within him,
whose form has no knowable boundaries, who encompasses him on all sides, fathomless as the abysms of the earth and vast as the sky." ~ Carl Jung



"Enlightenment is when you see things as they are, not as you want them to be."

[austintorn@aol.com]

Enlightenment is going with the way things are.

Suffering is when one goes against.

[austintorn@aol.com]

For sparkly Melanie:



(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN8pnh-lbhg)

[melanie]

For sparkly Melanie:

Ah, that's really dreamy and sweet Austin, thanks, I'm all for dreamy....ness...

Some of the glittery sparkly things in the video remind me of the Avatar film, have you seen it?

[melanie]

Steve A

Thanks for your input as always, but it's far too heavy for me to understand, i'm light only, not of this world, although i appear to be in it, and so it is that when i read the written word all i see is psychobabble.
You are a divine expression of consciousness Steve, you are the medium that consciousness uses to express itself.

It's all just a story it tells to itself, for it's own amusement only.
Nothing ever happened and todays peacock is tomorrows feather duster...

[austintorn@aol.com]

Ah, that's really dreamy and sweet Austin, thanks, I'm all for dreamy....ness...

Some of the glittery sparkly things in the video remind me of the Avatar film, have you seen it?

I only saw some clips of it, but not the whole movie.

Mel, where do you get those sparkly "goddess" animations that you post sometimes?

[melanie]

Hi Austin.

I saw the avatar movie in 3-D It was spectacular .. the best special effects movie i've ever seen in my life.

The movie depicts a very powerful message to humanity, that we need to *Wake-Up* NOW
before we destroy the delicate balance of our beautiful Earth which is a living entity called Gaia
in which all life on it is linked and this concept is unleashed in the movie in a big way.


Creation is a miracle - It's sacred....yet humans appear to be so blase about it.

Mel, where do you get those sparkly "goddess" animations that you post sometimes?

I get them from the internet. There are lots of websites to choose from.

For example: TinyPic.com is where I got the following image from.



See how the image flows ... We perceive reality as solid, or so it appears, in truth there is no place for solidity to house itself.