Skip to content

The Shift and Values

Another matter I reflected on over the holidays was this website. Some of the questions I asked were: What are you doing? What are you investigating? What are you promoting?

The answer I got was this. The 2012 Scenario is about a shift. It’s a shift in everything – values, experiences, spirituality, diplomacy, living conditions, technology, everything. There isn’t anything that will not be affected by the shift.

Where shall we start? The shift in allegiance from desiring duality to desiring transcendence? From poverty to abundance? From war to peace? From divided nationalities to common citizenship? From envy to generosity, revenge to forgiveness, ill health to constant health? Everything will shift.

Our values will change from animosity to relatedness. Our experiences will shift from fear and dread to love and welcome. Our spirituality will change from subjects of an Object to Oneness. Our diplomacy will change from non-co-operation and ensnarement to co-operation and empowerment.

Our living conditions will shift from poverty, hunger and homelessness to abundance in everything. Our technology will shift from dire replacement to infinite servant.

The shift will primarily affect consciousness. All other shifts will arise after that and from that.

At that higher level, only qualities like love, truth, wisdom, fairness, and peace will be found. Everything that exists will resonate with the shifts in consciousness and individuality.

This website intends to view that shift from a number of angles.

But not from every conceivable angle, because I saw before I left that I really do have a set of interests and some things are excluded from it.

Way back in the Fifties, anthropologist Leslie White distinguished three levels of existence: the physical, the biological, and the cultural. I would add a fourth: the spiritual. My interests do not include the physical and the biological.

Max Weber, as we looked at in another article, (1) made a distinction between “value” and “fact” to differentiate what he looked at from what his father looked at. Weber looked at “fact.” Even though I’ve been trained as a tribunal member to handle facts and assess credibility, I’m actually more attracted to what Weber’s father looked at: “value.”

I was trained as an historian and sociologist. I worked for a time in a legal setting. I’ve always been drawn to the spiritual. But what might be loosely called the “scientific,” including the mathematical, has never really attracted my attention.

The odd article reproduced perhaps, but that would be about it. I wouldn’t know what to recommend and what not to.

So I’ll be looking at Ascension, but not the science of it. The same with galactics, human evolution, consciousness, etc. Mine will be probably be the subjective approach, rather than the objective.

So if you’re interested in those aspects of the total picture, you’ll probably find them better covered in other sources.

Just for the record.

I mention this because I was asked recently to answer a number of questions, but they were primarily scientific and I have no significant background to draw on in answering them. It works best to be clear about that up-front, I think.



No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: