The Free World Charter

A fair amount of computer ink has been spilled on the screen here at heteconomist on the topic of money. For as long as there continues to be a monetary system, this remains an important topic. However, in a better world, which is becoming technically more feasible by the year, perhaps is already feasible, there would be no need for money at all. Accordingly, I have signed The Free World Charter. Well, I would have signed it earlier but became aware of it only now.

Being somewhat of a stickler when it comes to — well — life really, I felt the need to add some fine print along with my assent. This was due to some passing remarks elsewhere on the website, though not in the charter itself, concerning the supposed unsustainability of budget deficits and a claim of political neutrality for the charter:

I strongly support the kind of society advocated, as my signature indicates. Thank you for the opportunity to register this support.

Allow me to note that I consider some of the supporting explanatory material, provided elsewhere on the website, to be somewhat inaccurate. In particular:

(i) Public “debt” and ongoing budget deficits do not pose a solvency problem for sovereign currency issuers who allow their currency’s external exchange rate to float and refrain from borrowing in foreign currencies. Provided such deficit expenditure does not cause demand to outstrip the productive capacity of the economy, it will not in itself be inflationary. (In line with the work of modern monetary theorists.)

(ii) The charter is not apolitical. Nor could it be.

Nevertheless, I support the political positions taken regarding the elimination of money and interest, free distribution of goods and services, environmental sustainability, etc.

Some may suspect that without money, there would be no need for heteconomist. Please. This blog is very far from being a one trick pony. Or, at least, quite far.

In the event that non-monetary utopia is still some way off, I refer all and sundry to heteconomist’s very own Proposal for an Interim Society Prior to Utopia.


30 thoughts on “The Free World Charter

  1. Surely there has been a high correlation between money and expansion of production and technology since the middle ages along with bad things, poverty, inequality, pollution etc.

    Self interest, facilitated by money, has driven the very things, that this charter suggests will now allow us to get rid money.

    I don’t buy it.

  2. Well, signing the Charter is a sincere gesture, and I understand the feeling that drives it peter – and I sincerely hope that one day, human beings will not need money to measure value, or need something in return to minister to human need. But the problem is I think – if I learn how to fly a 747 – does that make me a better human being? If I unlock the secrets of the atom or discover what electricity is, does that make me a better human being. If there is no money in the world, will that make us better human beings – or will the mayhem just continue in a different way? It is the human being that is the component of any society, and just like a swiss watch – if the component is out of whack, so too is the time – no matter how sound the other components are. So, for a swiss watch at least, the focus should be on whole components, synchronisation, harmony – how to achieve that a component by component issue. Humanity is one very large, very dynamic, very energetic swiss watch with 6.8B egos all going in different directions: tuning it would be no small feat? The Charter is asking for no less and I agree that it is possible, but only because peace resides in the heart of every human being – nothing else could do it? How to unlock this potential is what we need to understand.

    Am thinking: thoughts are real things, made of matter, having an energy quality that affects us as well as everything around us. The energy that resides in the heart of a human being is different – it is the only energy that I know of that can tune the mind!

    I expressed my frustrations with all of this over at MNE: jrbarch

    Silence ….!

  3. Thanks for your thoughts, guys.

    jrbarch: Good stuff as always. I think it is two way. Society can’t be any better than we are as individuals, but systemic features have an impact on our personal development as well.

    If the system is set up to reward a particular type of behavior (e.g. greed or meanness), it will tend to induce that behavior more than under a different system. To the extent attitudes are learned or strengthened through behavior, the process can be self-reinforcing.

    I also think opportunity to develop as individuals is important, and system design can affect the extent of that opportunity. Without freedom from want, for example, there is less opportunity for personal development. True, if somebody is absolutely determined to engage in such development, s/he will engage it irrespective. But with more opportunity, those of us who perhaps are not so inclined toward personal development, yet in some cases not altogether hostile to the idea, might finally jump on the bandwagon. 🙂

    Andy: I’m not so sure about the positive incentive effects under capitalism. I know there is immense propaganda to that effect in our society, but to paraphrase your expression, I don’t really buy it.

    Profit is an incentive for capitalists, sure, but not for workers, and in many instances not an incentive toward real (i.e. socially beneficial) progress. Interest is an incentive toward parasitical behavior, but little else. To the extent innovation occurs, in my opinion it is primarily due to the ingenuity of creative or inventive individuals, not necessarily motivated by monetary reward but by the joy of creativity and inventiveness. And to the extent real progress occurs, i.e. to the extent socially beneficial innovations are actually adopted, it is primarily due to public investment or subsidy, not the profit motive, the drive to turn M into M’, or the farsightedness of parasites.

  4. Peter.

    Thanks for your reply.

    The obvious question is therefore why was there not an explosion of creativity and technological progress in the 800 years preceding the rise of the merchants compared to the 800 years since ?

  5. On the monetary topic, after 4-5 years we are now all in Broad agreement with the state of the National economy. That’s a good sign I suppose.

    Notably though, we still all believe in different policy recommendations on how to fix the economy.

  6. Hey Peter and all

    Glad to hear from you Pete. Some of the images in the video reminded of my almost forgotten childhood, when I still had plenty of hope and the world looked like an exciting place. I wanted to be like Neil Armstrong!


    I think it’s undeniable capitalism has increased productive capacity well beyond what other historical systems ever could.

    But the question is not about the past. The past is written in stone; we can do nothing to change it.

    The question is about the present and the future. Like a beetle, who outgrows its exoskeleton, maybe it’s time for humanity to discard capitalism.

    Maybe capitalism has outlived its usefulness and if we stick to it, it may still choke us. But we can change our future: it’s not written in stone.

    Maybe we still have hope.

  7. Society can’t be any better than we are as individuals, but systemic features have an impact on our personal development as well. [peterc]

    Hi Peter – the key ‘contrast’ there (for me) is “individuals” and “personal development” although I think most people tend to blend the two: as I like to refrain – after 200,000 years on the road, what is a human being?

    In my mind the symbiotic relationship between society and personal development are reflections of one another (think Emperor penguins on a beach; then give them ego and see what happens …) – but the relationship of both to the ‘Self’, and to the ‘individual’, something else entirely. What the Self actually is and what individuality actually is and how it manifests is the golden thread to unravel: and how the persona (in composite the society) are strung on this thread, the reality to be understood.

    Something of this is revealed in the interactions of the Mind and Life Institute and the Dalai Lama (The Plastic Mind, Sharon Begley) where ‘scientific discovery’ has gingerly placed one tentative toe in the oceanic world of Patanjali, to find that consciousness can shape the brain.

    Monks who had clocked up North of 10,000 hours of meditation, wired to an EEG and practicing the compassion meditation, produced gamma signals of strength and duration never reported before in the neuroscience literature. And showed activity in regions of the brain responsible for monitoring emotions, planning movements and happiness; whilst regions that track ‘self’ and ‘other’ became quieter (as if mind and heart were opened like some beautiful flower). The monks themselves laughed at the Westerners with their machines, asserting the physical correlation of the mind (the brain) was simply a transmitting and receiving station; and what went on in there in the physical sense of little importance. One cannot measure Love they said, with physical measurements! The material reductionist perspective seemed absolutely primitive to these monks.

    So, the Buddhist monks advise working on the mind. One monk, imprisoned for twenty years and tortured was afraid of only one thing – losing his compassion for the Chinese! A mental approach to compassion is their key. The Emperor penguins, now smitten with ego must find for themselves a method to tame the mind. 🙂

    For myself I am perhaps a little more complex in my love of Simplicity. I differentiate between the energy of the heart and the energy of mind. Using Western terms (and far from what seems to me to be a religious belief, where consciousness is asserted to arise from the fortuitous arrangement of material atoms, lumped together as the soft spongy tissues of a brain) – I posit individuality as a tiny little spark of energy sprung from an universal ocean of Energy. Consciousness (the witness) arises when this spark ‘strikes’ matter, regardless of whether the matter is the material atom of the scientists, or the more ephemeral human mind. As consciousness evolves to witness more and more of the creation of which it is a minute part, so too does its Form – including mind.

    Human consciousness in this view descends to unfold in the evolving human persona as the energy of the heart. Soon, it becomes self-conscious, aware of itself in the physical world (thus registered in the brain and mindstuff and different to ego which is simply waves in the mind) and reascending, follows the Breath back to its source, revealing individuality (itself) along the way, and the ‘Self’ (universal energy) at its root. Mind belongs in the lower world and is an attribute of the persona (the vehicle of consciousness) just as consciousness is the vehicle of Self. Bluntly stated in the Upanishads: ‘mind is born in darkness, lives in darkness, dies in darkness’. That is, it is the energy of the heart that is the dawn of true ‘self-consciousness’. As the Buddhists agree, we are our own salvation. But need a little help …

    Well, at least that is my current understanding.

    So, because of that, I am compelled to draw a distinction between society and the persona, individuality and the Self. For me, the play of the persona is just a play and the reality of that which projects the play onto the screen of every day life is much more significant. Those who point to the experience of Peace potential in every human heart are the ones who will open the gates for humanity. Those Buddhist monks are great warriors in my mind, as are all who fight for the human heart! Peace is our true wealth; the energy of the heart brings light to the mind, and is the sovereign right of every human being, ever brought through Grace and Kindness into existence! So, I think that you are right about systemic features impacting personal development and v.v., but there is a deeper story – all about who we are, and the human heart. Human beings come in layers!

    We respect and cherish a little new born baby, marvel at a new born existence – but fail to carry that profound respect through for this one existence, not divided by calendars and clocks, or night and day, until Breath leaves the body. Or see beyond the veil of the ever-changing persona to the preciousness of the consciousness within. It is the Energy that gives birth to this consciousness that we seek: all roads of the persona lead to the Self.

    Take one look at Kev & Tony and you can see it is just a play!

  8. Pete,

    You’ll never guess what I found in one of the Taylor and Francis papers (Talking About Joan Robinson: Geoff Harcourt in Conversation with John King):

    Harcourt: “And Joan, partly in retrospect, saw that the thrust of the attack of Imperfect Competition on laissez faire, and capitalism generally, was showing that it was a system of exploitation, because it discredited marginal productivity. As soon as you had imperfect competition, workers got paid less than the value of their marginal product.” (page 34)

    The only difference with what He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said is that the much maligned and ridiculed German Bearded One extended this conclusion to perfectly competitive markets.

    I’d really like to see the faces and hear what some of your other commenters and lurkers have to say about this.

    Forgive my French, but un-fucking-believable!

  9. You don’t need fancy math or deep argument to be able to see that those with the power advantage are highly likely to use it to their advantage given the opportunity (laissez-faire). And all one need to do to confirm one’s suspicion is look at the difference between capital share and labor share.

    Moreover, it is fallacious to use the term “imperfections” in neoclassical economics and one of the rhetorical flourishes to frame the argument. One one grants the assumption of , then “imperfections” and “shocks” can arise that disrupt the equilibrium of the system.

    But granting the assumptions is foolhardy, in that perfect competition is perfect markets with symmetrical access to information and power is an unrealistic ideal that doesn’t correspond to facts ande events. The model is non-representation. In other words, a methodological convenience of lazy thinkers at besta and very likely also sophistry designed to dupe the rubes and justify exploitation through superior institutional power.

    What economists in general overlook is the relationship between economics and law. It’s the law or lack thereof that establishes the institutional arrangements that determine the distribution of power among classes. This is why proponents of laissez-fiare want to get government out of the picture to the degree it enforces welfare and fairness (distributive justice), since this undermines the power structure inherent in law favoring property and capital, putting workers at an institutional disadvantage.

  10. Tom,

    (I’ll assume you are addressing me)

    “You don’t need fancy math or deep argument to be able to see that those with the power advantage are highly likely to use it to their advantage given the opportunity (laissez-faire). And all one need to do to confirm one’s suspicion is look at the difference between capital share and labor share.”

    I think this is the most important part of your post, Tom. And if you don’t mind, I will reply to it. If there is something else you want to discuss, we can do that later.

    What you say in that paragraph is only partially true.

    True, you don’t need “fancy math or deep argument”.

    True, “those with the power advantage are highly likely to use if to their advantage”

    False: This is not limited to laissez-faire capitalism. There is no such thing as a “good capitalism”, as opposed to the bad, “laissez faire capitalism”. Capitalism, whatever the icing, is made of the same flour.

    Capitalism is the genus, the noun; “good” and “laissez faire” are the species, the adjectives.

    Let’s say, the “good capitalism”, “New Deal capitalism” was, no doubt, better than the hell we live in (note carefully: I said “better”, not “good”). I won’t dispute that. But it only took three things to turn “New Deal capitalism” into “shit-capitalism”: (1) for the rich to decide they wanted it, (2) for them to pay their stooges in politics, universities, media and think tanks to apply it, and (3) time.

    That’s the real difference between “New Deal-capitalism” and “shit-capitalism”: money, political will and time. And, under capitalism, capitalists have and always will have those 3 things.

    Under capitalism, workers and capitalists are necessarily opposed, and there’s no way in hell this can be changed: it doesn’t take fancy maths to understand this, either; it follows directly from this: “Those with the power advantage are highly likely to use if to their advantage”. There is no way one can avoid it: no law, no good-will, no morality, no regulation.

    Sheep cannot live together with wolves, even if wolves want that more than anything.

    And yet, although evident, although “no deep argument” is required, there are two kinds of people who don’t see it (or claim they don’t see it):

    One kind genuinely don’t see it and one must try to reason with them. Maybe they haven’t put too much thought into the situation: they are lambs believing in vegetarian wolves.

    The other kind just pretend they don’t see it and I have little patience for liars and charlatans. These are wolves pretending to be vegetarians.

    Now, for what I’ve seen, you belong to the first kind; but I know of some who belong to the second (and if you think about it, you know I am right).

    And they are doing all they can to fool people into believing otherwise. I may not be able to stop them from lying, but I won’t shut up.

  11. Actually, it was just a statement of my view. I was not thinking of your comment in particular. I just wanted to make the point that most of this is evident to people that can see through the fog of propaganda that is designed to cloud their vision and blinker them.

    We can argue over what constituted capitalism, which comes in many flavors when it is used for a market-based system.

    But “capitalism” has a specific meaning for the Right, which considers anything but laissez-faire to be socialism on the way to collectivism. This is the situation we are confronting today in the US, where even a significant portion of the federal legislature and a large portion of state legislatures are Far Right Libertarians, who consider themselves Austrians, but are far to the right of Hayek, and more economically liberal than Milton Friedman. They are a cross between Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard.

    They differ from the Far Right neoclassical conservatives like John Taylor only in rejecting monetary policy and calling for an end to the Fed and institution of free banking. US policy is now caught between the Scylla of the Libertarians and the Charybdis of the conservatives.

    Their “free market” (market free of government) assumptions are mythological rather than evidence-based. Unfortunately the fog of propaganda is so thick that a lot people can’t see through it, and no small part of this is attributable to Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News. It’s completely disingenuous in that they don’t actually want to get rid of government at all, but rather to shape governing to their advantage. They love military Keynesianism, for instance, in the name of security of persons and property.

    In short, they long for a return to Dickensian times in the name of free markets and “capitalism.”

    The US is far, far away from a leftist uprising. The danger now is a far rightist putsch backed by billionaires.

  12. Tom,

    Thanks for the reply. Let me say in advance that I agree 100% with everything you said. Specially, I agree with this:

    “In short, they long for a return to Dickensian times in the name of free markets and ‘capitalism.’
    “The US is far, far away from a leftist uprising. The danger now is a far rightist putsch backed by billionaires.”

    (In a manner of speech, you can say I agree 110%)

    You also mentioned, very correctly btw, that ” ‘capitalism’ has a specific meaning for the Right, which considers anything but laissez-faire to be socialism on the way to collectivism”.

    This is true. Actually, now that you touched the subject of the Right, maybe we should also consider the positions of Post-Keynesianism to the Right, as compared to Marxism.

    The phrase “laissez faire” translates to “let do”. To “let do”, under capitalism, becomes a licence for those in power to abuse their power, because “those with the power advantage are highly likely to use if to their advantage”, as you said in your previews post.

    Up to this point, I am sure we are in agreement.

    Perhaps we may agree as well that even when that’s the real reason capitalists like “laissez faire”, they cannot justify it to the rest of society on those terms. They need a rationalization, something making “laissez faire” look like a good thing for everybody.

    The justification they offer is that “laissez faire” prices are just (because of free competition, blah, blah, blah: the market mechanism is perfect, for short). Those prices (which, I repeat, are just) include wages and profits, which for free-marketeers are the prices of labor and capital and reflect their contribution to output.

    “Under ‘laissez faire’, you get back what you put in”, says the free-marketeer. “That is fair. We may not like it from a moral point of view, but that is another matter”.

    It’s in this point when Marxists and Post-Keynesians differ in their reply to free-marketeers.

    Firstly, PKers don’t have a single answer. Some PKers would say: “Yes, you are right. It’s indeed a moral judgment”. (Tom, you are my witness there are those who would say exactly that, in those exact words.)

    So, now the question to debate is whether that is the right moral judgment:
    “Well, this is where we differ. You guys see no need for unemployment. I do. I think it serves an incredibly important psychological component to any healthy economy. I’ve feared for my job and been unemployed. Those moments shaped who I am and what I’ve become. They were invaluable in retrospect. If I’d been able to apply for a JG job I might not be half the man I am today.” (Tom perhaps you remember that quote, from a past MMT discussion?)
    Or, provided it’s the moral thing to do, whether this is the right moment to give those people something extra. Or whatever.

    The difference between these PKers and the moderate free-marketeers, to me, seems hard to perceive.

    Other Post-Keynesians, hopefully the vast majority (I’m sure Prof. Mitchell, maybe Mrs. Robinson or Kalecki, if they were alive), let’s say, the Left-PKers, would jump now: “No! That’s not true! That ‘moral judgment’ bullshit is entirely bogus. The market is imperfect: people don’t get back what they put in, capital gets the difference”.

    The big “is the market perfect?” debate starts. Free-marketeers deny markets are imperfect. The discussion will go on forever on whether markets are perfect or not. You, Tom, know this is true: you’ve seen how much simpler, less contentious things, like MMT, are resisted.

    But let’s assume this majority Left-PKer stance prevailed, after a long, protracted debate (probably even against the Moralistic-PKers!). Everybody is agreed, then: markets are indeed imperfect. What to do? “Oh! Oh! I know! I know!” replies excitedly the free-marketeer. “Let’s make the market more perfect! If the problem is lack of perfection, surely the solution is to make it perfect!?”

    And then, the big “should we make the market more perfect?” debate begins. Again, I appeal to your own experience, Tom: haven’t you personally seen this happening in the real world?

    Marxists would say that the obsession with depicting the problem of distribution as a moral question, when it’s clearly an objective one, is not merely suspect and infantile, it’s disingenuous and hypocritical. It’s a rhetorical tactic to distract one’s attention. And it’s a particularly ironic and imbecilic one, at that, as the counter-claim (to “all value is created by labor”) is undeniably a moral judgment: capitalists deserve a reward.

    In this perhaps Marxists and Left-PKers would be quite close, and maybe as opposed to free-marketeers as to the Moralistic-PKers.

    Instead of engaging in the “is the market perfect?” debate, a Marxist would answer and argue and prove that even if the market were perfect, labor would still receive less in wages than it puts in labour: capital gets the difference.

    That, Tom, as I see it, is the difference between Marxists and PKers and between PKers and free-marketeers. And where PK sits in relation to Right.

    Am I wrong?

  13. I can only speak for myself, but I think it is true of some MMT economists, that this is a point of strategy and tactics. The argument here is between the incremental approach within the system and the approach that the system itself is the problem and needs an overhaul, the sooner the better.

    I don’t think it is an either-or question. Some feel that the incremental approach is more effective, while others see it as compromising that just wastes time.

    My own feeling is that both approaches should be undertaken simultaneously. The incremental approach weakens the opposition by changing the framing endogenously by revealing erroneous assumptions and inappropriate methodology, as well as shifting the debate over effectiveness by emphasizing the primacy of employment.

    But this can only make a bad system somewhat better for time, since TPTB are left in place and they will be working hard to eventually return to the former status quo, if they can be dislodged in the first place.

    Without a system overhaul, real abiding change cannot come about. I don’t see this arising in the West, however. I think that individualism is too deeply embedded culturally and institutionally. Real change will come out of the Global South, where culture and institutions are less individualistic and there is a greater appreciation for community and solidarity.

    I think the days of Western hegemony are numbered, and that the torch is already being passed to other hands. This is likely to be the story of the 21st century and it portends to be ugly as global warming bites forces change in ways that result in conflict.

    The historical dialectic is alive and well, and there is not way of anticipating what the next “moment” is going to look like other than it will be an antithesis of the present moment and a synthesis that breaks new ground in human history.

    Why I think that MMT is worth pushing is simple. As Warren Mosler says, the tools to repair the major problems within months are already in our hands in the existing system. The lives of millions and billions of people could be improved overnight just by making some changes in policy. I think that is worth supporting.

    At the same time, I think that we stand at the cusp of a transition between moments in the historical dialectic and that is were the real action is. But that is lead by a “revolutionary vanguard” where “revolutionary” signifies an openness to transcendence and experiment with new ways of creative problem solving socially, politically, and economically.

    While there is no invisible hand of the market, i.e., natural laws of economics underlying the assumption of equilibrium, there is an invisible hand of evolution that we already understand a great deal about in terms of evolutionary theory, life science, social science, general system theory, complexity, etc. But it is impossible to predict emergence, which is the ultimate basis of uncertainty. We know big changes are coming, if only in reaction to global warming and its consequences, but how that will manifest is going to be in the hands of the players. So choose your sides.

  14. Tom,

    While you make some good points about “reform” vs “revolution”, tactics vs strategy, gradualism and such, and I honestly appreciate your views in what’s possible right now and what’s not (which I actually largely share), I think we are starting to talk past each other.

    My point in the previous comment is that among PKers there is no single set of shared views on society: some, the Left-PKers, perhaps approach Marxists’ view that under capitalism capitalists are basically parasites, living at their workers’ expenses.

    Others (the Moralistic-PKers) deny this against all evidence, against all logic, against all argument (and, frankly, in at least some cases I put this to intellectual dishonesty and bigotry). Simply put: they believe this is not so.

    In this Moralistic-PKers are exactly like free-marketeers (incidentally, I could see Keynes and Hayek agreeing on this; both of them were elitists, after all).

    This is not a matter of gradualism, strategy or tactics. This is a matter of deeply ingrained views on society.

    Well, I appreciate you taking your time for this exchange and I’d suggest we both reflect on it.

    Until a future opportunity.

  15. Magpie, the PK world is diverse and there are many substantive disagreements as well as differences of viewpoint. I think that the MMT economists are more on the same page, but I also don’t think that we can tell anyone’s inner stance based on what they write on in papers and blogs. There are defectors in place and it is difficult to know who they may be from either formal or casual acquaintance. It’s called being politic or playing it safe.

    However, I think that there are a lot of people that think markets have a place are not wedded to “capitalism.” One the other hand, there is no really compelling alternative to the present system that has been articulated and it is unlikely that a pre-packaged plan would be picked up and used anyway in case of a sudden system overhaul. Generally speaking, neither nature nor history moves in leaps. Change is usually incremental other than at revolutionary turning points and then the outcome is uncertain in complex systems in which emergence and transcendence play a key role.

  16. Pete and all,

    I’ve just watched the Cloud Atlas film on DVD. It’s an ambitious film and not all the ideas attempted were equally good.

    Having said that, it’s still a very good movie.

    Its soundtrack, for those who like music, is one of the highlights of the movie.

    The story is intelligent and thought-provoking; it has a big-name cast, and they perform their roles quite well, without being extraordinary.

    However, the work of a young Korean actress, by the name of Bae Doo-Na, is nothing short of exceptional.

    Ms. Bae plays a clone named Sonmi-451. If that character doesn’t make you cry, then you have no heart.

    As I am a bit of an old-school bloke, I don’t think I have really cried in years. My eyes were all clouded after this movie.

  17. A loosely related and excellent post by David Graeber (h/t Craig S via E-mail):

    On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs

    The gist of Graeber’s post is more directly relevant to “Proposal for an Interim Society Prior to Utopia”, linked to at the end of the present post. I’ve added the link here as well for greater visibility.

  18. ‘The obstacle is consciousness’. [TomH]

    Whatever the exigencies of the Venus Project, I cannot help but concur wherever I see written the above. Such a statement is made only by people capable of reaching straight through the veil and cul de sac of concepts, personality and the form life to the real problem. I believe it is a statement that will be made again and again as time passes by, and people take on responsibility for what happens and is allowed to happen. It is an arrow shot straight through all of the BS to the real target.

    For myself, I think consciousness has always been recognised as essentially dual in humans: that in some mysterious sense there are two beings that dwell within our little bubble of self-awareness that is wo|man. These two ‘soldiers’ have always been at war with one another: and this war spills out upon the stage of the world as they march in legion. Our entertainment industry and the world’s literature are full of this comedy-tragedy-drama; a merry-go-round in human history which nobody quite knows how to step off. It compounds our daily lives with little regard for education or achievements.

    One little soldier dwells in the ‘heart’ from where springs the energies of kindness and clarity, inclusiveness, inspiration and creativity, the desire to know of truth; absolutely distinct from the other poor little soldier who must dwell in the ‘mind’ plagued by ego, doubts and uncertainties, tides of emotion, with just intellect to guide him/her through. Intellect alone is like shining a little torch light on the path ahead, trying to find your way from one side of the universe to the other – it is the longest journey between two moving points as far as I can see. Both soldiers long to be content. Peace has always been the ultimate quest of these two soldiers.

    I’m not a great scholar of human history, but it seems to me the great triangle of politics, religion and education have always stood afore consciousness, veiling and obstructing rather than being directly helpful (as they might be on one hand) – creating conditions of pain and suffering through greed, that whip us on towards awakening and creating a better world on the other. The world has been built by the tussle between these two soldiers in these battle-fields.

    In politics humans have suffered dictatorship: by dinosaurs, the proletariat, war-lords, aristocracy, bourgeoisie, racial superiority and ‘supermen’ – the intelligentsia, empire, organised business, financiers (did I miss a few?). We have never had consciousness ascendant, because consciousness recognises the one-self in all at different stages of evolution.

    In religion we have had dictatorship by a G.O.D. of our own creation, and pomp and ceremony – never conscious recognition of an Infinite Energy that is Being; Life itself – that can only be felt. If you cannot feel IT then I accept that; but that does not mean that it is beyond you; or that you could not be taught. To be conscious simply means to be aware. It is as basic to the human heart as water to the body and breath, or thoughts to the mind. It brings peace to that little soldier that lives in the heart, and somehow, through some magical symbiosis, the little soldier in the mind begins to fight for peace also. What a mess we have made of that! Consciousness begins in the heart of a human being.

    In education we have had dictatorship by the mind in the pursuit of things that interest the mind and the ego – never has education been anchored in the light of consciousness that has resolved the essential duality and nature of man. Where the ‘two soldiers’ recognise each other and are conscious of their own nature; and standing before that simple Universal Energy that pulses within, have merged to one. Consciousness means that the heart is the natural leader because within the heart is ‘light’ – mind borrows light so that we can see where we are going in our world. One little candle chases out all of the darkness from the gloomiest room!

    Consciousness is a solution because consciousness allows us to be human and we actually enjoy being human: we enjoy living, learning, loving, appreciating and unfolding. The one thing we have never tried over the last 200,000 years is peace! If we can understand that consciousness is the goal, then the next thing to decide is consciousness of what! What are the steps to take?

    One should (I believe) learn to listen to the little soldier of the heart. Well, that’s my understanding at this moment, anyways …..

  19. For anyone who feels personal peace may have something to do with human fulfilment, consciousness and clarity:

    As a contribution to the global effort behind International Peace Day (Sept. 21st) The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF) created Peace for People 2013, a series of 4 new short videos about peace.

    The 4th and final video in the series, Peace Begins with You (1m:38s) is available now.

    PeaceBeats Worldwide Webcast 2013: Hosted by international film and television personality Michael Nouri, the 48 hours of streaming will be filled with worldwide submissions and feature a very special interview of Peace Ambassador Prem Rawat by Peace One Day founder Jeremy Gilley.

    PeaceBeats Trailer

  20. Thanks peterc – only on heteconomist! There are so many experts on so many websites raking the problems over and over. Below are two people in conversation who really understand the solution – us!

    Peace One Day’s 24-hour “Peace Day” Global Broadcast on Saturday, 21st of September with Jeremy Gilley in conversation with Prem Rawat – a story of two peacemakers on two different journeys, both striving for a better world.

    In summing up his reaction to their meeting, Jeremy said:

    “Prem is a peace warrior… like a Jedi Knight for peace…”

    “I have met pretty much everyone involved in peace, Mandela, Peres, Kofi Annan, Mary Robinson, you name them, but I have never met anyone like Prem. He lives peace.”

    Peace is the possibility, peace is our real and greatest potential. Please take some time out, enjoy this interview, think it over …. (28:13)

    Peacemakers: Jeremy Gilley in Conversation with Prem Rawat

  21. A post-money society will most likely happen when true technocratic states (the size of continents) will be formed.

    As a side note, I’m an adept of Vernadsky’s theory of the noosphere. When humanity will have mastered nuclear processes, thus allowing the creation of resources through the transmutation of elements – then mankind will truly rid himself of the slavery to the “price system”1.
    1:The term price system is used to describe any economic system whatsoever that effects its distribution of goods and services by means of goods and services having prices and employing any form of debt tokens, or money. Except for possible remote and primitive communities, all modern societies use price systems to allocate resources. However, price systems are not used for all resource allocation decisions today. A variety of Non-market economics type proposals have been presented as alternatives to a price system such as Energy Accounting.

  22. “You cannot build an identity and a common set of institutions in one fell swoop”. [Peter Turchin]

    There is no duality, left or right, above or below in the human heart … In the personality there is expansion and contraction, consciousness (unity) and unconsciousness (fragmentation); that is all…..

    Human nature

    The atom out of which a society is built is the human being. The human being is the grain of wheat, the society the loaf of bread; wholesome, when the individuality of each grain is transformed into something that will nourish all.

    A human being has a three-fold lower nature (physical, emotional, mental) and an emergent nature (the heart, or soul; am using these words to indicate this noblest constitutional aspect in man) which ultimately is a bridge – back to the Absolute Principle and manifest BEING from which creation springs; the human spirit a part of that Being as an infinitesimal atomic spark. Desire is the engine that drives this nature forwards (the arrow of time) towards our distant evolutionary goal and fulfilment, with no clue of the role this little grain of spirit may play in the systemic whole: – on the planet, desire also drives our social expression and individuality. IMHO, our fortunes, in all aspects of the human drama, rise and fall on the vast under (and over) currents of human nature, while our concepts and technology drift along on the tide.

    This drama is twofold, and we are barely conscious of the interweaving currents, interactions, tension and hiatus, arising from the duality in our nature – manifest as evolutionary drama in one stream (in short, consciousness); and the societal tsunami consuming us on the other (inept use of consciousness). No matter the ideology and struggle, civilisation or empire we build – they are transient waves on an ocean of human and environmental nature – and at this stage in our evolutionary career, civilisations rise and fall, cycle as always, almost unconsciously, in response to a nature we do not fully understand. Although we moderns do not like to think of ourselves as ephemeral theatre on the face of this earth, billions and billions of human beings have come and gone to prove the point. Time and human nature has us in its grasp (although we pretend otherwise). Whither the path that leads away from this human dilemma? Whither the serenity in a sea of confusion and strife?

    We carry within us creativity and destruction, ignorance and knowledge, darkness and light: – kindness and cruelty, direction and confusion, love and hate. Our nature is dual and we battle with it – once again, almost unconsciously. For me, the world is a mess, because it mirrors our lack of control over our nature. We do not fully grasp opportunity evolved; nor do we have the right tools and training, to fully utilise our natural creativity – build and destroy humanely towards the general welfare of humankind, without doing an enormous amount of harm along the way. There is no Project Humanity in our minds; or we recognise it only partially through the lens of evolutionary biology – our psychological nature being the youngest of our sciences. Man is both a physical being, and a psychological being. If human nature is an ocean, waves tumble upon waves, and cross currents surge upon cross current, vying for a little space; for some, supremacy and control (with no clue as to human vulnerability).

    We have little time to consider the ocean itself, or what we can do to pacify it, or what peace in itself may accomplish. I do not think this ocean of human nature is controllable, except one by one we gain sovereignty over our own little drop; and then learn how to work synchronously, to build a society from consent and vision as an expression of the more enlightened side of our nature – rather than the darker side that seeks dominance over the social fabric through greed and force; symbolised in a minority of regressive personalities who embody and exemplify our failings. But today, mind-borne fragmentation and separation is our apparent reality, the masses sleep while the intelligentsia argue, the predators have full sway; and given our human nature and experiences, we think peace is impossible. As in the individual, so too in the nation.

    And yet, peace is possible, because it already exists within every human heart. We just have to learn how to feel it. Identify with it and come to know it as the self. Finding this peace is evolutionary; experiencing this peace is consciousness and utilising peace is both wisdom and intelligence: – the society a mirror to remind us, how far we have yet to go.

    We understand only very generally, where our evolution, progression, and best interests lie; and despite all of the experts in the world, all of the theories and competing oligarchic, political, institutional, economic, religious, and social fiat, we have no clue how to get there. We are the blind, leading the blind, sailing on the ocean of our own nature, and at its mercy. It’s the simple reason why, from the ruling financier-military-espionage allied deep states and their pathetic government shirt-fronts, down to the most unworldly of individuals, human beings screw up all over the world. Hope is our shield. Only the arrogant and fools (who speak through or own most of the world’s media) would have you disbelieve the evidence staring us right in the face, visible on every TV if you turn off the sound. The world is awash with conflict and tragedy in every facet of our lives. Human evolution happens on a carrier wave, largely unassisted by us. Human existence is a story told of an infinitesimal fraction of a second of time, on the universal clock, in an infinitesimal fraction of volume of universal space: – even our tiny solar system could have been arranged quite differently not so long ago (on this clock). That does not prevent human arrogance from declaring ‘a theory of everything’ and mistaking ‘social progressiveness’ as evolutionary progress, somehow having something to do with us. We are yet to learn how to take ourselves in hand, and support our own existence; and the beautiful planet with which we are gifted.


    We do not understand that it is consciousness itself, which needs to unfold. There is a certain ‘quality’ in every human being, and that quality governs the nature of his ‘appearance’ (personality). When the light of that quality shines through and waxes brighter, the lamp glows and reveals more of its own nature, and what is around it. The human heart carries this quality and when it becomes manifest, its warmth is felt by others; and its illumination visible in thought, and action in physical kindness and generosity.

    Human consciousness is said to arise from the lump of spongy brain tissue, but no one can establish this and never will. The same atoms that go to make up the brain are found throughout the known universe, but no one thinks a comet is as conscious as a man. Sub-atomic particles of these atoms appear and disappear into an unknown ‘energy state’ from which they gain their ‘charge’ – beyond which Nature becomes esoteric, and nothing is known by the wondering mind of man. Obviously Nature’s ‘laws’ and the whole mystery of consciousness and existence just disappeared off the physicist’s radar (if they are humble enough to admit it).

    The Ageless Wisdom posits human consciousness as originating in Being (soul): – the one who uses mind as an ‘eye’ into the world, and the brain as a physical responder, designed to connect this soul to the physical world – a theory just as tenable as the ‘spongy brain exudes consciousness’ guess. This Soul is for the Ageless Wisdom, the real self of a human being. The human personality on the other hand, is a limited aspect or partial expression of this self, disconnected in consciousness from the self through an evolutionary mechanism, but not disconnected in its deeper nature. It is an outpost, a limited and partial expression of the self, an ‘appearance’ or actor, popping up in the phenomenal world as a slowly evolving self-conscious entity, possessed of desire and direction (but not really knowing what it wants); slowly integrating, harmonising, deploying all of the forces that flow through its physical, emotional and mental sheaths, to be synthesised in a fully developed personality or ‘I’.

    Evolution is the evolution of the persona (physically, emotionally, mentally) and subsequent unfolding revelation within the ‘I’ (a wave in the mind-stuff of the lower mind) to the stage where both self and ‘I’, at the end of the process and working together, bridge the gap in consciousness in the lower mind, so that the ‘I’ becomes aware of its self and its own higher awareness and existence. This process is known as meditation or self-knowledge (raj vidya) – the ‘king’ of all knowledge(s). It begins with ‘feeling’ the self within, identification with it, and culminates in direct knowledge and sight of the self and contemporaneously, the next steps to unfold. It is a difficult transition, as all the ‘I’s little happiness’s and sadness’s, enterprise, depression, ambition, desires, are seen as empty, vapour, illusion glamour and maya (mental, emotional, physical states of energy)- a dead-end; to be let go. This is done by focusing on the self: – the light of the fullest of moons recedes and gives way to the rising sun. Motivation from the self then drives the personality, and this is the motivation of a river of Life as it manifests in that soul, coloured by the stream to which it belongs. The personality may still function in the world in its chosen vocation (‘quack like a duck’), but the consciousness within has changed forever. Without the self, we have no-one.

    All egoistic trappings then fall from the ‘I’ as the reality of the self and its realm is established and absorbed; and the ‘I’ begins to function simply as an outpost or point of consciousness established by the self, in the persona and lower world. Another name for consciousness (or the self) is awareness. As mentioned above, the soul too is a bridging agent, but this time to the Spirit in man, itself a spark within the Divine Sun; and its purpose is to connect this spark and an awareness of the Flame to the persona, far far below in a very earthly world. Everything in the universe is of an electrical, energy, consciousness, Being, nature. This spiritual connection once fully developed, culminates in a Master, of whom the Buddha and Christ are the two most widely recognised and early achievers. So there are three births in the hierarchical evolutionary journey of a human being: –

    1. The first as an ‘I’, stepping up to self-consciousness from the instinctive mind and animal group consciousness, and evolving into modern man (as vulnerable, unstable, and unconscious as he is at this time). Just as the animal is a step up from the vegetable consciousness, and the vegetable a step up from the mineral consciousness
    2. The second birth is the ‘I’ consciousness expanded to include the Soul, experienced as extant in all forms as the Universal Self, limited by the evolutionary status of the form (including even the atom of the scientists and its mysterious ‘charge’ ); and
    3. The third as Spirit – the true identity, animated spark and Being, which is the animating kernel of the consciousness and form we call man.

    Consciousness is the light and the human persona the luminaire. The human persona is an expression of the quality of the light that shines within, and the quality of the persona conditions the light shone. They are symbiotic and in the end, a unity; and the new psychology will explore their relation. Human evolution needs to become something that we not only recognise, but happily participate in. A study of genius, creativity, telepathy, soul (the heart) and other nascent powers in man would be far more rewarding than the study of aberrations in the personality or its equipment, as necessary to the well being of the personality as these studies are. War is the greatest aberration – the most anti-life, anti-consciousness, anti-evolution stupidity there is. War and criminality are dysfunctions in the personality (psychopathy and sociopathy). War clears away old social expressions that have run their course, but at immense cost, wastage, and back pedalling – completely unnecessary if only we understood the value of peace, and the value of a human being. We do not understand the true value of human existence. We are not able to establish Human Principles and carry them through that would see peace settle among our kind. Peace would be the greatest achievement for mankind and would set the stage for a deeper understanding and exploration of hidden human potential.

    We turn our planet into an environmental wasteland, a 24/7 factory and war-zone; and our human lives into unfulfilling robotic pursuits, stuffed with distractions. We are completely numb to the absolute miracle of the human body, and seemingly limitless expanse in time~space for Spirit to evolve Matter (its opposite pole) to coordinate such an aggregation of lives: – atoms, cells, organs, biological systems, and form into the motion, sentiency, and consciousness, that is a human being – which we blindly destroy supporting some idiot’s ‘Cause’. When things become complicated, and something is missing (in relation to existence) then it is time to get down to basics.

    Group interactions

    Consciousness and the sense of self is the pole around which human nature dances. This sense of self, the synthesis of human nature, should be the focal point of individual-reflection, and institutional-reflection, as Turchin notes. The ‘I’ is a wave in the mind-stuff and is the point of identification for most people, who chase its impossible fulfilment. At the moment, in the world, most individuals, institutions, and nations, orbit around the psychological and ideological nature of their ‘I’. In fact, to put it bluntly, they are its devoted slave. As each drama of the ‘I’ unfolds on the stage of life – travelling for (wo)man just seventy laps around the sun – what stands behind, supports and breathes life into it, holds its key. The self in reality, is like a tiny light bulb, shining on our planet behind which stands an almighty power-house. The self is the only light in existence, capable of illuminating the dark enclosure which is the ‘I’. Seventy laps around the sun, is an incredibly short time to come to grips with whom and what you are.

    The ‘I’ can be an admixture of individual, familial, clan, tribal, citizen, cultural, national, species, or universal identity (ID). It changes as we change and experience, learn and grow, individually and collectively – its essence persists. It is impossible to form a consensual union or group of any two or more human beings, unless they have a similar sense of ‘ID’ – at any level of constitutional development. The human persona is basically physical, emotional and mental awareness, synthesised as an ‘I’, and largely conditioned (hypnotised) by the world in which it finds itself. There must be some commonality in at least one or more of the constitutional aspects, for relations to develop. The ‘I’ sees differences, more easily than it sees similarities. It is a believer, more than a knower. And yet, human evolution is a story of cooperation and revelation. There is nothing war has ever achieved, that could not have been better achieved, by peace. It is desire and shifting human relations that brings nations and individuals together, and pulls them sometimes violently, apart. The financiers, military, media, and governments, have certain ways of controlling ‘I’s, but invariably, human nature and the evolutionary impetus sweeps all in its path.

    Man has lived in and identified with small family groups, clans, tribes – city states, nations, countries – and will end with a global identification with all of human kind, and all of Life. This is only possible when the physical, emotional, and mental constitution has been evolved, subdued, harmonised and integrated, into a functioning awakened personality; and the ‘I’ has been transfigured. It is nothing more than rule of the fourth constitutional aspect in man – the heart – over the other three, once coordinated. However, there is no reason why the heart cannot be active along the way. The heart is the missing piece in the puzzle that is the world (and its pain). The inner peace can be felt at any time, and lift and guide the persona or any nation. Most of our problems are one ‘I’ interfering with another; and not enough space given for people to be themselves and find their way.

    Transfiguration is in effect, one little drop in the ocean of human nature ‘aligning itself in the light’ – and the light in all. These little drops together, united in the inner realm and increasingly active in the outer, help transform our world. Most personalities are blind to this evolutionary aspect of human existence. This fourth constitutional aspect is the living sentient bedrock of consciousness over which is erected the personality framework; including ‘I’ group ideology and consent, solidarity, and shared desire and direction. It is a foundation capable of absorbing the full gamut of any diversity in constitutional expression, and ‘I’. It is quite natural that warring European nations (‘I’s in admixture) should decide peace is a better option – screwed up royally by European vassals and elites.

    Groups can be temporarily held together by physical force (football match), emotional force (national pride), or mental force (ideology) or admixture – but all are subject to time and human nature. Where time has allowed a sense of ID to develop, the group is more coordinated and tolerant to wider expressions of these forces; in fact the ID becomes a force of its own, coordinating and deploying the lower three. Groups whose roots penetrate deeply into the very essence (bedrock) of human nature endure, living out a natural cycle – like a culture or civilisation, or race. The patterns are encapsulated within us, just as the tree is encapsulated in a seed; but tainted by the grasping human hand. Through both individual and social stability, the field is prepared for the seed of the fourth and truly unifying constitutional aspect of man, to begin to unfold. The self is the hidden jewel within the human heart – ushering in a deep feeling of inclusion and solidarity, love and respect for Life, and so much more. If society has a purpose, it is to bring about those conditions whereby peace may evolve, and the self become a conscious asset.

    Love as emergent evolutionary energy

    The two greatest pieces of advice in humanity’s history:

    ‘Love the Lord your God (Absolute Principle, manifest as Being) with all your heart and with all your soul (self) and with all your mind’

    ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’

    – are two of the most profound statements of practical reality; giving direction and expression to the emerging energy of love in the human heart. The energy of Being is threefold, viz – Will or Power, Love or Harmony, Active Intelligence – with perhaps other aspects to emerge in systemic time. These three energies or aspects of the One and their evolutionary relations and Nature are to be found on every plane, and are present in the threefold personality of man (mind, sentiency, animal body). The ‘fatherhood of G.O.D.’ and the ‘brotherhood of man’ are an inner reality, as natural in their own world as the physical forces and their relations are to science. The physical forces of science are just the opposite pole of living spiritual energies, descended into living matter, and consciousness the child of their union.

    Without love, the human being is easily hypnotised by myopic ‘Causes’, and people are crushed; used as rolling logs to launch the war canoes, while human skin is stretched over the war drums. These ‘dramas’ occur in a tiny little cranial volume of around 1500cc and it is hard to imagine how so much trouble emerges from such a miniscule organic space. In nature there are no countries, no lines partitioning the continents, no coloured blocs marking out territory or flags, no national pride – this all exists only in people’s minds.

    “Man is essentially devoted (to the point of fanaticism) to whatever may be the goal of his life’s attention. This goal may be to achieve discipleship, or to raise a family, or to get money, or to achieve popularity or any other objective to which he consecrates his time and energy; but whatever it may be, to it he devotes all that he is or has. Man also is essentially and inherently a producer of law and order, though this quality is only just beginning to make its presence felt. This is because mankind is, at last, becoming mentally centered and hence we have in the world at this time the many and varied attempts to straighten out affairs along business, national, economic, social and other lines, to produce some system and order, and to bring about the rearranging of all energies with the objective (unrealized consciously as yet) of inaugurating the New Age. Owing, however, to defective mental control and to an almost universal ignorance as to the laws of thought, and in addition, to a profound lack of knowledge as to man’s own nature, man works blindly. The ideals sensed are not correctly interpreted by the mind nor applied in such a way that they are of general and appropriate application. Hence the confusion and the chaotic experimentation going on, and hence also the imposition of personal authority to enforce an individual’s idea of the ideal”. [82]

    [Esoteric Psychology Vol. 1 A Treatise on the Seven Rays, Alice. A. Bailey (amanuensis for the Tibetan)]

    Our little quantum of the Universal Self (the self, psyche, ego, heart, soul) reflects everything around it, like a crystal, and tries to make the world and its own realm understandable to the persona; order and illumine it, whilst remaining inexplicably – itself. It identifies with everything in nature, allows external nature to be reflected in its faces, is self-conscious; but the persona for long ages has no clue to its presence. The persona knows of no mirror in which it can see the self, until it learns the techniques of self-knowledge. The self carries within it a certain quality (a ray, a quality of energy), and notices other qualities extant in others (sevenfold in analysis, as rays and sub-rays). It is light because it brings understanding (and an inner light in substance once revealed); and vibration because it is a centre of energy, possessive of potential. It is positive in relation to that other centre of energy, the human persona, which in relation, is negative, receptive, and female. When someone walks into a room we feel it, and our basic relation to that person is set. It is self-conscious and group-conscious, and capable, according to the Ageless Wisdom, of universal-consciousness. It has Will, Love, and Intelligence as its aspects; sentiency and creativity, and is reproductive of its quality. It is harmony, beauty, concrete knowledge, aspiration, order, and coordination, in attribute. The persona can suffer from an absence, insufficiency, or imperfection of expression of these.

    All disease is the result of inhibited soul life. This is true of all forms in all kingdoms. The art of the healer consists in releasing the soul so that its life can flow through the aggregate of organisms which constitute any particular form….. Disease and death are the results of two active forces. One is the will of the soul, which says to its instrument: I draw the essence back. The other is the magnetic power of the planetary life, which says to the life within the atomic structure: The hour of reabsorption has arrived. Return to me. Thus, under cyclic law, do all forms act….. Perfection calls imperfection to the surface. Good drives evil from the form of man in time and space. The method used by the Perfect One and that employed by the Good is harmlessness. This is not negativity but perfect poise, a completed point of view and divine understanding. [532]

    [Esoteric Healing Vol. 4 A Treatise on the Seven Rays, Alice. A. Bailey (amanuensis for the Tibetan)]

    The self is known to be sensitive to events and other selves far away, and holds within it hidden powers, higher expressions of the physical senses. As far as the human being is above the ant that moves at its feet, it senses the possibility of consciousness evolved through many times this bridge. It sees Spirit-Matter as opposite poles of the same substance, and knows that in the Universal Soul, all of the human sciences will one day merge and emerge. Each human being on the face of this earth is absolutely unique. Kabir thought that if all the forests were turned to pens and all the oceans to ink, he could not write enough to describe the beauty of Life, the potential of a human being, and the preciousness of the secret hidden within the human heart. But here on earth, we do not see or value a human being. We do not understand the ebb and flow of human nature.

    Joy and happiness are the most important aspects of this existence. What we are looking for, is already within. The human heart holds the key. The first step is to feel its thirst, and follow it, like a rope, letting the heart take the steps, expand, feel – teaching the mind to be still, attentive, and understand. You are learning to listen to you. It is an inner journey; not a journey into the mind like we are used to. It is not like studying architecture. We find help along the way, but let the heart be the judge. There is no destination that I know of, so there is no need to be goal orientated. Knowledge is a journey; a process without walls or ceiling. It is an inner experience. Understand the responsibilities of the heart. The heart is the only thing that you have, that is responsible and interested in you. The heart’s responsibility is to make the self known to you. The heart is not interested in your business responsibilities or personal relations (you are and that is as it should be) – the heart is only interested in you. The heart’s quest has been with you from the moment you were born; it is visible even in a child – what you have always wanted has nothing to do with age. It has been with human beings, since we first set foot upon this earth and the ‘I’ came into being. The purpose of life is to increase the warm heart.

Comments are closed.