There are two big issues in my life, Transition from what we see the world like today, to something with peace and sustainability as the primary principles-- and issues of Class.
Yesterday, I had a conversation about class with two very thoughtful and caring friends of mine, and this morning, I wrote them both an email of "seeings" that arrived upon waking-- and I thought to share these here, because I think the relevance to Transition efforts would run along side of these issues of class-- and I think that the email will tell enough of what the conversation was about yesterday-- or maybe not-- but, none the less, let me share it, and maybe you all might see something too...
Btw, I have been going to Quaker meetings for a few years, and so Ive left in a few Quaker terms here rather than edit them out-- what the heck... (note, I do not officially claim any religious affiliation with any organization, but Quakers are a cool bunch, and I like hanging out with them)
I sat with our conversation of yesterday
I slept on it too
I wanted to report what came to me this morning, as what I needed to look at
it is only a reiteration of what *J* and I were speaking of, and so I transcribed (and some edit) what was on my recorder that you both heard and offer it here to look at again...this has profound implications for any of the worlds troubles-- it throws it immediately into a spiritual inquiry, which, I say, all of the worlds troubles must meet
In order for a collaboration to work, TWO people must put in 100% into the collaboration, into the idea of a collaboration
two people must be 100% responsible for the collaboration to continue
how is this?
how is it that this does not imply a "200%" collaboration, or a "50%" participation?
because this is not what is ACTUALLY going on in collaboration
true collaboration cannot depend on a reciprocity
it cannot be dependent on what the other does, for how much of myself I am going to give
this is simply not how the mirror of relationship works
(mind you, Im saying here an INQUIRY, not a solution--
to me, an inquiry is an alive thing-- a solution is a dead thing-- if I insist on solution, I will inevitably insist on MY solution-- thus, insist on fear-- therefore, it is not a spiritual inquiry, but merely insistence on what is already dead)
so, yes-- this is the very hard thing--
very very hard thing-- but Im saying it anyway--
if I want to see something of an equalizing come to issues of class, then I say it will only come from a collaboration-- there is something much bigger at stake here than a mere revolution will solve (what would make us think THIS revolution will work, when so many others have failed? I pray no one ever attempts to answer this seriously! If I were to hear an historical answer to this question, then truly, it would compel me to prayer)
something much bigger at stake, needs collaboration from all stake holders, which of course, means every one on the planet--
so, what is this "much bigger" thing?
no less than 'who we think we are'
if I have an insistence on who I think I am, this insistence will come out as "who I THINK YOU are", and vice versa-- this is inevitable conflict, its that simple-- this is sort of beyond debate, I hope-- I hope we can see this together...
further conflict is not going to solve-- it is going to feed conflict, which only creates more of what we perceive here-- we call it injustice, but this may not help, the use of this word-- I would rather call it simply "a truth"-- we see a truth...
we see a truth
will conflict bring about a correction or an equalization?
so, we see another truth-- something about collaboration
and I was reporting to you that I was seeing still another truth
that collaboration requires my own 100% responsibility, and no one elses
I know this seems strange to some extent-- I know we look at collaboration with the notion of some reciprocity, some participation-- but here Im saying, this needs to be seen slightly differently, and to bring in a debate, reasonings, agree/disagree mind, to why I may not see it this way, is only to insist on conflict again-- and thats fine, if thats what one wants-- free will, and all that-- Im not going to go into all that here-- I can only invite a looking into collaboration as a 100% alone thing, and not jump to anything too soon-- I invite the looking into it "Quakerly"-- I invite holding this in the light-- I invite-- thats all I can do
that, is collaboration
to invite wealth, and hold it there
wealth being "perfectly enough"
if I meet the world with "not enough", this is what the world is going to supply (and this world seems to have plenty of "not enough" to go around)
if I meet the world with perfectly enough, collaboration ensues-- naturally, simply, without effort, there is collaboration--
I cant meet this with ideas of why it wont work-- I cant meet this with preconceived notions of what I think are the reasons that are from my experience of what happened to me when 'they did this' or 'when they do that'--
I and they, are not collaboration
"I and they" are not collaboration!!
I have to bring wealth, to the collaboration on wealth
I have to BRING "enough", perfect enoughness, for another to accept the invitation to enough
this acquisitive world of ours, all of the 'not enough's' that we deal in, this world does not know HOW to accept such an invitation!!! this world, and I can choose to participate in it, only knows "not enough", and how to get more of it-- its very very good at collecting, storing, hoarding, and trading (for power, of course) in its "not enough's" -- is this what Im wanting? is this the "goal"? is this my intent, to go and play in this game?
if not, then invitation
invitation to collaboration...
this is all I can do, and its perfectly enough-- it HAS to be so!
everything else brings/ speaks of/ is born of/ wants more of/ IS/ conflict... this will not solve-- it may win something, temporarily, but it will not solve...
in love and light,