Peter Joseph's 'When normality becomes distortion'

Presentation given at the LCL Conference on October 8th, 2011. It focuses on the quality of our beliefs, actions and intents within the overarching context of what supports good public health, prosperity and sustainability and what does not.

This video was transcribed and translated by Linguistic Team international. To join this effort, please follow this link :
http://forum.linguisticteam.org/

The Zeitgeist Movement:
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/

If you want to help with translations more directly, here's the working location for this video, where everyone can join in on the fun! A simple free registration on dotSUB is enough to be able to start translating.
http://dotsub.com/view/e4bcfbfd-8d33-4f97-a1b6-ed784b4c7324

This is probably the first
presentation I've made of this nature

because the majority of my work
surrounds the Zeitgeist Movement

or things that are related
to my film series

but I've tailored this
very carefully to

what I felt the audience of this
event would find interesting.

The working title as
noted in the program is:

'When Normality Becomes Distortion:
Reflections on a World Gone Mad'

but as the talk developed I
experimented with a few other

less sensationalized titles to
see what would work better.

The 2nd one I came up with was

'When Intuition Fails: The Inevitable
Breakdown of Human Assumption

and its Social Consequences'.

Not bad, a bit too wordy, though

so when I finished
the presentation

it struck me to have a
little more intellectual one

'Limited Dimensional Thought in
a Multi-Dimensional Reality'.

All right, annoyingly
intellectual but still OK.

Regardless, I point this out so
you can make your own decision

which title you think
is more applicable

because they cognitively
highlight different context

of what I am going
to present here.

As far as myself, as introduced,
it's usually at this point

I might say something about who I
am, my credentials and experience

as though frankly, any
of us should care.

One of the great failures
of critical thought

is the assumption of authority
around a given data set.

People might think "This person's
considered an expert in a given field

due to the standard set forth
by culture, so therefore

I can just trust blindly
anything they say

without critical evaluation."

A rather ominous perspective
and I think most would agree

a large number of atrocities
historically can be found

sourced to this blind
dedication to the statements

of supposed authority.

Who am I? I'm just like you.

I'm a compiler and a messenger.

You should have no faith
in anything I say here

and rather be prepared
to critically assess

whatever issues noted
on your own accord

within the bounds of your
logical reasoning and training.

As I will expand upon
later in this talk

there is actually no such thing
as the origin of any information.

I view knowledge as a life
form in and of itself.

There is no empirical source

and it evolves and multiplies
just like any other organism

utilizing the vehicle of our collective
human experience: transference

and like biological evolution
it is self-correcting.

Any false thought
will eventually

(even after long struggles) be
seen by the environment and

selected out by the
collective awareness

or what could also be
called 'The Group Mind'

which I will talk about
again a little bit later.

Furthermore, the premise
of this talk regards

not the specifics of any discipline
of knowledge or understanding

but the mechanics of it

specifically the
nature of its change.

I'm less interested in what people
think and more interested in

how they came to think it, and
how they maintain it as valid.

This talk will not only consider
such frames of reference

as they're often called

frames of reference
individual people utilize

to generate and support
their decisions and beliefs

but also the larger
order institutions

that arise from those
referential assumptions

once they are shared by a
large enough group of people

to define social normality

which is the status
quo that we all know.

Then the status quo practices will
be qualified or even quantified

against what we could haphazardly
call 'Our Objective Reality'

which will draw its assumptions from a
completely different referential benchmark

than most of the population
of the world is familiar with

a frame of reference we have come
to know as 'The Scientific Method'.

You'll notice I said haphazardly
termed an objective reality. Why?

Because the concept of objective
can only be hyperbole, right?

How could we possibly be
so arrogant to assume

at any point in time
in human history

that we have ever been
empirically right?

It simply hasn't happened yet,
if you take the broad view.

It wasn't until the past
couple of hundred years

that The Scientific Method has
barely been taken seriously

with respect to human
affairs and society.

What is the core mechanism of
the Scientific Method, really?

Self-correction.

Self-correction through testing and
logical calculation and hypothesis.

The self-correction attribute of
science is what enables its evolution.

There is no
recognized phenomenon

that isn't undergoing a
constant change of definition

as the evolution of
knowledge continues.

Truth itself is an
emergent distinction.

It's not a noun;
it's more of a verb

which constitutes an
approach towards reality

but never, ever, getting there.

That said

it's obvious that we're
doing something right.

The fact that this building we're
in hasn't collapsed upon us means

we have been able to come in
harmony with some kind of

natural physical law that
exists beyond our control.

The fact that we understand to a
certain degree how our bodies work

creating medicines
that can help us

in positive ways over
statistical time

shows that we are indeed
in some kind of alignment

with what we call nature

as opposed to blaming our
sickness on gods and demons

as we did in the past

as this organism of knowledge
continues to evolve.

There does seem to be
a pre-existing logic

(this is important to note because
people take this for granted)

a logic which
dictates our reality

doesn't give a damn what we
think of it and impose upon it.

It appears we can either be
vulnerable and align as best we can

and engage this harmony,
or we can walk against it

fight it, to our personal
and social disadvantage.

The unfortunate thing is

(as I will continue to
address later in detail)

our basic social construct

as a whole, top to bottom

along with the dominant human values
inherent to it that support it

appear to be firmly
walking against

the natural order that exists
(that we are slowly discovering)

becoming more and more decoupled
from reality as it were

and hence, really,
our life support.

For the sake of argument, I would like
to quickly reduce human perception

into two basic modes of operations:
emergent and traditional.

Today the traditional element
is clearly the most dominant.

The cultural zeitgeist (no pun
intended) is always based on

institutions that are tending
to perpetuate themselves

non-emergent thought processes
and their consequences.

Why? Because they're forms of
psychological security, aren't they?

They're also forms of
financial security.

Our whole society is
actually based upon

institutional self-perpetuation

whether it's the preservation
of a political administration

a corporation's market
share and dominance

or even a religious demographic.

The traditional
notion is so powerful

that the very act of questioning

is often met with disdain
in the culture today.

Some, in their defense, have
even gone so far to suggest

that all beliefs and values
must be equal and respected

and they must be tolerated in
the same element of quality.

Is that true?
Are all values equal?

Does everyone have
the right to believe

and act upon whatever
they choose?

Are we all to respect
everything others want us to?

If I put a gun to your head
and have the value and belief

that you should die, is
that acceptable to you?

Are you a bigot for
not allowing me

to express my freedom of belief?

Obviously, values are not equal.

Some work and some don't

or more specifically, some
represent a closer approximation

to reality and others do not.

The farther those values are
from this natural order

the more destructive
they often become

not just to the
individual or group

but to all of us as a
collective society.

There rests a distinct,
social imperative

that is often ignored or feared.

The taboo associated with
challenging what others think

under the still convenient
notion that all values are equal

is simply not tenable.

You are partially responsible

for the thoughts and
values of others

and they are
responsible for yours.

There is nowhere to hide from
the collective consciousness

and an underlying thesis
of this presentation

is that until human
society is able to

find and share a basic, common

working, responsible,
near-empirical value set

we're basically doomed.

My hope here is to generate

a personal and social reflection

with respect to what
you believe and why

eventually to be framed within the
social context I keep alluding to.

It will be argued that the
failure of emergent perception

to be open and listen
to the world we live in

rather than impose upon it

with these traditional assumptions
we blindly hold as empirical

is the psychological root of the
problems we see in the world today:

environmental, social.

It is a value system disorder

that is continually
created and reinforced

by the social system we inhabit
and share ideologically

and if uncorrected,
it could lead

to the collapse of human
society as we know it today.

A collapse which (if
you're paying attention)

is accelerating right
now across the world

fueled again by a
set of detrimental

perspectives that go
largely unrecognized

like cancer cells go unrecognized
to an immune system.

In 1884, a unique book was
published called 'Flatland'

and apart of some very
clever social commentary

the work gave a perspective of

what it would be like to live
in a 2-dimensional reality

as opposed to the 3-dimensional
one that we share.

One can go left and
right, forward and back

but there was no such
thing as up and down.

Perspective was
hence restricted.

If something from the 3rd
dimension was to come

and visit this
2-dimensional reality

the perception of that
object would be confined

to the properties enabled
by the 2-dimensional view.

A 3-dimensional object
moving up and down

through the 2-dimensional plane, would
be perceived by the inhabitants

as this mysterious mutating
2-dimensional line.

I would like to use
this abstract notion

as a very loose metaphor with
respect to cultural perception.

What if those in the
2-dimensional flatland

had actually always been
in the 3-dimensional space

but their frame of
reference was so limited

by the tools of
measurement they had

their experience so consistent
with the 2-dimensional world

their associated values so ingrained
and stubborn as generations past

that they were simply unable
to reconcile its presence

even though it was
obviously there?

They might have even
established whole philosophies

and institutions based on the
appearance of their world

perhaps 'The Church of Squares'

or 'Linear Economics' or the
party 'Line of Politics'.

But as time went on and their
tools and education grew

the consequences of their perceptual
folly started to manifest

and the beliefs and
institutions they had created

started to draw a confusion and
disorder as a natural evolution.

They might have thought
"How could the very fabric

of our assumptions that we
all share of this reality

that seem correct and almost
provable over long periods of time

how could they
actually be wrong?"

Around 200 BC a Greek
mathematician named Eratosthenes

estimated the circumference
of the planet Earth

likely the first mathematically to solidify
that it was truly round and not flat

a rather dramatic finding since, it
certainly looks flat, doesn't it?

In Psalm 93 of the Bible it states
"The world is firmly established.

It cannot be moved.
" In another passage it states

"The sun rises and the sun sets
and then hurries to rise again."

That would make sense
too, wouldn't it?

After all, when you look at the sky
it appears to be moving around us.

We still use that premise
of thought in our language:

We still say 'up and down'
when it's really 'out and in'.

We even still say 'sunrise' and
'sunset', interestingly enough.

It wasn't until Galileo

really introduced our now
obvious heliocentric universe

solar system, excuse me

and it was confirmed, obviously

among much traditional
controversy.

Since we're on the
subject of the stars

(to continue this type of example
as I inch into value systems that

might be shared in the
common community)

one of the most
persistent past times

of human indulgence since the
beginning of recorded history

a practice that has generated a
flourishing economic industry to this day

spreading across
virtually all cultures

is the practice of astrology.

In Western astrology,
the signs of the zodiac

depending on their positions
at a certain time

are thought to have predictive
power in some interpretive form

horoscopes, etc.

Astrology is so popular
today across the world

that you can't really read a newspaper
without finding a column on it.

I even tend myself to be asked what
my sign is a few times a month

when I engage in different conferences.
It's very, very common.

But what is the basic perceptual
source of this belief

especially Western tradition?

It might as well be straight
out of the book 'Flatland'.

First of all, the view of all
constellations are seen as 2-dimensional

yet the luminance of those celestial
bodies that make up those forms

are actually distributed
across vast distances

in 3-dimensional space.

Constellations as we know
them simply do not exist

outside of the prima facie
pictures we see in the night sky.

Second, stars are not fixed
as we came to understand.

They are born and
they die like us.

It is the illusion of
permanence given a

very short duration
on this planet

in regards to human
evolution in cosmic time

that we think these 2D pictures
will be the same for eternity

holding empirical value.

Third, to reintegrate
the 2D flaw:

It's only a fixed perception
from the planet Earth.

If we are viewing these same
stars from another side

of the Milky Way galaxy
from a different angle

they would not represent anything
close to the forms we see from here.

Despite the popular
culture's interest

which is actually quite romantic
given the deep yearning

to understand our place and
relationship to the universe

(relationship by the way

is the most common
definition of spirituality)

we are only left to realize that

in what I will call the
'Expanded Dimensional Reality'

debunking the limited
dimensional perception

no different than thinking
the world was flat or

that the sun moved
around the Earth

most today won't
argue those facts

as adamantly as they will argue
their belief in astrology.

Another example of this limited
dimensional perception

comes from the cultural
characteristics

of the period of origin
of certain ideas.

Just as the constellations
still today

are recognized for their
names after spoons

and oxcarts and scales
and common animals

as opposed to space shuttles and
TVs, laptops and smartphones

the projections of thought
of any point in time

can only reflect the state of
knowledge at that point in time.

It's a dead give-away.

The traditional religious
systems of belief

contain the rhetoric, not of an
advanced technological society

or a society of advancements
in civil rights

or advanced medical
treatments, no.

It contains the period-based,
cultural values

that occurred thousands
of years in the past.

Did God invent man or
did man invent God?

Do the depictions of monotheistic
gods appear like us?

Why do they?
Why do they appear like us?

Why do they have tempers like man?
Why are they emotional

and judgmental and
volatile and retributive?

Why is it that monotheism is common
to desolate, desert cultures

while polytheism is common to lush,
diverse, rainforest cultures?

Is it random chance that nearly all
the early gods of Greece and Egypt

actually related to
natural phenomenon?

The sun, the moon, the
stars, the ocean, water...

It's almost as
though the minds of

those who created these
stories and ideas

were trying to figure out what the
natural world was and what it was doing

and they could only impose their
culturally specific ideas upon them

as the organism of knowledge
continued its evolution.

Why are the gods in traditional
African religions black

and the gods in the West white?
Why are the gods

of patriarchal
societies always male?

And why is it that people
born in the cultures

that support these beliefs
tend to perpetuate them?

How often do you hear of an Arab
person born in the Muslim culture

magically becoming
Jewish as a child?

I'm sorry to stand in what could
be a controversial opposition

to the beliefs of what are
really billions of people

that ascribe to say astrology
or theistic religious belief

but when the perceptual context
of origin of these belief systems

are taken into account

we find a clear, limited,
dimensional perception

cloaked as relevant through
traditional perpetuation

denying the emergent
nature of our reality.

This leads me to the true focus
of this talk (believe it or not)

for the limited dimensional
perception (and I apologize

for the annoying techno jargon but
it's the best I come up with)...

This limited
dimensional perception

is not limited to these
obvious examples.

In the very fabric of modern
society with respect to

our economic, legal and political
system, is no different

not to mention the vast number of
contemporary value distortions

that continue to masquerade as
viable, applicable and normal.

How many people here
are Republicans?

How many people
here are Democrats?

How many people here
are Independents?

How many people here reject
all political parties

and find the political
concept itself as outdated

unscientific and detrimental
to social progress?

Wow!

How many people here
are Capitalists?

How many people here
are Socialists?

How many people here
find such notions

to be equally as outdated,
arbitrary and useless

with respect to truly efficient
economic management? Thank you!

Just as people were
born into a culture

that supports traditional,
religious belief

tend to conform their values

and perpetuate those values
without critical thought

so do almost all of
us when it comes to

our modern social institutions

which we think are
intellectually viable

and separate from the
religious dogma.

Let's take government
and politics.

Politics in Greek means of,
for, or relating to citizens.

It's essentially a decision-making
method of social operation

and while variance does exist,
the most dominant form today

is that some kind of
representative government

where the interests of the people
are said to have some expression

through the representation.

In the United States

we are said to have a
constitutional republic.

This is basically a form of
representative democracy

which must govern within the confines
of existing constitutional law

which is a fairly rigid set
of preconceived declarations

that apply not only to the
conduct of government

but also to the people.

Why not pure democracy?

Because pure democracy is 100
white men hanging one black man.

The originators of this country
had a decent intuition

about the dangers
of crowd mentality.

In the words of Thomas
Jefferson "A democracy

is nothing more than mob
rule where 51% of people

may take away the rights
of the other 49%."

Democracy, to be applicable,
is really contingent upon

the masses being educated
about their environment

so their votes have quality.

Since that's very
hard to qualify

a benchmark of 'rights'

hence the Constitution
had to be created

to enable some form
of regulation.

I hope that makes sense

because this train of thought
is going to carry farther.

It's a benchmark.

The issue of a benchmark

as I'd like to present
in this exercise

doesn't just occur
with democracy.

It's also applicable
to the monetary system

or the market system of monetary
economics to be specific.

Today we have what is
called a 'Free Market'.

It has a nice ring
to it, doesn't it?

It seems to feed the
same value association

we have regarding democracy

the so-called
'Freedom of Choice'.

The 'Free Market' means that
through the movement of money

power and property can
be bought and sold

the only limitation being
the state of your wealth

your purchasing power, the
actions of your competitors

and the laws created to maintain
order within the system

and it's the law attribute that
I find the most interesting.

This is the benchmark:
the legislation

or the regulatory 'game rules'
because it's just a game.

This benchmark regulation
is inherent in both

the Free Market and democracy

two ideas based upon the broad,
romantic view of free choice.

This to me is really interesting

for these benchmarks
basically imply

some type of third party,
external, empirical reality

an empirical reality that

would have to inherently be
absent of some form of choice

and freedom for them
to exist as they do.

Think about that for a moment.

It's a contradiction

and this contradiction can
be seen as an influence

coming from the new
emergent understandings

that arise to the
evolution of knowledge

new experience-driven
information

trying to self-correct
prior beliefs

through trial-and-error or intuitive,
step-by-step adaptation.

The very foundational premise

of democracy and the Free
Market as far as theory

is intrinsically flawed.
Obviously

something is missing, or
many things are missing

because it can't
work on its own.

It requires influence of a
third-party decision process.

Democracy is contingent
upon an informed public

along with certain
ever-present rights

which are essentially there
because it is assumed

that the public doesn't
know them, but they should.

The Free Market requires third-party
rules to maintain order

rules which often demand certain
environmental safeties:

pollution and
basic-efficiency protocols.

We all know that the system as
it stands in the Free Market

left to its own devices would
use up just about everything

as I will allude to
here in a little while.

The system can't stand on its
own; it will self-destruct.

These rules are needed

to protect the Free Market
and democracy from itself

otherwise, they
will self-destruct.

As an extended example, if it
wasn't for the regulations existing

against corporate monopoly

the world would've been taken
over by one corporation

a long, long time ago.

Despite the statistically void

utterly false notions
perpetuated by economists

that the more 'free' the
market, the more efficient

free market competition is one
of the most hegemonic concepts

ever invented.

While mob-rule democracy (again,
continuing our comparison)

can generate mass irrationality
with no basis in reality

if not properly collared
through rights and education.

I'm sorry to drill this in
but it's very important.

By the way, I suggest
a book called

'The Crowd: A Study
of the Popular Mind'

if you want to read about
how crowd mentality

can override independent
thought in a very caustic way.

It's well documented that
people lose their objectivity

and lose their sense of control
when involved in mass-appeal.

That isn't just for a soccer riot.
It happens through the media.

It happens through
many different forms.

So, then...

What is this benchmark
that we keep seeing?

What is really being referenced in
the broad view? Using the example

of rights for democracy and
regulation for the Free Market

what do those two issues
really reach for?

It reaches for the natural order

or more operationally,
Scientific Causality.

That is what is breaching
through the concrete.

The most dangerous value we can have
floating around the culture today...

(I hope everyone can really
listen carefully to this)

most dangerous value we have
floating around the culture today

is the idea that any of
us have freedom of choice

or the right to our own opinion

especially when it comes to
issues of human survival

and sustainability.

We cannot choose;
we can only align

if we wish to survive
and prosper, period.

There is simply no
such thing as freedom

when the benchmark of
Scientific Causality

is brought into the equation with
respect to any action or goal.

The only caveat is the
emergent uncertainty

of the evolution of knowledge

which does require a
threshold of flexibility.

Why? Because we don't
know everything

but we do seem to get
closer and closer

to more empirical understandings
as time moves forward.

Is there really any freedom

to how we organize our
economy on a finite planet

if the goal is to
create the most

efficient, sustainable
means of production

distribution and regeneration?

No, there isn't.

Industry is a technical process,
a calculation problem

where the variables
of human needs

physical science and
earthly resources

are brought into a single,
regulatory equation.

The properties of our resources can
be scientifically quantified now

strategically assessed
as far as their purpose

strategically oriented
as far as the design

and the most logical manner

distributed through the exact
same logic of pure efficiency.

We have globalization on this planet!
What the hell are we doing?

We're taking stuff from
all over the world

exploiting labor, moving it
around, wasting tons of energy

when we could easily develop production
methods in local communities

where you'd save X-fold
amount of energy.

The distance between elements
moving is X-fold less...

It's insane

but yet, the system perpetuates that.
That's for a larger order subject

that I've not enough
time to go into).

We could strategically orient
industry, in itself evident as we do

based on the physics of our
reality in where things are.

We could enable in a
efficiency never known before.

It becomes self-evident,
and why would we possibly

with regard to sustainability,
want to do anything less?

As counter-intuitive and
culturally obtuse as it may seem

there is no freedom or opinion
in our technical reality.

There is only the most
efficient way up until now

and the rest, is
simply, inefficient.

The definition of economy in Greek
means: management of a household.

A reduction of waste and
maximized efficiency is inherent

in this premise.

Is this the way our current free
market system is operating?

Let's take a step back again.
What drives the global economy?

Consumption, and the
more the better.

More consumption means
more jobs, better GDP

and hence enabling
more consumption

through purchasing power that's enabled.
Is that efficient?

Shouldn't preservation
and reducing waste

be the basis of an economy of a
finite planet by definition?

How can an economy based on the need
for constant growth and turnover

and even an economy based on
constant need of employment

be 'economizing'
anything at all?

Then there's this thing
called 'cost efficiency'.

Cost efficiency demands
cutting expenses

to remain competitive
in the market place.

Every single product created
by any corporation today

without exception, is
immediately inferior by design

for the market requirement
to cut creation costs

in favor of lowering the
output purchasing price

to maintain a competitive edge

automatically reduces the quality
of any given item by default.

It is impossible to create
the strategically best

long-lasting 'anything'
in our society

and this translates into outrageous
amounts of wasted resources.

Likewise, the same mechanism
is also reinforcing

environmental disregard,
depletion and pollution.

Everyone is trying
to save money.

Why do you think they are really
going to care about the environment?

The logic is against it.

We see this constant
in the world today

among many other
issues I could list.

If you take a moment to really
step back and think about this

not only is this inefficiency a
characteristic of the market model

it's actually the
fundamental driver.

Having clean, unpolluted
water in your home

might seem like a
nice thing in gesture

but the fact that money is
not being exchanged for that

is anathema to the economic sustainability
that we've come to understand.

More pollution means more profit.
More disease means more jobs

ad infinitum.

I would go so far to say
as pointed out here that

sustainability, efficiency
and preservation

empirically are the enemies
of our economic system

and that's unfortunately,
the firm reality.

Those out there who talk
about a green economy

as though there is such a thing that
could possibly exist in this system

posing solutions within
this structural order

such as renewable
energies, energy credits

carbon footprint stuff

they are not understanding
what's actually at work here.

You cannot have a true
green, or even close to

whatever you consider
a sustainable economy

in the market model
of economics.

It is technically impossible.
The system would fail

if we ever wanted to operate on a
truly technical, sustainable level

for the system is fueled

by the exact opposite
set of mechanics.

I would even go so
far to challenge

for those out there
that basically

are not in favor of the complete
abolition of the market economy

as the solution to the destruction
of our environment not to mention

the collapse of the social
order itself we are seeing

while working to replace this system
with a truly technical approach

for resource management:
proper scientific allocation

seeking the highest level
of efficiency possible

at every turn in production
and distribution

for maximum sustainability which
is a technical distinction

including proper allocation
of labor and everything else

really, we're just
engaging in patchwork.

It's not going to do
anything in the long run

and we're wasting time because
time is literally running out.

This again, coming
back to my premise

is the result of our limited
dimensional perception.

We have based our economy on
outdated notions of human behavior

and convoluted notions
of supposed freedom

and ignored the true technical
reality, true environmental reality

that actually supports
and sustains our lives

and creates good public health.

This realization that our
true economic benchmark

is science, and hence
the self-evident

calculation requirement needed
to streamline our efficiency

inherently voids
the entire basis

of free market economics itself.
I can't reiterate that enough

for it simply makes zero
technical sense scientifically

and is provably

now working against our
survival and accelerating.

Coming back to politics,
let's take a quantum leap

outside of our traditional
assumptions for a moment.

What does the political institution
and government really do?

Why do we even have it?

They work to compensate for the
inefficiency of the economy.

That's it! That's the only
reason they're there.

When people are not
getting their needs met

they often resort to
so-called 'crime'

so, government invents
laws to silence

those victims of the
economic efficiency.

Likewise, if we need resources being
held in another sovereign nation

aka region of the planet

and we are not economically
getting along with them

we engage in war to
steal those resources

not to mention protect ourselves

from others who might
want to steal ours.

There is no war in history

that has not been based upon
resource acquisition or protection.

Likewise, the world's divided
into gangs, ever noticed that?

We still have these
things called countries.

We still assume a socially
Darwinistic pretense

with the very existence
of these nation states

not to mention the divisive,
patriotic value distortions

that are born out of it.

Here once again, we have the
limited, dimensional perspective

clashing with an emergent,
multi-dimensional reality.

Are countries relevant
in technical terms?

How could we possibly define
them outside of our opinions?

a) All humans share
the same basic needs

and b) the resources
that we all need

have no idea what a country is

and they are dispersed
everywhere on this planet

in one single,
unified ecosystem.

If there's anything positive that
came out of the US and Russian

Cold War that almost triggered
complete nuclear disaster decades ago

it was the realization that
radiation fallout in nuclear winter

never heard of countries,
flags or sovereignty.

Just as the pollution from
the Japanese power plants

that melted down a while back

it didn't need passports to cross
over to other countries' atmospheres.

I hope my point is clear.
The fact is

there is only and can only
be one global economy

and there is only one, and can
only be one global society

for our economic premise
is what defines us

and that's what our survival is.

The socioeconomic
system of our time is

as archaic, dogmatically
religious and pseudo scientific

as any dogmatic
religious belief.

They are completely decoupled
from the benchmark of

our scientific emergent
reality which is being denied

held in place by traditional,
non-emergent institutions

which, mark my words

will be what destroys life
on this planet as we know it

if the multi-dimensional
reality that is springing up

is not realized and brought
to the surface quickly.

The central problem we face is that
the economic system is actually

still systematically
reinforcing itself

continuing to hold
this paradigm in place

by the ongoing values and
actions of the masses

who do not see the true
source the problem

because they're
trapped inside of it

and they are accelerating
its effects.

If anyone out there frames
their sense of leadership

or success, based
on money or a claim

you have a rude awakening
coming to you.

I couldn't help but notice
reading the pamphlet

of all the well-meaning
presentations in this event

and they seem to frame
things in a very similar way

as far as the way they orient
themselves in this system.

I don't blame them and
I don't put them down

but I hope this definition
can eventually change.

What is true success?

Is success how well you
manage your company

sell a book, gain a profit

or anything that engages the
current socioeconomic paradigm?

If you agree with what
I have just described

with respect to the
economic system

those focusing on short
term material success

might very well be assisting

in their own long term
failure and demise

for they're only perpetuating a
detrimental social system in the end

that will get the best of all
of us if it isn't stopped.

Shouldn't true success
be your ability to

adapt to the emergence
of new information

improving your relationship with
the natural order benchmark

that we've spoken of?

Is there really anything
else that that can possibly

define success in the
broadest possible terms?

Proper alignment with whatever
reality happens to be

advancing itself and
you being with it.

Do our relationships and
marriages and bank accounts

and even our children,
our status, our acclaim

really mean anything when it's
stepped back to a larger order

of what it means to relate to
the world that you live in?

There's a common term we frequently
hear these days: corruption.

It seems to be all over the news
and you can't possibly escape it.

How would you define
corruption, broadly?

I would define it

as the initiation or
support of deprivation

exploitation and/or abuse

either social or environmental.

If this definition is accepted

then it is logically
correct to say

that all acts of commerce
are inherently corrupt.

If you define corruption as
deprivation, exploitation or abuse

every time you mark up a
value on a good you sell

or cut corners to save money

you are engaging in deprivation,
exploitation and abuse

by its systemic causal effect
and intrinsic rationale.

That is the behavior our social
system requires to continue

and that distortion is
currently masked as normality.

In conclusion

and as a final rogue
example of this

limited, dimensional perspective

meaning an emergent,
multi-dimensional reality

that is forcing its hand

there is no 'you' and
there is no 'me'.

We live in a world which
assumes division, why?

Because that is what we
perceive with our five senses

limited sense organs

but molecular study has
proven the opposite.

It doesn't see it that way.

There is a perpetual ebb and flow
and exchange in the molecular data

constantly happening within
you and outside of you

interweaving with your environment
at all times on many levels.

Concurrently, our life support
is explicitly symbiotic as well.

We need resources to live and

the connection to our
evolutionarily adapted habitat

that basically created us
over generational time.

There's absolutely
no disconnect.

In the words of Jacque Fresco

"You don't see the
plug up our ass

but it happens to be there."

And then we have...

Then we have the
knowledge level as well

as I alluded to before.

We exist in a group mind.

Newton did not invent gravity

just as Einstein did
not invent relativity.

For him to do so, he
would have had to invent

the whole of mathematical development
since the beginning of time

along with all the tools
and supporting provisions

and everything else that
comprised his state of knowledge

naturally, at that
point in history.

Every word coming out of
my mouth has been learned.

We only have the
illusion of novelty

because each of us appear

to originate in seemingly
separate pockets of experience

in this connected
unison that we share.

Our supposed creations
seem unique and original

and novel but they're
only expansions.

As stated at the beginning,
there's nowhere to hide

from the collective consciousness and
we're all responsible for each other.

The underlining meaning
of this presentation

is that, until human society
again is able to find

a basic, common, working,
responsible value set

which we can
basically agree upon

which is consistently pinged
against the emerging benchmark

of our scientific reality

we have a very
difficult road ahead.

Within this context, as we
listen to the world around us

I consider the most active
value orientation we can have

which almost guarantees
an empathetic reaction

which hopefully can maintain this
social diligence that's required

I consider the acceptance of
our intrinsic unification

to be the most powerful form
of expression of these ideas:

an acknowledgment of the oneness
as it is poetically termed.

This oneness over division value

seems to be the ultimate example
(at least in this point in time)

of our limited
dimensional perception

being overcome by the
multi-dimensional reality

and if properly understood

there could be no basis for war.

There could be no
logic for greed.

There could be no such thing
as inefficiency and waste

no basis for poverty.
There can't possibly be class

and as abstract and
misunderstood as it might sound

there could be no
basis to define you

and there could be no
basis to define me.

Thank you.