Please do your own research. The information I share is only a catalyst to expanding ones confined consciousness. I have NO desire for anyone to blindly believe or agree with what I share. Seek the truth for yourself and put your own puzzle together that has been presented to you. I'm not here to teach, preach or lead, but rather assist in awakening the consciousness of the collective from its temporary dormancy.
Plants communicate, nurture their seedlings, and get stressed.
Consider a forest: One notices the trunks, of course, and the canopy. If a few roots project artfully above the soil and fallen leaves, one notices those too, but with little thought for a matrix that may spread as deep and wide as the branches above. Fungi don’t register at all except for a sprinkling of mushrooms; those are regarded in isolation, rather than as the fruiting tips of a vast underground lattice intertwined with those roots. The world beneath the earth is as rich as the one above.
For the past two decades, Suzanne Simard, a professor in the Department of Forest & Conservation at the University of British Columbia, has studied that unappreciated underworld. Her specialty is mycorrhizae: the symbiotic unions of fungi and root long known to help plants absorb nutrients from soil. Beginning with landmark experiments describing how carbon flowed between paper birch and Douglas fir trees, Simard found that mycorrhizae didn’t just connect trees to the earth, but to each other as well.
Simard went on to show how mycorrhizae-linked trees form networks, with individuals she dubbed Mother Trees at the center of communities that are in turn linked to one another, exchanging nutrients and water in a literally pulsing web that includes not only trees but all of a forest’s life. These insights had profound implications for our understanding of forest ecology—but that was just the start.
Tree Whisperer: “I think that we’re so utilitarian with plants and we abuse them to no end. I think that comes from us having our blinders on. We haven’t looked,” says forest ecologist Suzanne Simard (above). Photo credit: Jdoswim / Wikimedia.
It’s not just nutrient flows that Simard describes. It’s communication. She—and other scientists studying roots, and also chemical signals and even the sounds plant make—have pushed the study of plants into the realm of intelligence. Rather than biological automata, they might be understood as creatures with capacities that in animals are readily regarded as learning, memory, decision-making, and even agency.
This can be difficult to wrap one’s head around. Plants are not supposed to be smart, at least not according to the rubric of traditions known as western thought. There’s also a case to be made that, while these behaviors are indeed extraordinary, they don’t map neatly onto what people usually mean by learning and memory and communication. Perhaps trying to define plants’ behavior according to our own narrow conceptions risks obscuring what is unique about their intelligence.
It’s a rich and fascinating debate, one that won’t be answered without a great deal more research—and that research ought to be conducted with an open mind to the possibility that plants have minds. Simard spoke with Nautilus from her office at the University of British Columbia about the horizons of her work.
Behind a growing root tip is a bunch of differentiating cells. Darwin thought those cells determined where roots would grow and forage. He thought the behavior of a plant was basically governed by what happened in those cells.
The work I and others have been doing—looking at kinship in plants, how they recognize each other and communicate—involves the roots. Except now we know more than Darwin did; we know that all plants, except for a small handful of families, are mycorrhizal: The behavior of their roots is governed by symbiosis.
It’s not just those cells at a plant root’s tip, but their interaction with fungus, that determines a root’s behavior. Darwin was onto something. He just didn’t have the full picture. And I’ve come to think that root systems and the mycorrhizal networks that link those systems are designed like neural networks, and behave like neural networks, and a neural network is the seeding of intelligence in our brains.
You’ve written that what makes neural networks so special is their scale-free character, which plant networks share as well. What does scale-free mean? Why is it so important?
All networks have links and nodes. In the example of a forest, trees are nodes and fungal linkages are links. Scale-free means that there are a few large nodes and a lot of smaller ones. And that is true in forests in many different ways: You’ve got a few large trees and then a lot of little trees. A few large patches of old-growth forest, and then more of these smaller patches. This kind of scale-free phenomenon happens across many scales.
You can smell the defense chemistry of a forest under attack. Something is being emitted and plants and animals perceive that and change their behaviors.
Do you see scale-free networks at the level of individual trees, too, in the interactions within a single root system?
I haven’t actually measured that, but there’s many things that you could look at. For example, root size. You’ve got a few large roots that support finer and finer roots. My guess is that they follow the same pattern.
What makes that configuration so special?
Systems evolve toward those patterns because they’re efficient and resilient. If we think of my forest, and the networks I’ve described, that design is efficient for transmitting resources among trees and how they interact with each other. In our brains, scale-free networks are an efficient way for us to transmit neurotransmitters.
There’s something so primally amazing about networks between and within trees having similar properties to the networks in our brains. In the case of our brains, we understand that there’s something about the structure of these networks that gives rise to cognition. What are some examples of plant cognition?
How do you define cognition? I’m asking because there’s a whole group of scientists who say we shouldn’t use that term because it means different things.
Would it be any better if I had used the word “intelligence”?
I’ve used the word intelligence in my writing because I think that scientifically we attribute intelligence to certain structures and functions. When we dissect a plant and the forest and look at those things—Does it have a neural network? Is there communication? Is there perception and reception of messages? Will you change behaviors depending on what you’re perceiving? Do you remember things? Do you learn things? Would you do something differently if you had experienced something in the past?—those are all hallmarks of intelligence. Plants do have intelligence. They have all the structures. They have all the functions. They have the behaviors.
Another word that can be slippery is “communication.” I would define communication as any exchange of information. That’s a very big umbrella; it can apply to, say, the co-evolution of berry coloration and bird tastes, so that over time berry color becomes more appealing to birds and correlates with nutrient properties. That’s communication—but we categorize that differently than we do the alarm calls squirrels give when a hawk approaches, or the conversation you and I are having right now. Where in that spectrum do plant communications fall?
Right in there. And we’re prisoners of our own western science; indigenous people have long known that plants will communicate with each other. But even in western science we know it because you can smell the defense chemistry of a forest under attack. Something is being emitted that has a chemistry that all those other plants and animals perceive, and they change their behaviors accordingly.
Putting science on that raises our own awareness that these plants are communicating just like we are. It’s just not a vocal thing—although some people are even measuring acoustics in trees and realizing there’s lots of sounds that we can’t hear, and that could be part of their communication. But I don’t know how far that research has gone. In my own work I’ve looked at the conversation through chemistry.
When you and I communicate, though, regardless of whether it’s through sounds or scents, there are still individuals involved who have internal models of the world. It’s a conversation between conscious individuals, rather than an exchange of information that takes place without some awareness of that information being exchanged. Does that type of communication exist among plants? I’m not trying to reinforce some hierarchy where one type of communication is better than another, but to understand the distinctions.
I think what you’re trying to get at is whether there’s a purposefulness to it.
A purpose, and also some locus to receive and direct that purpose. In the animal intelligence world, some philosophers now talk about pre-reflective self-awareness. The idea is that there’s a coherent sense of self, an awareness that you are you, that’s possessed by all animals by virtue of their having senses and some capacity for memory. The moment there’s perception and memory, there’s a self. Do you think plants have a self that is making those communications?
Those are really good questions. Probably the best evidence we have—and keep in mind that scientists have looked at humans and animals a lot longer than plants—is kin recognition between trees and seedlings that are their own kin. Those old trees can tell which seedlings are of their own seed. We don’t completely understand how they do it, but we know there are very sophisticated actions going on between fungi associated with those particular trees. We know these old trees are changing their behavior in ways that give advantages to their own kin. Then the kin responds in sophisticated ways by growing better or having better chemistry. A parent tree will even kill off its own offspring if they’re not in a good place to grow.
When you go and whack off the top of a plant, there’s a huge response there. It’s not a benign thing. Is that an emotional response?
That last example, of a mother tree killing her offspring if conditions are unfavorable, touches on what I was trying to get at. Does the mother tree know she’s doing it? Is there a choice? Can a mother tree choose whether or not to provide care, and then at some level does she know this?
We have done what we call choice experiments, in which we have a mother tree, a kin seedling, and a stranger seedling. The mother tree can choose which one to provide for. We found that she’ll provide for her own kin over something that’s not her kin. Another experiment is where a mother tree is ill and providing resources for strangers versus kin. There’s differentiation there, too. As she’s ill and dying, she provides more for her kin.
We’ve done lots of experiments where we adjust the health of the donor—the mother tree—versus the health of the recipient, the seedling, by altering levels of shade or nitrogen or water. It matters what condition each of them is in; they can perceive each other, and those decisions are made depending on conditions. If we suppress the health of the recipient seedling, the mother tree will provide more resources than if we don’t.
We focus mostly on a one-way thing rather than both ways. It’s hard to manipulate and measure big old trees; we’ve been trapped by the sheer size of trees and how they respond, how we can manipulate them and then measure their responses because they’re diluted against this bigger array of things going on with them. I think we should do those experiments—it seems crazy that it wouldn’t be a two-way perception.
Does a mother tree have a mental image of those seedlings? Of course, a mental image is a very animal-specific concept. But does it have some internal construct, however it’s represented? Is that the same thing as having a memory of the seedlings in the way I have a memory of, say, my cat? I can think about my cat right now even though he’s in another room, not because I’m perceiving him but because I have a mental construct.
You can look at the rings of a tree. The interactions with seedlings affect growth rates; they affect how much water and nutrients are taken up. People can reconstruct this and say, “Oh, this neighbor died over here in this particular year. This tree got released.” They can even compartmentalize those responses in certain parts of the tree trunk. Different plants have different abilities to do that, but the memory is housed in the tree rings of all trees. In conifers, they also house those memories in the chemistry of their needles. An evergreen tree, for example, will hold on to its needles for five to 10 years.
We know old trees change their behavior to give advantages to their own kin. A parent tree will kill off its own offspring if they’re not in a good place to grow.
In research on animal intelligence, there’s long been an emphasis—arguably it’s still there now—on non-emotional and non-affective forms of cognition. Now more and more researchers are also studying emotions, and realizing that those other forms of cognition, like memory and problem-solving and reasoning, are intertwined with emotion.
If you take the neurobiology underlying our emotions out of the equation, then problem-solving and reasoning don’t develop. With plants, most of the research I’ve read has been about the quote-unquote non-emotional side of things. Is there also emotion in plants?
I wish I knew more about emotion and affective learning. That said, let’s say you have a group of plants and stress one out, it will have a big response. Botanists can measure their serotonin responses. They have serotonin. They also have glutamate, which is one of our own neurotransmitters. There’s a ton of it in plants. They have these responses immediately. If we clip their leaves or put a bunch of bugs on them, all that neurochemistry changes. They start sending messages really fast to their neighbors.
Is that an emotional response? I guess it is. But I can hear my botanist side saying, “That’s not an emotion. That’s just a response.” But I think we can draw these parallels. It comes down to language again, to how we apply this language to look at these responses in plants.
I think bridging that communication gap is important so that people realize that when you go and whack off the top of a plant, there’s a huge response there. It’s not a benign thing. Is that an emotional response? It’s certainly trying to save itself. It upregulates. Its genes respond. It starts producing these chemicals. How is that different than us all of a sudden producing a whole bunch of norepinephrine?
Are there things we’re missing in plants because our concepts of intelligence are drawn from humans and from animals? There could be whole ways of being we don’t even have words for.
I think that we are. I think that we’re so utilitarian with plants and we abuse them to no end. I think that comes from us having our blinders on. We haven’t looked. We just make these assumptions about them that they’re these benign creatures that have no emotion. No intelligence. They don’t behave like we do, so we just block it out.
The other thing I’m going to say is that I made these discoveries about these networks below ground, how trees can be connected by these fungal networks and communicate. But if you go back to and listen to some of the early teachings of the Coast Salish and the indigenous people along the western coast of North America, they knew that already. It’s in the writings and in the oral history.
The idea of the mother tree has long been there. The fungal networks, the below-ground networks that keep the whole forest healthy and alive, that’s also there. That these plants interact and communicate with each other, that’s all there. They used to call the trees the tree people. The strawberries were the strawberry people. Western science shut that down for a while and now we’re getting back to it.
What other relationships are possible? What does it mean to be giving, to be empathic with the vegetal world?
There’s two words that come straight to mind. One of them is responsibility. I think that modern society hasn’t felt a responsibility to the plant world. So being responsible stewards is one thing. And also regaining respect—a respectful interaction with those trees, those plants.
If you’ve ever read Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer, she talks about how she’ll go into the forest to harvest some plants for medicine or food. She asks the plants. It’s called respectful harvest. It’s not just, “Oh I’m going to ask the plant if I can harvest it, and if it says no, I won’t.” It’s looking and observing and being respectful of the condition of those plants. I think that’s the relationship of being responsible—not just for the plants, but for ourselves, and for the children and multiple generations before and after us.
I think this work on trees, on how they connect and communicate, people understand it right away. It’s wired into us to understand this. And I don’t think it’s going to be hard for us to relearn it.
Brandon Keim is a freelance nature and science journalist. He is the author of “The Eye of the Sandpiper: Stories from the Living World” and “Meet the Neighbors” from W.W. Norton & Company, about what it means to think of wild animals as fellow persons—and what that means for the future of nature.
Bee venom is effective in killing aggressive breast cancer cells, an astonishing new study from an Aussie scientist has found.
Results revealed the venom – from honeybees sourced in Western Australia, England and Ireland – rapidly destroyed triple-negative breast cancer and HER2-enriched breast cancer cells.
The scientist behind the research, Dr Ciara Duffy, said a specific concentration of honeybee venom could kill 100 per cent of cancer cells.
Aussie scientist Ciara Duffy has made an extraordinary discovery: Honeybee venom can kill aggressive breast cancer cells
She said the treatment had minimal effects on normal cells.
“The venom was extremely potent,” she said.
Dr Duffy, from the Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research and The University of Western Australia, used the venom from 312 bees to test the effect on the clinical subtypes of breast cancer, including types with limited treatment options.
The key ingredient was the compound melittin, naturally occurring in the venom, which Dr Duffy said can be reproduced synthetically.
“We found that melittin can completely destroy cancer cell membranes within 60 minutes,“ she said.
“No-one had previously compared the effects of honeybee venom or melittin across all of the different subtypes of breast cancer and normal cells.”
She said melittin in honeybee venom also had another remarkable effect: within 20 minutes, melittin was able to substantially reduce the chemical messages of cancer cells that are essential to cancer cell growth and cell division.
“We looked at how honeybee venom and melittin affect the cancer signalling pathways, the chemical messages that are fundamental for cancer cell growth and reproduction, and we found that very quickly these signalling pathways were shut down,” she said.
Western Australia’s chief scientist, Professor Peter Klinken, said it was an “incredibly exciting observation”.
“It provides another wonderful example of where compounds in nature can be used to treat human diseases,” he said.
Dr Duffy’s research was conducted as part of her PhD.
“I began with collecting Perth honeybee venom,” she said.
“Perth bees are some of the healthiest in the world.
“The bees were put to sleep with carbon dioxide and kept on ice before the venom barb was pulled out from the abdomen of the bee and the venom extracted by careful dissection.”
During the run up to 2012 the world was fascinated by the idea of the shift, that is, an awakening that first takes place within the individual, then radiates outward into our communities and societies at large, changing the world for the better.
At that time, attention was mainly focused around the personal dynamics involved in this, including the work of navigating the upheaval and turmoil that precedes inner peace and profound transformation.
Much of this shift was triggered by newfound awareness of the corruption and deception in our political and social institutions. The pain of realizing that the material world is built on lies left us with no place to go but inward.
We explored meditation and energy healing, radically altered our diets, opened our minds to different ways of thinking and relating to the world, embraced ancestral wisdom, and we fearlessly answered the call to purge, heal and connect.
The energy around this was very intense, but it inspired a tremendous sense of wonder and creativity.
But, as all things do, the flow in this new space began to ebb, and since around 2016 it has felt like a major regression happened, taking us back into the dense, murky energies of cognitive dissonance and willful ignorance.
So much so, that the last few years has had many of us wondering what the hell the point was in all of this. We began to doubt that our willingness to change had any real value in a world so hopelessly shipwrecked in the shallow end of the pool.
When 2020 began, nothing had substantively changed in the world around us, and for many of us, this muddled our sense of purpose and direction. Many of us fell back into old habits and old pursuits. Business and pleasure.
And then all of a sudden, boom! Here we are.
No denying it now, the train has left the station and everything is being exposed.
All of the darkness, depravity and evil that we’ve been collectively covering up and ignoring for generations is squealing and squirming in this flash of bright light.
The powers that be see what’s happening, they’ve revealed their hand, and they’re pulling out all the stops in order to maintain the illusion of control.
Indeed, we find ourselves in quite a vulnerable position, and since we’ve been quarantined from all of the distractions that’ve helped to blanket us from reality, we can no longer avoid the truth.
A new awakening is happening now, and this time it is global. We can no longer numb ourselves to this.
“We numb vulnerability — when we’re waiting for the call… This is the world we live in. We live in a vulnerable world. And one of the ways we deal with it is we numb vulnerability… And I think there’s evidence — and it’s not the only reason this evidence exists, but I think it’s a huge cause — We are the most in-debt … obese … addicted and medicated adult cohort in U.S. history.
“The problem is — and I learned this from the research — that you cannot selectively numb emotion. You can’t say, here’s the bad stuff. Here’s vulnerability, here’s grief, here’s shame, here’s fear, here’s disappointment. I don’t want to feel these. I’m going to have a couple of beers and a banana nut muffin.” ~ Brené Brown
As the awakening rolls forward, it’s taking everyone with it. How it ends is anyone’s guess, and since we’re all along for the ride, it may be insightful to connect some of what we’re feeling to the bigger picture of the change that is coming our way.
Perhaps You Can Relate To Some Of These New Signs Of The Awakening?
You see a clear connection between the chaos in the world and the inner turmoil you’ve been diligently working to transform.
You just don’t do fear anymore. It no longer has the pull on you it once did. You know yourself to be spirit.
You understand that the universe is mental, and that your thoughts are the most precious tools of creation. For this, you readily notice when your mind is slipping from the present moment and when it tries to engage you in fear. You have the power and determination to bring it back into alignment with your purpose and mission.
You’re learning how to powerfully use your voice to contribute to the awakening and to help those who cannot speak for themselves.
You don’t play sides, and you don’t choose a team. You watch, observe, and disengage when you see people acting out on agendas that are not their own.
You see the futility and danger in belief systems, and you don’t bow to authority. You stay firmly grounded in what is real and what can be verified by your own experience. You are your own master.
You give people of all beliefs the freedom to expose their fear, anger and confusion however it may surface. You don’t judge, debate, or try to correct people who don’t see the world as you do.
You care for yourself first so that you may have more power to care for others.
You deliberately work to foster connection between yourself and others, above and beyond the superficiality so prevalent in public discourse.
You fully trust in this process and accept the fate of the world as part of it.
You recognize that your most powerful task is that of letting go.
The stakes are incredibly high right now and the future of human freedom is at stake. This is not hyperbole.
The Great Reset [which is the New World Order] is coming our way, and while the globalists, central banks and international agencies would like to hijack this and steer us toward a new form of technocratic worldwide Orwellian slavery, the human race has never before had such a true opportunity to free itself from their chains.
The location was perfect for a new capital city. There were, of course, the standard prophecies that a great metropolis was destined to arise there. Even more persuasive, perhaps, were the reports that of all the districts along the Tigris River, the site was said to be the least infested with mosquitoes. But the main reason the caliph Abu Jafar al-Mansur chose to build his capital at Baghdad was that, with the absorption of Persia into Dar al-Islam, the “abode of Islam” had spread far to the east, and the place that would be Baghdad lay right at its heart.
But what good is the right place if it’s not also the right time? Accordingly, al-Mansur summoned his top astrologers—Nawbakht, a Persian, and Masha’allah, a Jew—to determine the optimal moment to inaugurate construction. Remarkably, the horoscope of Baghdad’s foundation has been preserved in the writings of al-Biruni, one of the foremost astronomers of a few centuries later. Baghdad’s founding can therefore be dated with especially high confidence to the afternoon of July 30 in the year 762. At that precise instant, Jupiter, the planet of kingdoms and dynasties, was rising in the east, while Mars, the planet of war, was setting in the west. Indeed, no horoscope could have been more appropriate for a city that al-Mansur insisted be called Madinat as-Salam, the “City of Peace.”
Looking back at Baghdad’s founding, there is a strong case to be made that al-Mansur’s personal obsession with astrology was the not-so-secret impetus for his city’s scientific pursuits. Certainly, the almost manic translation of Greek texts into Arabic that took place in the city appears a lot less eccentric if it’s understood as part of a government initiative to harness the power of the stars. Prior to seizing the caliphate, al-Mansur had cultivated his power base among the conquered provinces of Persia. There, in return, he was influenced by a Persian tradition that saw the fall of Persia and the rise of the Arabs in explicitly astrological terms. One of the earliest expositors of this idea was none other than Masha’allah, the Jewish astrologer hand-picked by the caliph to cast the horoscope for his new capital city. Just as the planets rose and set in their allotted times, so, too, it was said, did kingdoms, dynasties, and even religions. The most importance of these cycles, insofar as they were supposed to herald events of global significance, were the successive conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn.
Astrology’s insistence on linking earthly events with celestial causes in this way may seem, today, like an easily dismissed irrationality. Yet the astrologers of antiquity were no mushy-headed mystics. On the contrary, astrology was the ancient world’s most ambitious applied mathematics problem, a grand data-analysis enterprise sustained for centuries by some of history’s most brilliant minds, from Ptolemy to al-Kindi to Kepler. Astrology’s demand for high-precision planetary data led directly to Copernicus’s revolution and, from there, to modern science. Astrology’s challenge—teasing out inferences from numerical data, determining which patterns are real and which aren’t—remains fundamental in science today, too, especially as society relies increasingly on complex, data-driven algorithms. Astrologers were the quants and data scientists of their day; those who are enthusiastic about the promise of data for unlocking the secrets of our world should note that others have come this way before. Our irrepressibly human penchant for pattern-matching makes the history of astrology—a history that can bring together astronomy, statistics, cryptology, Shakespeare, COVID-19, presidential assassinations, and even the New York Yankees in a dance of coincidence and correlation—surprisingly timely and always fascinating.
Astrology was the ancient world’s most ambitious applied mathematics problem.
Saturn, the outermost planet visible to the naked eye, takes about 30 years to complete an orbit through the zodiac constellations of the night sky. Jupiter, the largest and the next-most-distant planet, takes about 12 years. As these two astral giants chase each other around, Jupiter catches up to and passes Saturn roughly once every 20 years. The moment when these planets, or any two heavenly bodies, line up in ecliptic longitude is called a conjunction. As a curious consequence of orbital mechanics, every conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn occurs almost exactly one third of the way around the zodiac from the spot of the previous conjunction. Thus, three successive Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions will trace an almost-perfect equilateral triangle in the sky.
To give an example: If Jupiter and Saturn come into conjunction in the zodiac sign of Aries, then approximately 20 years later, their next conjunction can be expected to occur in Sagittarius. The following conjunction, 20 years after that, will be in Leo, before it cycles back to Aries. Aries, Sagittarius, and Leo are the three zodiac signs associated with the element of fire. Thus, in this example, the sequence of Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions occurred entirely within the triangle of fire signs, a pattern also known as the fiery trigon or triplicity.
Of course, the astral triangles traced out this way don’t exactly overlap, and so after about 10 conjunctions, or roughly 200 years, the entire pattern migrates to the next triplicity of signs. Over about 800 years, the sequence of Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions will slowly cycle through all four triplicities: fiery, earthy (Taurus, Capricorn, Virgo), airy (Gemini, Aquarius, Libra), and watery (Cancer, Pisces, Scorpio).
Masha’allah and his successors saw in this sequence an organizing principle for the entire history of the world. Local political changes, they suggested, were augured by the regular or “little conjunctions” that occur roughly once every 20 years. Larger shifts of kingdoms and dynasties, about every 200 years, were heralded by “middle conjunctions,” when the sequence migrates from one triplicity to another. Finally, the most momentous historical upheavals, such as the fall of empires or the rise of new religions, were portended by “great conjunctions,” once in a millennium, when the sequence of conjunctions has completed a full cycle through all four zodiac triplicities: fire, earth, air, and water.
The chronology Masha’allah developed with this theory placed the creation of the universe in the year 8292 B.C., with the first conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn assigned to the year 5783 B.C., in the sign of Taurus. Masha’allah then hopped through the history of the world, conjunction by conjunction, pausing only to comment on a select few that he deemed to be especially history-altering.
There’s the Great Flood, which he dated to 3361 B.C., naturally during a watery triplicity. After leaping past several cycles of great conjunctions, he arrived at 26 B.C., the time of a shift from a watery to a fiery triplicity. According to Masha’allah, this transfer heralded the birth of Christ and the advent of the Christian era. It also adds an interesting spin to John the Baptist’s prophecy that, although he baptized with water, the one who followed him would baptize with fire.
Skipping ahead a half-millennium, Masha’allah next examined the conjunction of the year 571, which brought the sequence back to another watery triplicity. This transfer presaged the birth of Muhammad and the rise of the Arabs, whose sign, according to Masha’allah, was Scorpio.
Finally arriving at the events of his own day, Masha’allah regarded the conjunction of 769—the end of a watery triplicity and the beginning of a fiery one—as an indicator of an ebb in Arab power and a resurgence of Persia. As for Masha’allah himself, it’s believed that he died around the year 815. He did, however, extend his chronology to predict, entirely accurately although rather unimaginatively, continued political strife between Arabs and Persians.
Recreating Masha’allah’s chronology of Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions using modern data reveals that his approximations for the orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn were actually pretty decent, even if there’s never really a sharp transition between one triplicity and the next. The pattern of small, middle, and great conjunctions still stands out in modern data, a charmingly captivating system. It’s easy to see why anyone with a knack for historical dates might get engrossed in its narrative possibilities. Were the renewed conquests of Islam under the Ottomans due to the return of a watery triplicity? Is the Middle East more susceptible to European invasion, by crusaders or colonialists, when an earthy triplicity holds sway? It hardly seems any more arbitrary than, say, the ancient, medieval, and Renaissance periods taught in school.
The pattern of conjunctions stands out in modern data, a charmingly captivating system with many narrative possibilities.
In fact, astrologically organized histories were considered quite scientific during the Medieval Period—or, if you prefer, during the seventh great conjunction cycle between the fiery triplicities of 769 and 1603. The most prominent popularizer of this approach was Abu Mashar, the preeminent astrologer of Baghdad the generation after Masha’allah. And among its notable proponents was Abraham ibn Ezra, medieval Spain’s famed Jewish poet and philosopher, who inserted the theory into his commentary on Exodus.
Christian chronologists were similarly swept up. The dreaded return of the fiery triplicity in 1603, a year that saw the death of England’s Queen Elizabeth I, was examined at length by no less an authority than astronomer Johannes Kepler. Several writers even went so far as to rely on the scheme for some pretty bold predictions. German monk Johannes Trithemius, for example, writing around the year 1500, bluntly asserted that liberty would not be restored to the Jews prior to August 1880. In fact, this is more or less exactly when the first wave of Zionist settlers immigrated to Ottoman Palestine. The medical faculty of Paris blamed the Black Plague, which arrived in Europe in 1347, on a corruption of the atmosphere caused by the conjunction of Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars in Aquarius the year 1345. (Incidentally, this is the exact same configuration that has prevailed during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020.) But most notoriously of all, French Catholic cardinal Pierre d’Ailly, writing around 1400, concluded his astrological history of the world with a warning that the Antichrist could be expected to arrive in the year 1789. Depending on how reactionary your views are regarding the French Revolution, this may strike you as humorously prescient.
Unlike with other astrological assertions, where an analysis might entail an elaborate hunt for the faintest hint of a correlation, the correlations in the conjunction theory of history seem to leap out from everywhere. It is roughly analogous to the engineering distinction between noise, in which nothing looks like a signal, and clutter, in which everything looks like a signal. Perhaps, though, an even better analogy can be made to cryptology: History, here, is like a secret code, with astrology as its key.
The art of concealing a message in secret writing is called cryptography and its practice is as old as writing itself, but deciphering a secret message without a key requires cryptanalysis—which emerged as a science only in Baghdad under the Abbasids. The father of cryptanalysis was Abu Yusuf Yaqub ibn Ishaq al-Kindi, a man who was deeply devout, deeply mathematical, and deeply obsessed with astrology. His treatise On Rays, for example, has to be history’s most valiant attempt to give astrology—and magic—a firm, philosophical foundation.
As al-Kindi recognized, the art of writing is itself an act of magic, in its power is to transmit thoughts and emotions across vast distances with symbols alone. Given al-Kindi’s sensitivity to the power of symbols, it’s altogether apt that he, together with his famous contemporary al-Khwarizmi, was instrumental in promoting the adoption of Hindu numerals. The magic of this system derives from the digit 0, which permits, through its use as a placeholder, every natural number to be expressed with just 10 abstract characters.
The Arabic word for the digit 0 is صفر, sifr. When this system was introduced to Europe by Fibonacci (of the famous sequence), sifr was Latinized as zephirum, which gave rise both to the word “zero” and the word “cipher.” To medieval Europeans, who were used to seeing a quantity such as one-thousand, two-hundred and two written as MCCII, the characters 1202 doubtless did look like a secret code, or cipher.
Living in Baghdad, where transcription, translation, and interpretation rose to the level of a spiritual calling as well as an intellectual one, al-Kindi would have been well aware of the power of symbols to conceal. But al-Kindi outstripped all of his predecessors in compelling symbols to reveal their secrets. His “Manuscript on Deciphering Cryptographic Messages” was the first to show that simple ciphers can be cracked by a technique known today as frequency analysis.
And yet, not all of the universe’s secrets are encrypted with a cipher. Occasionally, some of the deepest secrets can be found hiding right before our eyes. The practice of concealing a message in plain sight, so to speak, is called steganography, from the Greek stego (στέγω), meaning “cover,” and grapho (γράφω), meaning “write.” Steganography is a much more devious craft than conventional cryptography since, while it’s obvious that a text in cipher is concealing a secret message, however difficult it may be to decipher, the object of steganography is to deflect suspicion that there’s any secret at all.
Astrology presents endless layers of planetary patterns, from perfectly real to positively paranoid.
Simply put, anything can, and most everything has, historically, been used to cloak secrets in settings that are otherwise perfectly public, be it poetry, music, botanical drawings—or star charts. In fact, as recently as 1996, a hidden message was discovered to have been concealed in the astrological tables of a notorious occult manuscript from the 1500s. The mischievous monk who devised this scheme was Johannes Trithemius, the same one who predicted the political fortunes of the Jews. Remarkably, he even went so far as to write an entire book about steganography which, appropriately enough, he disguised to look like a book of spells for summoning spirits. (A pretty neat trick, don’t you think?)
The ability to look at the world and see what others cannot is generally taken as a mark of genius. But for every al-Kindi, Copernicus, or Einstein, there have been thousands who insist on seeing connections that simply aren’t there. Astrology likes to hover on the boundary between the two, presenting endless layers of planetary patterns, from perfectly real to positively paranoid.
Returning to Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions, why were they so often interpreted as a code to the secrets of history? With a traditional cipher, the correct key results in a perfectly readable message, while the wrong key returns gibberish. With steganography, however, nothing can be ruled out. Anyone who maintains that there’s no correlation between the conjunctions of the planets and the events of world history is in the unenviable stance of having to prove a negative. The mathematical procedures pioneered by al-Kindi, the original father of cryptology, are powerless here. We can, however, turn to the man who is rightly called the father of modern cryptology: William Friedman, best known for breaking the Japanese diplomatic ciphers in the run-up to World War II.
Oddly, William Friedman, America’s preeminent 20th-century codebreaker, began his cryptologic career when he was hired, with no prior experience, to search for hidden messages in the works of William Shakespeare. Specifically, he was asked to verify the existence of certain ciphers, to use the term loosely, supposedly proving that the works of Shakespeare were actually authored by Francis Bacon, the essayist, philosopher of science, and onetime chancellor of England. Proponents of these ciphers claimed that individual letters in the early printings of Shakespeare’s plays were marked in subtle ways. With a generous eye and a suggestive mind, true believers had managed to combine these letters into startlingly elaborate confessions that Shakespeare had been a mere front for the genius of Bacon. Friedman thought all of this was lunacy.
Later, during his retirement, Friedman was determined to settle the matter once and for all. In this, he was joined by his wife, Elizebeth, whom he had first met as a fellow skeptic in the original Shakespeare cipher group. Like William, Elizebeth would become a distinguished cryptologist in her own right, leading, for example, the U.S. Treasury Department’s efforts to decipher the codes of bootleggers and rum-runners during Prohibition.
Operating according to the principles of unbiased scientific inquiry, the husband-and-wife cryptology team published The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined in 1957, which demonstrated, one by one, that none of these so-called ciphers could stand up to scrutiny. Their work is directly relevant to astrology because they address head-on the question of how to determine if a signal, or pattern, or secret code is real. (Or if you’re just nuts.)
The Friedmans offered some rules to help determine if a signal, pattern, or secret code is real or imagined.
Generally speaking, there’s no mathematical formula or algorithm that can solve a steganographic cipher. The Friedmans did, however, stipulate two general conditions that any such solution must satisfy. First, whatever decryption procedure is proposed must give a sensible result when applied rigorously. The main problem with the so-called Baconian ciphers was that their “discoverers” were constantly inserting letters here or skipping letters there to make their systems work. Such arbitrariness should be taken as an argument against these ciphers having been used in the first place. The conjunction theory of history exhibits a similarly ample amount of wiggle room, since the conjunctions themselves don’t need to coincide with any historical date exactly. Instead, it’s enough for a conjunction merely to foreshadow, in some vague way, an upcoming event or era. Thus the fiery triplicity said to presage the birth of Jesus is permitted to begin a full quarter-century earlier. And plenty of other conjunctions, unattached to world events, are simply left out.
Yet, to give a counterexample, if I told you that the first letters of the nine preceding paragraphs, including this one, spells out ASTROLOGY (“And,” Simply,” … “Yet”), there should be no doubt that this message was placed there on purpose. The method is applied rigorously, and the probability of these nine letters occurring this way by chance is impossibly small.
The second general condition stipulated by the Friedmans is that the solution must be unique. As they demonstrated colorfully in their book, a decryption method that tells you that Bacon was the true author of Shakespeare’s plays can hardly be valid if the same method can be used to reveal that Theodore Roosevelt, Gertrude Stein, and even William Friedman himself were in on the plot. The significance of any one solution is diminished in accordance with how easy it is to produce competing, if not contradictory, solutions. As the Friedmans put it, “Just as there is only one valid solution to a scientific or mathematical problem, so there is only one valid solution to a cryptogram … to find two quite different but equally valid solutions would be an absurdity.”
Thus, whatever we conclude about the conjunction theory of history should, properly, depend upon how uniquely we think it correlates with one sequence of historical dates and not any others. This, in turn, suggests a pattern-matching game. For instance, looking back at just the last 200 years, we can observe a remarkably strong correlation between the nine most recent Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions and the terms of U.S. presidents who either died in office, were assassinated, or survived near-death mishaps.
We could also, if we wish, note an intriguing connection between the conjunctions and the development of space exploration: 1901—Orville and Wilbur Wright experiment with powered flight; 1921—Robert Goddard experiments with liquid-fuel rocketry; 1941—Wernher von Braun begins development of the V-2 rocket; 1961—Yuri Gagarin is the first man in space; 1981—the maiden launch of Columbia, the first space shuttle; 2000—the initial manned mission arrives at the International Space Station.
And yet, maybe the true, cosmic significance of a Jupiter-Saturn conjunction is to ensure that the New York Yankees make it to the World Series, as, indeed, they have in every conjunction year since the game has been played: 1921, 1941, 1961, 1981, and 2000. (The first modern World Series was played in 1903.)
So, how many patterns can you pick out? Whatever you predict, get ready to have it tested. The next Jupiter-Saturn conjunction is coming: December 21, 2020, the exact date of the winter solstice.
As a condition for accepting the Constitution, the American people demanded the enactment of the Bill of Rights immediately after ratification of the Constitution.
They had been assured that the Constitution was calling into existence a national government whose powers were limited to those enumerated in the Constitution.
But that did not satisfy them.
They wanted a Bill of Rights to make it clear that the federal government was prohibited from doing the things that are listed in the Bill of Rights.
There are several important things to notice about the Bill of Rights:
First, the Bill of Rights, does not give people rights. Our ancestors understood that rights come from nature and God, not from government. People’s rights preexist government.
Second, the Bill of Rights consists of prohibitions and restrictions on the federal government. Why is that important?
Because our ancestors knew that the federal power would inevitably attract people to public office who would do the types of things that were being restricted.
They would criminalize speech, especially speech that was critical of federal officials. They would ban protests against government. They would force people to subscribe to a certain religion.
They would seize people’s guns. They would punish any malefactor by simply having civil or military agents take people into custody, incarcerate them, torture them, or execute them, all without trial by jury and due process of law.
The Bill of Rights was to serve as a reminder that federal officials had no legitimate power to do any of these things.
Third, the Bill of Rights contains no emergency or crisis exception.
That’s because our ancestors knew that historically crises and emergencies were the time-honored way by which people lost their liberties at the hands of their own government.
During such times, people become afraid and their natural tendency is to look to the government to keep them safe and secure.
They forget that the biggest threat to their liberty is their very own government, as reflected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Thus, they eagerly trade away their liberty for “security.”
Later, when the crisis or emergency has passed, they discover that the government is unwilling to give up the power it has acquired over them.
Emotional intelligence has become a topic at the forefront of human resources workshops, leadership groups, and corporate training sessions—and with good reason.
Evidence shows that emotional intelligence plays a big role in workplace performance. Individuals with high emotional intelligence perform better and usually experience better psychological and physical well being.
Emotional Intelligence Components
7 Simple Ways to Deepen Your Emotional Intelligence | Psychology Today
The concept of emotional intelligence was made popular by an author named Daniel Goleman. His 1996 bestseller, Emotional Intelligence, introduced it to the public. The idea was originally proposed by John Mayer and Peter Salovey in 1990.
The model of emotional intelligence proposed by Salovey and Mayer contains four parts:
Perceive emotions in oneself and others accurately;intel
Use emotions to facilitate thinking;
Understand emotions, emotional language, and the signals conveyed by emotion; and
Manage emotions to attain specific goals.
Studies have shown that emotional intelligence can be learned. It has become a billion-dollar industry, as training programs have proved very effective in helping people raise their emotional intelligence and perform at their best.
But you don’t need a formal training program to boost your own emotional intelligence.
Here are seven simple ways to boost your emotional intelligence.
7 Simple Ways to Deepen Your Emotional Intelligence | Psychology Today
1. Label your emotions.
People rarely like to talk about their feelings, despite the fact that our emotions affect every decision we make. Many people are much more comfortable saying things like “I had butterflies in my stomach” or a “lump in my throat” than what they are really feeling, which is sadness or anxiety.
Practice labeling your emotions with real feeling words—frustrated, anxious, disappointed, etc. Check on yourself a few times a day, and pay attention to how you are feeling, even if you don’t announce it out loud.
2. Consider how your emotions affect your judgment.
Now that you know how you’re feeling, take time to consider how these emotions are affecting your thoughts and behaviors. If you’re sad, it may cause you to be afraid of rejection, and you may underestimate your chances of success.
7 Simple Ways to Deepen Your Emotional Intelligence | Psychology Today
On the other hand, if you’re overly excited about an opportunity, you may overestimate your chances. This could lead to taking risks without examining the potential consequences or drawbacks.
To make better decisions, you need to recognize how your emotions are affecting your judgment. In doing so, you will balance the outlook of your own logic and emotion, and thus be better equipped to make decisions.
3. Decide whether your feelings are a friend or an enemy.
Every emotion we experience has the power to be helpful or unhelpful at times. The same emotion can affect us in either a positive or negative way, depending on how we use it.
Once you determine what you are feeling at any moment, next consider whether that emotion is being a friend to you or an enemy at the time. Anger could be a friend when it helps you stand up for injustice. It could be an enemy, however, when you’re entering a discussion with your boss.
Sadness can be helpful when it reminds you to honor a person you no longer have. But it could be an enemy when it gets in the way of your motivation in life.
If you realize that sadness is being an enemy, you must do what you can to regulate your emotions. Try to experiment with different coping strategies to help you do this. Maybe meditation for a few minutes can help you calm down. Afterward, even a simple activity like walking around the block might help you cheer up.
4. Be responsible for your own emotions.
Saying that your co-worker makes you feel bad about yourself, or blaming your boss for putting you in a bad mood, implies that you are letting other people control your emotions. Your ability to respond to your emotions involves your accepting full responsibility for them.
7 Simple Ways to Deepen Your Emotional Intelligence | Psychology Today
Only you can choose how you decide to respond to your circumstances and to other people. Remember this any time you are tempted to think someone else is dragging you down emotionally. So rather than think, “He’s making me mad,” try something like, “I don’t like what he’s doing right now, and I’m getting mad.”
5. Notice other people’s feelings.
Your understanding of how other people are feeling is one of the key components to raising your emotional intelligence. Focusing on this will prevent you from interrupting someone you disagree with or jumping into an argument.
Pay close attention to other people’s emotional states. If you can recognize how someone is feeling, then you will better understand how that emotion is likely to influence that individual’s perception and behavior.
6. Limit your screen time.
Spending too much time on your digital devices will impair your relationships. In romantic relationships, studies have found that having a smartphone present while you’re spending time with someone else can inhibit closeness and erode trust.
Too much screen time can also interfere with an individual’s ability to read or understand emotions. And as you read earlier, this is one of the four critical components of emotional intelligence.
A 2014 study published in Computers in Human Behavior found that preteens who spent five days at an outdoor camp without access to their digital devices greatly improved their ability to read other people’s emotions. This improvement of understanding nonverbal emotions happened in just five days without their electronics.
So setting healthy limits on your technology would probably be a good idea. Don’t have your phone out when you are talking face to face with people. Set aside time periods during the day when you won’t use your phone—maybe the first hour after you wake up, lunch time, or before bed.
Doing a digital detox every now and then can really do you some good. A few days without your electronics will better equip you in your ability to read other people’s emotions.
7. Reflect on your progress.
At the end of every day, reflect on your progress. Did you interact well with a frustrated co-worker? Acknowledge this of yourself.
But then also notice the areas in which you need to improve. Did you get defensive about some tough feedback, or did anxiety prevent you from talking to your boss? Be careful to learn from those mistakes, and do better in the future.
There is always room to sharpen your skills when it comes to emotional intelligence. Enrolling in a training program can help you if you’re feeling stuck. And you can always read a book or hire a coach to help you boost your emotional intelligence even more.
Today’s topic I’m going to be discussing upon is synchronicity.
Synchronicity was first explored in depth by the famous psychiatrist Carl Jung. He explained that synchronicity as “acausal connecting (togetherness) principle” and “meaningful coincidence.”
The main point to gain from Carl Jung understanding of synchronicity is that he viewed not only causality as being a means in determining synchronicity, but also meaning as well. Causality deals within the realm of the physical existence.
With every action there is a equal and opposite reaction. People who base synchronicity upon causality see everything as a reflection of cause and effect. Cause and effect become the template in evaluating synchronicity.
Most people call this just causality and Carl Jung separates the meaning of causality and synchronicity, but also unifies them as being equal to one another when it comes to the purpose of explaining coincidences.
I for one see causality as synchronicity in known form and synchronicity as causality in unknown form. Causality is objective and synchronicity is subjective.
Here’s an example of causality; let’s say you invest $100 into a stock, a week later you need $200 bucks for a overdue bill and you check the stock and see that it’s worth $300 bucks.
The synchronicity is found in the fact that you were able to discover some money when you most needed it.
Most people don’t see this as synchronicity, but instead call this causality since they see the cause and effect.
They see the extra money as being the effect of the cause of investing money in this stock. Many of us don’t equate causality as being the same as synchronicity because of our awareness of the cause, but none the less it is a form of synchronicity.
Now the other form of synchronicity involves meaning. Carl Jung also viewed synchronicity as a “temporally coincident occurrences of acausal events.” Where the meaning of events is found within the informal realm of reasoning. Events that are acausal are dependent upon the individual.
Thus these meanings are impossible to prove because of it’s temporal nature. In this realm synchronicity occurs as a result of the internal world of consciousness. An example Carl Jung used is this:
“It is impossible, with our present resources, to explain ESP, or the fact of meaningful coincidence, as a phenomenon of energy. This makes an end of the causal explanation as well, for “effect” cannot be understood as anything except a phenomenon of energy.
“Therefore it cannot be a question of cause and effect, but of a falling together in time, a kind of simultaneity. Because of this quality of simultaneity, I have picked on the term “synchronicity” to designate a hypothetical factor equal in rank to causality as a principle of explanation.” – Carl Jung
Carl Jung viewed synchronicity as equal to causality only in instances that causality is unable to explain the reasoning for the event.
Thus it is important for us to consider the subjective nature of things that happen in our life, just as much as the objective.
In today’s society we’ve relegated much of the idea of synchronicity to the acausal events that happen in our life.
When we cannot see the cause for a certain coincidence we have the tendency to call this synchronicity, but at the same time we ignore the causality that happens in our everyday life as well. Synchronicity and causality have interchangeable principles, but different contextual application.
This unbalanced understanding of synchronicity creates many problems in our life. We need to see synchronicity and causality as being one and the same. All of life is one big synchronized cause that we’ve agreed to partake in.
There is nothing that happens randomly, only our free-will gives us the flexibility to believe that life is random. When we start to see synchronicity and causality as one we’ll be able to see the unity in life.
The Law of Attraction teaches our thoughts and beliefs create a certain frequency that forms the vibration that our consciousness will vibrate at. This vibration attracts things and events into our field of experience.
What we think and believe literally creates our reality. Thus you could from a philosophical standpoint state that everything that happens is a result of our consciousness, even the events that causality cannot explain.
This helps in unifying Carl Jung’s understanding of causality and synchronicity, thus creating the synchronicity/causality paradigm. As the saying goes:
“What is in is out and what is out is in.”
The purpose of synchronicity is to help individuals remember that everything happens for a reason. Synchronicity is basically our way of remembering with the Higher Order by recognizing the symmetry in life. Things that happen in life do not derive out of randomness.
What may appear to be random at one moment, is only random because of our lack of awareness. When your awareness increases, the randomness in life slowly fades away and you start to see the unity in all things.
Thus we see the wisdom in Carl Jung’s understanding of synchronicity. His philosophy and explanation on synchronicity forms a underlying foundation that explicitly proclaims that there is a underlying force for all of creation.
With this understanding comes the ability to see synchronicity everywhere. Both the objective and subjective nature of existence become tools for discovering the synchronicity(unity) that has always been around us.
The only requirement is for the individual to be-come this awareness. Be-come stands for:
“Coming to the awareness of unity by being it.”
Seeing synchronicity in your everyday life helps one realize that We Are All One. That there is no form of separation whatsoever, except for the ones we’ve decided to experiment in with for reasons of learning more about ourselves and this reality.
Synchronicity can be found anywhere and the only reason we cannot see it is because we’ve formed ideas that are based upon separation.
When causality cannot explain synchronicity it is important for the individual to find the synchronistic meaning to the coincidence, but also important for us to continue searching for the cause and effect reason as well.
We must utilize causality constantly and use meaningful explanations only when the cause and effect escapes our awareness. As you can see with the chart below, meaning should be used to explain coincidences that are a result of contingency.
In the event that there is the absence of certainty in circumstances we should use meaning to explain this event, but only after we determine there is no immediate cause in which can be seen.
That’s a very important factor because all things we eventually can understand through the lenses of causality. Which is why we should strive to understand and discover things in life. There isn’t anything we cannot understand, whatever we place our focus on we can understand.
Synchronicity is equal to causality when cause and effect are unable to explain the coincidence. Nonetheless though, that’s a temporal condition that shall fade away when our awareness increases.
Both causality and synchronicity have a place in our lives; because in the end they are just a different facet of the same understanding.
Be the synchronicity in your life, be the unity in your life and be the unifying force that sees all of existence within the backdrop of the One. For all is one and one we shall always be, now and until the end of eternity. E Pluribus Unum, “Out of many, One.”
That is the anthem for those who wish to be one with Creation. Be One my friend, be your True self and see the beauty in the One Creation.
There is a wonderful story circulating the web for some time now, and its high vibration is touching my heart each time I read it. So I’ve thought to share it with you:
“An African tribe does the most beautiful thing. When someone does something hurtful and wrong, they take the person to the center of town, and the entire tribe comes and surrounds him. For two days they’ll tell the man every good thing he has ever done.
The tribe believes that every human being comes into the world as Good, each of us desiring safety, love, peace, happiness. But sometimes in the pursuit of those things people make mistakes. The community sees misdeeds as a cry for help. They band together for the sake of their fellow man, to hold him up, to reconnect him with his true Nature, to remind him who he really is, until he fully remembers the truth from which he’d temporarily been disconnected: I AM GOOD!”
I don’t know if it’s a true story and, honestly, this is not the important thing. What matters is its message of wisdom and compassion. We can correct a damaging behavior with Love, Compassion and Support. Sometimes, people do bad things just to draw attention onto themselves… it’s a misunderstood cry for help, and our inability to respond to it with Love and Dedication, only makes things worse.
So, when you will find yourself in a similar situation, please, remember the power LOVE and COMPASSION. ♥
Our historical past is a repetitive story for the rise and fall of empires and kingdoms whose successes and failures have predominantly relied upon the efficiency of mental constructs by which to rule and steer humanity’s destiny. The established beliefs in which the natural world was to be dominated, feared and exploited have rendered mankind isolated and disconnected from the guiding principles innate to creation. The truth of our moral compass has been usurped in favor of a false authority whose immoral domain has left us drowning in a turbulent sea of dramas and dogmas. It should be clear by now that man’s laws are inferior to the supreme laws of creationunlessman made laws are created in harmonious alignment with the truth and knowledge of natural, universal and spiritual laws. Mankind must begin to discernthe difference between natural law and man made lawif we are going to restore and preserve our divine evolutionary path.
The guiding principles of natural law, with which you can become familiarhere, provide us with the the morally correct path to co-create a loving world. Our choice to choose love over fear is backed by a universal guarantee for our attainment of true understanding with which to sustain sovereignty, freedom, harmony and order. Our vibrational alignment with the principles and truth bound within natural law is our return to the flow of creation wherein our moral compass is restored. Man made law is vulnerable to immorally incorrect and erroneous beliefs when man’s knowledge and understanding fail to harmonize with the laws of creation. For our universe operates within the wisdom of harmonic resonance, and our inability to attune with this wisdom is the cause of our separation and suffering; and the effect is our blind allegiance to the negative expressions of natural law rather than our loyalty to the positive expressions. Man’s dogmatic beliefs are rooted in mental constructs that disregard the integrity of emotional, physical and spiritual components. How do we comply with man made laws that do not consider the totality of the whole person? The laws of man confine us to an ultimatum for which our failure to comply becomes our fear of punishment.
Natural laws define universal truth that transcends all race, color and creed while man’s laws attempt to restrict the right to sovereign freedom based upon one’s race, color and creed. If all men are created equal, then the creation of man made laws to suit the bias of locales or conditions is a violation of natural law. Human beings do not possess the authority to dictate written laws under the guise of moral relativism that utterly destroys one’s sovereignty and freedom. Our moral sphere is determined by our alignment to the laws of creation, not by the moral relativity bound within man’s mutable laws. We cannot trade our internal self-mastery to know right from wrong for the moral whims of external authority to dictate moral correctness from immoral incorrectness. Our ethical guidance is embedded within the eternal and immutable laws of the universe that supersedes the limitations of ever-changing moral relevancy. Natural law grants us the morally correct principles as trustworthy guidance to prevent our enslavement within immorally incorrect governance. We must heed the lost generative principle of care by which to say NO to moral relativism, and YES to the immutable laws governing the universe and all creation. Mankind has a moral obligation to check and correct the dogmatic beliefs being imposed upon them so as to defend our sovereign freedom, and to maintain the harmonious and natural order at the heart of our existence. Our moral accountability demands that we understand the difference between natural law and man made law.