Looking-Glass Selves

Please sign the Earth Proclamation on this page . Personal Commitment I, the undersigned, aware that human activities are seriously endangering the fragile ecosystems of our planet, aware of the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots, aware of the need to redirect my energies to protect and restore the global Web of Life, decide to begin right now to rethink my ways and values, and change what needs to be changed in myself and around me. I want to contribute to the local and global efforts now underway to create a better world based on equality, justice and a sustainable planet - a world in which Peace on Earth prevails. Understanding that we are all individually responsible for the kind of future we will create for our children and for countless generations to come, I will participate in initiatives, locally and globally, to transform our world and protect this Jewel of Life we call Earth. I agree with this Earth Proclamation and personally commit myself to ...

Please sign the Oneness Declaration on this page . I declare: 1.    That the message We Are All One, inter-related, inter-connected and inter-dependent, with God/Life/One-another, is the one spiritual message that the world has been waiting for to bring about loving and sustainable answers to humanity’s challenges. 2.    That the world does not have to be the way it is – and that individual people can change it, using the power of spiritual citizenship. 3.    That humanity is good and has unlimited potential, and that social transformation starts with personal transformation. I therefore recognize the importance of connecting with my divine essence and inner wisdom throughout my life’s journey; allowing the finest and the highest levels of human potential to flourish for the benefit of all. 4.    Our aspirations support spiritual principles, global ethics, and universal values such as respect, justice, peace...

First, saying that we don't have enough to meet everyone's rights or needs is absurd - especially living in a world of tremendous disparities between the rich and the poor. Second, IMO, codependence is not "destructive altruism." Altruism cannot be destructive. Codependence is self-pity, narcissism, and manipulation.

The U.S., which has no official language, has always been both Anglo-American and Latin American. By making English and Spanish the two official languages (like French and English in Canada), the U.S. can also embrace its heritage as a Latin American country (The Southwest and Puerto Rico).

There is nothing innate about ownership. It is a learned concept. Some societies have it. Others don't. "Theft" begins with a model of unconditional individual ownership. I see nothing wrong with limited ownership. However, the question needs to be asked, "What gives people the right to own something?" Ultimately, societies make those decisions, not individuals. The fact that we pay taxes indicates that limitations are already placed on individual ownership. As a socialist, I believe that those limitations need to be increased. For instance, some people have argued against aspects of the Welfare State on the grounds that it deprives them of their freedom. Where justice and freedom conflict, precedence should, IMO, be given to justice.

The violent incident in Wisconsin today is further evidence of the rednecking of America. This country has a gun fetish. Of course, Sikhs are not Muslims, However, IMO, the politicians who have been recently attacking Muslims, including Secretary Clinton's aid, are especially culpable.

First, you are confusing a scenario with reality. The Rockefeller Foundation is laying out a few possible events in order to assist with preparedness training. The fact that we live in a dangerous world, indicated by the security precautions which have been taken for the London Olympics, does not indicate that anyone in government has some nefarious scheme. Use Ockam's razor (parsimony or economy). Second, when people (including myself) use the term new world order, we are using it to refer to the world as it exists now, not to some possible world government. Now, some folks (again, myself included) would like to see the new world order evolve into a kind of world governance or government. However, that idea continues to be debated. In any event, it is not a secret conspiracy. Those who recognize the changes in the world, and the need to move political and economic institutions into the 21st century, are very open about it.

Many people discuss (and attack) feminists as if they are a monolith (all the same). Objectivizing people may make life easier. However, people are not stereotyped categories. For instance, whenever you type "feminists," you might replace it (in your mind) with members of a racial or religious minority (or Autists for that matter). It is the same issue.

People can debate whether a country is real. However, debating whether a being is real, while some have tried, is more problematic. As a Critical Realist, I would suggest that humanity is real. Roy Bhaskar says that we are all connected through co-presence or a cosmic envelope. On the other hand, countries come and go. Some countries are not even recognized as legal entities by other countries. (For instance, China does not recognize Taiwan as being separate from Mainland China.) Humanity is ontological. Countries are epistemological (perceptive).

The problem is that sexual orientation (or sexual preference) is a late-20th-century concept. The concept was developed after gays and lesbians were more socially accepted. In other words, there had to be a term which distinguished homosexuals from heterosexuals. Taking the concept of sexual orientation and retrofitting it onto an ancient manuscript, such as a Biblical text, doesn't make much sense to me.

Some of my tax money supports services I may never use. That is the end result of not living on an island.

In light of the recent massacre in Colorado, To be honest, many (not all) of the people I have seen oppose gun control online are precisely the ones who should never be allowed to purchase a gun.

My views are the opposite, in most respects, from libertarianism. However, in fairness, not all libertarians are extremists. People who post on almost any subject online tend to be the most passionate ones. That can make it appear that everyone has extreme views.

Jefferson apparently changed his mind on that subject several times - going back and forth between deism and theism. People have argued whether Jefferson was one or the other. In fact, there is good textual evidence that he was both at different times of his life.

In my opinion, what happened to David Wilcock is the almost inevitable result of buying into a massive global conspiracy. Over time, people become more and more gullible. Eventually, they will believe almost everything. Wilcock is not the first to be "had," and he won't be the last. Wilcock began with a marketing strategy. Like many people in the new age field, he needed to create a niche for himself. Over time, he has been increasingly de-emphasizing the Cayce angle. He didn't need it anymore. He still talks about Ra (law of one). However, he pretty much stopped the channeling business, too. Wilcock was simply conned. In that way, he is not unlike some people I knew online who followed Harold Camping - the guy who predicted the rapture for 2011. It is the old story of the conman getting conned. P.T. Barnum was right. Wilcock's supposed source, "Drake," is now claiming that certain people in the military gave him the wrong dates. Sadly, some peopl...