rom the perspective that I call evolutionary nonduality, we don't want to separate our self from the world process because when we do we fall into a false or dualistic way of thinking. We are not separate from the world process. In our own small way, we're all contributing to where we're going. The choices we make, the actions we take, what we say, what we don't say, are all adding to the momentum of the vast cosmic unfolding.
When we really embrace the TRUTH - that we are not separate from the process that created us, then we need to become very clear about all the ways in which we are actually affecting the process, so that we can begin to more consciously impact its momentum in positive and evolutionary ways.
~ Andrew Cohen…
rical motion. Let us imagine a
cube composed of 27 small cubes, and
let us imagine this cube asexpanding and
contracting. During the process of expansion all the 26 cubes lying
around the central cube will retreat from it and on contraction will
approach it again. For the sake of convenience in reasoning and in
order to increase the likeness of the cube to a body consisting of
molecules, let us suppose that the cubes have no dimension, that they
are nothing but points. In other words, let us take only the centres of
the 27 cubes and imagine them connected by lines both with the centre
and with each other. Visualising the expansion of this cube, composed
of 27 cubes, we may say that in order to avoid colliding with another
cube and hindering its motion, each of these cubes must move away
from the centre, that is to say, along the line which connects its centre
with the centre of the central cube. This is the first rule: In the course
of expansion and contraction molecules move along the lines
which connect them with the centre.
P D Ouspensky
NASSIM HARAMEIN comes to MIND ... and his explanation of the DENSITY / DESTINY of EVERYTHING
…
plicit consent is theft. A criminal act in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of God. So, it is timely to ask the question: to whom does the sovereignty of our parliament belong? Some would say it belongs to the monarchy. An absurd proposition for three reasons: such a claim is not written anywhere as we have no written consitution; the British monarchy lost supremacy when it was challenged and defeated in the Glorious Revolution and establishment of parliament, and thirdly, it is an untenable position to hold as one person, such as Hitler, may hold power in a fascist state but not in a democracy. The Queen may have the power to order a military coup and dissolve parliament but, frankly, I cannot see the people of this country, who stood firm against the Nazis, stand by and allow a German and her Greek husband to carry out a fascist coup of British democracy without resistance. I would also argue that sovereignty does not abide in the House of Lords as its members are appointed and not elected. Nor does sovereigny lie in the commons as members of parliament are mere tenants, allowed to temporarily occupy the commons with the permission of the voters of this country. MPs are leaseholders, not freeholders and therefore do not possess the sovereignty of parliament. Having dismissed the above charlatans, it follows that the sovereignty of parliament belongs to those who have the power to send and remove MPs from parliament and is irrevocably attached to the voting franchise and therefore belongs to every single voter in the country. And so it follows that if any politician wishes to give away the sovereignty that belongs to us, the voters, then they will have to seek our implicit permission to do so.
They have failed to seek that permission. The implications of this theft are far ranging. It means that Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Gordon Brown had no right or authority to enter into treaties and constitutions with third parties to give away the sovereignty which belongs to the voters of Great Britain.
It means that they fraudulently entered into those contracts and so, in turn, means that those treaties and constitutions are null and void and will remain illegal under British law until the permission of the owners of the sovereignty of our parliament, the voters, is sought and given. The consequence of that theft is that not only is a referndum on the EU a mandatory requirement but also that in the meantime any politician or civil servant who enforces EU regulations and fines is committing a criminal act as the imposition of such fines and regulations has no legal basis in British law. I hold these truths to be self evident."…