Anderz

This, then, means, that the ego will be transcended but not included. Definition: The ego is the false sense of separation a person has. That's a somewhat shaky definition since it seems to imply that a person always has an ego, which isn't necessarily always the case, such as for enlightened people. But it's a better definition than my previous one I think. And I guess the definition is valid since it doesn't say explicitly that a person always has an ego.

Aha! The ego is the sense of separation, which is an illusion. That's a better definition. The ego has nothing to do with the real self. And ACIM describes some of it as: "It is hard to understand what "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you" really means. This is because it is not understandable to the ego, which interprets it as if something outside is inside, and this does not mean anything. The word "within" is unnecessary. The Kingdom of Heaven is you. What else but you did the Creator create, and what else but you is His Kingdom? This is the whole message of the Atonement; a message which in its totality transcends the sum of its parts. You, too, have a Kingdom that your spirit created. It has not ceased to create because of the ego's illusions. Your creations are no more fatherless than you are. Your ego and your spirit will never be co-creators, but your spirit and your Creator will always be. Be confident that your creations are as safe as you are." - https://www.miraclecenter.org/a-course-in-miracles/T-4.III.php

I described ego love earlier. A Course in Miracles says that the ego is an enemy to the self! "When God created you He made you part of Him. That is why attack within the Kingdom is impossible. You made the ego without love, and so it does not love you." - https://www.miraclecenter.org/a-course-in-miracles/T-6.IV.php That's one tough definition of ego. Integrating the ego, then, as I mentioned, means an obliteration of the ego, so it's our individual personality that will be preserved, not the ego. That's a tricky one. The ego and the personality are very much intertwined.

Leo talked about a balanced budget 50 years from now. My take is that 50 years from now we won't even have money! There will be no need for money. Money is the hallmark of an undeveloped society.

Screw Spygate, let's have Marianne Williamson for President in 2020 instead! She just needs to move a bit more to the political center I think.

I disagree with Leo about luxury items, such as Ferraris, Rolex watches and Gucci handbags. Sure, value added tax on all items, fine, but I do believe the luxury items are an important part of the uniqueness of our civilization seen from a larger cosmic perspective.

@Leo Gura Government regulations are necessary for food safety and so on, but could it be that lobbyists for big corporations have made politicians introduce overly complicated and difficult to adhere to regulations? Thereby the big corporations, who can easily handle immensely complicated regulations, automatically remove competition in the form of smaller companies who have no means or resources to comply with the draconian regulations?

New video by Leo: Conscious Politics - Part 4 - 100+ Specific Policy Proposals - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSV0ZhD_yvw "It's the corruption, stupid." - Nice alternative to Bill Clinton's "It's the economy, stupid."

Transcending the global ego is also about a collective movement. Marianne Williamson is an excellent candidate for leading this movement IMO.

One main difference between a person with a separate ego and a person with an integrated ego, is that if they both were allowed to do whatever they wanted to do without being punished, the person with the separate ego will do a lot of mischief while the person with integrated ego goes on acting as before. The separate ego needs external morality such as rules with threat of punishment and self-preservation of social status to be able to obey those rules. The person with integrated ego has the moral rules integrated within himself or herself and is free from "sin" so to speak.

From the very big picture, politics is an effect, not a cause. There is a cosmic cause leading to politics as an effect. And that cosmic cause can be trusted. But that also includes things like the people saying no to Orwellian laws and so on. So it's a higher form of trust than on the worldly level, yet that trust also includes the worldly level which is an effect of the cosmic cause.

Cosmic breatharianism as I call it is to live on the intelligent vacuum energy. Mainstream science acknowledges that vacuum energy is real, but to say that it is intelligent that's surely still considered woo woo. But how are proteins folded inside the cells if not by the vacuum energy with intelligence?

Bruce Lipton said that the cells in our bodies are like amoebas. And amoebas live forever! They divide and divide for millions of years without degrading. So in principle our bodies should be able to live forever too. It's the ego I believe that makes the body age and die. But we are not meant to remain in biological bodies, nor in tech bodies. Instead our biology will be immensely upgraded by the intelligence in the vacuum energy waking up inside us.

@DrewNows Yes, I meant left vs right. I have an idea that society needs to have a clear duality like that. In physics there is the so-called three-body problem. Even with only three objects in a system it's impossible in general to find an analytical mathematical solution. So my idea is that a trinity is impossible to manage. And a unity in politics, that's called totalitarianism or dictatorship. Not good, lol. By social safety I mean things like guaranteed support even for poor people, even a universal basic income which I believe will become a necessary temporary solution when automation, such as robotics and artificial intelligence starts taking over more and more jobs. Even many white collar jobs will be replaced by computers.

Instead of draining the swamp, and have to deal with all the swamp creatures at the bottom, Williamson will switch on the light and the corrupt creatures will scurry away by themselves.

@DrewNows To use New Age language, will Williamson turn the system into love and light? In my opinion, not directly. She will make the system stable by introducing more social safety. And then that becomes a platform for peace. Intense polarity will remain for many years. I don't expect Rush Limbaugh to sing praises about Williamson. But overall it will be a more stable system is my guess.

I wonder what Trump means by draining the swamp. My idea has been that corruption will be removed through a Spygate scandal. But if Trump is attacking corruption, that makes it doubtful on a second thought. Williamson's approach is safer and more efficient I think.

@DrewNows If Williamson becomes President, I know that's highly speculative, but as a thought experiment, I don't think she will attack corruption and try to remove it. Instead what she will do is to allow honest management to start to flow into the political structure and in that way replace corruption.

Why not just make politics honest and transparent? That's impossible according to my model which says that politics is a part of the global ego. And the global ego is built on deception and manipulation. So I don't expect Williamson to be able suddenly just make all politics honest and transparent. And that would be catastrophic! Because society today is an extremely complex and interconnected system. And that system needs to be protected from being taken advantage of by corrupt forces. But isn't the system already corrupt? Yes, but not in a way that turns society into a Mad Max world. So the corruption needs to be removed while lack of transparency and even manipulation continue in politics.

Williamson and Trump are a good cop bad cop routine. But it's more than just a show for the masses. Even the dog and pony show politics has important purpose. Does this mean that Williamson is disingenuous? No, not about the things that matter, and the show matters too, not least to get people's attention and interest. And she even called it a dog a pony show! So she is sincere even about that.

There is public front in politics, a dog an pony show as Marianne Williamson called it, and then there is the real politics. My guess is that there will be no war with Iran? Why? Because China and/or Russia are probably already helping Iran with fracking etc needed to extract oil from their depleted oil wells. The Iraq war was about the same thing, even one mainstream expert said that. There maybe even wasn't any Iraq war! Just a war game as a front for the big oil corporations moving in and helping Iraq with their depleting oil wells. The same with Venezuela. The conflicting situation in Venezuela is I guess just a fabricated smokescreen to allow Sinopec and/or other big oil corporations to move in and help Venezuela with their depleting oil reserves.

Oftentimes people are selfless as a form of strategy, That's even worse than being only selfless, which is bad enough. People are pretending to be selfless in order to try to get approvement or appreciation, or even as a form of future debt that they expect the other person to pay back. Like a business deal that they want to force on the other.

Being selfish in a narrow way is bad, most people probably agree on that, at least when there is a disregard of others. I have written about how even being selfless is bad. That's different than the popular view today. Being selfless is more often than not promoted as something to strive for, something honorable. So how can I claim that being selfless is bad? The reason for why being selfless is bad is because it's a disregard of the self. That directly breaks the definition I have for love. The self and the other together form a wholeness. When one side of that wholeness is disregarded there is a lack of harmony, which means that there is a lack of love. Being selfless is disharmony. If you feel joy and pleasure by being selfless, then that's not really selflessness since you yourself are included, so that's love when it's in harmony with the others.

My definition of love as wholeness in harmony, does it really apply to for example ego love? Yes. A Course in Miracles talks about special relationships, and although that might sound like something special and grand, it means in ACIM ego relationships. Ego relationships in my view are limited between the separate sense of self and others. There is still a smaller wholeness between the ego and another person. If that wholeness is in conflict, then there are things like fear and hate. When that wholeness is in harmony, there is love! So my definition applies also to ego love.

A Course in Miracles (ACIM) has a real chance of achieving integral spirituality. Was ACIM really channeled through Jesus Christ? Well, yes! We have to understand what Christ represents: the way and the truth and the life. It applies to all religions and all spiritual traditions. Even hardcore nonduality teacher Roger Castillo has talked about ACIM. So has Eckhart Tolle and Neale Donald Walsch.