Aug 1, 2015
Seeing by Darkness
Here is an interesting logical challenge for those who wish to argue that there is no such thing as darkness, dark entities or a dark brotherhood.
According to this belief there is no darkness anywhere so of course there are no dark individuals or brotherhoods anywhere.
BUT… what I have presented is not using such not-found-in-the-dictionary definition of terms. When I write I use the common definition of words as understood by the masses unless stated otherwise.
I use light and dark in reference to people’s minds in the same way that Jesus did in this verse:
The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!” Matt 6:22-23
“Single” comes from the Greek HAPLOÛS which indicates unity, focus and wholeness. Its corresponding noun is HAPLOTĒS and the adverb form is HAPLŌS. These words often imply a generous spirit.
Some scholars equate it with ancient Jewish sources speaking of the “good eye” which was an idiom for a generous spirit. For instance in Proverbs 22:9 we read:
He that hath a bountiful eye shall be blessed; for he giveth of his bread to the poor.
“Bountiful” comes from the Hebrew TOWB which can be translated as good, generous and joyful among others. It definitely implies a positive and generous attitude.
“Single” here is also commonly interpreted to mean “single to the glory of God,” or “single to that which is good.” The expanded meaning would imply a focus on giving of oneself in service. This is obviously the direction intended as the opposite direction mentioned is “But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness.”
“Evil” here is translated from the Greek PONĒRÓS. Strong’s gives the core meaning as being “hurtful.” Thayers describes the meaning as “Full of annoyances, hardships, pressed and harassed by labors … Bringing toils, annoyances, perils.”
The Septuagint usage implies a grudging person lacking of generosity.
So, Jesus was saying that if our eye or focus is on selfishness, bringing others hardship, apparently for one’s own benefit (evil) we will be full of darkness, but if we do the opposite and have a single purpose of helping others and bringing glory to God and not the self then we will be full of light.
Jesus makes an interesting statement about darkness. He says, “If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness.”
Ponder on this for a moment for it presents an interesting thought.
What does he mean here? How can light be darkness? Isn’t light just light and dark just dark? How can a light within you be darkness?
The answer is quite simple though I haven’t seen it presented before.
Light is the means by which we see and discern what is real and true. If our eye be single and focused on the good and seek to help others then we take in and use real light from God and see reality as it truly is.
On the other hand, if the eye is turned, not outward, but inward toward self, the true light enters not and in place of light that reveals truth the poor soul is filled with great darkness, according to Jesus.
But here is the interesting thing. The light that is within him is darkness. In other words, the guy dwelling in darkness, doesn’t see himself as being in darkness because darkness is the light by which he sees. To him, darkness is light.
So how could darkness be light? Isn’t it impossible to see anything in darkness?
The key to understanding this is that the light Jesus is referring to is not sunlight, but he inner light that reveals truth. One who is truly focused on the good the beautiful and the true will see by the true inner light. One who is focused on the desires of the lower self will see by other means, and that other means is called by Jesus, darkness.
He who is consumed by great inner darkness will have to use the outer lights of the physical and emotional worlds for vision. Using these alone is spiritual darkness compared to the disciple who sees by the inner light above the outer.
The problem for the one in darkness who may be a surface student of the inner is that he can see himself as guided by an inner light as it seems that he looks within to find the astral/emotional light.
The problem is that this astral light is even more deceptive than the physical and turns everything upside down so what is seen is either through a fog or reversed from true reality.
It is interesting that we find people, highly intelligent in nature, who rely on the true light as well as the darkness. This is why we see about us many intelligent people taking different sides of an issue, which, to the one with the inner light is a no-brainer to see it for what it is.
Attempting to see with physical eyes only through the filter of the emotional self is truly seeing in darkness or the attempt to use darkness as a light. The inner light is so powerful that by comparison all lights in the physical and astral are darkness.
The gospels speak of light and darkness a number of other times. Here was a description of the mission of John the Baptist:
To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace. Luke 1:79
Here is Jesus in his own words describing this duality:
When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness. Luke 22:53
Here is a description of the effect of the mission of Jesus using the duality of light and dark.
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. John 3:19-21
This scripture gives an interesting demarcation between those in the light and the dark. Those who love darkness hate the light. Those in the light do not hate and would leave those in darkness to their own devises if those in the dark did not hate them and attempt to frustrate the works of light.
And why do those in darkness hate the light that exposes the truth? Because, as the scripture plainly says, the light exposes their deeds. Actually it does more than that. Light, which reveals truth exposes the intent, the plans and the unfolding of the works of darkness. Because those who attempt to hide their intent in darkness do not want them exposed they hate any light which does just this.
We see this principle played out in the actions of many sneaky politicians who attempt to put things over on us. They will write up a bill that they know the majority will oppose and then do everything in their power to prevent the public, as well as other representatives, from finding out controversial details within it.
Anyone who tries to shed some light and expose what is in it will be hated and attacked.
Meanwhile, the guy who is in the light doesn’t mind anything that is true being revealed.
Another thing they do it take a bill with a pleasant sounding name, like “The Education Bill” and place some controversial rider in it that has nothing to do with education. Maybe it is money that will go to potential terrorists who may immigrate here and could become a big problem later on. Whatever the case, these riders are often pieces of legislation or spending that the vast majority would not support.
So what happens when some honest politician tries to throw some light on the subject? He is hated and attacked as being anti-education, even though the problem has nothing to do with education. The politician in the light doesn’t care how much light is thrown upon any of the works of Congress because he wants the people to be exposed to the truth so they will know what is going on.
It is true to form then that the honest politicians (few though they may be) are often the most hated, and attacked. Their message is also the most distorted by their enemies.
Conclusion: The gospels, and Jesus in particular, divided the people into those who are in the light and those who are in darkness. We see this also played out in our day, the political world being just one example.
So, are there organizations representing the two sides of light and dark?
If the scriptures have any value at all the answer would have to be yes.
First, let us see what they say about organizations in the spiritual light, which, of course, would be the side representing God and Christ.
Paul spoke of the spiritual organization representing the light:
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God. Eph 3:10
Here we have mention of “principalities and powers in heavenly places.”
He also says that God
…set him (Christ) at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: Eph 1:20-21
So here we have mention of principalities, powers and dominions not only in this world, but the one to come.
It indeed sounds like there is a lot to govern in the pertinacities of light:
Concerning the Ancient of Days it is written:
A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: Dan 7:10
Then we have this in reference to the Archangel Michael:
Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me… Dan 10:13
The fact that he was a chief price or ruler indicates a position in a hierarchy.
The scriptures do not give the full organization, or the number of different ones in the light, but a few details are given.
We are told that Christ or God is the “Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.” Rev 17:14
Lords and kings are governors over organizations and Christ is the head guy over them.
The Book of Revelations gives a representation of God (or the one that represents God for us) as being in charge and before him are 24 ancient ones as well as seven great spirits. There are also seven great angels and many saints. In addition there is “an innumerable company of angels.” Heb 12:22
Obviously there is a hierarchy and principalities of light involved in maintaining order in this “world to come.”
Now let us look at the other side. Jesus talked of those who represented “the power of darkness.” Do they have any organization?
The scriptures give us a definite yes. Again, here is Paul’s famous words on the matter:
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Eph 6:12
So here it is clearly revealed that there are “rulers of darkness” in this world as well as “high places.”
“High places” is translated from the Greek EPOURANIOS which means “heavenly or celestial places.” In other words, there are dark hierarchies existing beyond this physical realm.
Then we have this:
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Eph 1:23
Most likely “air” here signified an other worldly place as seen as being above the earth. It is interesting coincidence to consider that dark minds may control many of our AIR waves though which so much of the media is broadcast.
Here Paul tells disciples that before they walked in the light of Christ they were under the control of the adversarial dark prince.
Perhaps another reason he was called the prince of the air is it seemed as if he could broadcast his thoughts through the air which could be picked up by those who were susceptible.
This head prince was identified in the scriptures as either the devil or Satan, both titles signifying in the Greek an adversary or an accuser. Unfortunately such a being has been the victim of such caricatures with horns and a tail so a belief in such an entity is compared to a belief in Bigfoot or the Big Bad Wolf.
Many also say that any such dark entities are just a product of one’s imagination or a thoughtform.
While it is true that the door to evil or darkness is open by the individual’s our own mind, the scriptures are definite that such beings exist just as undesirable characters exist as neighbors and associates that we may inadvertently let into our lives.
In reference to such a being functioning with a darkened mind here are words from Jesus himself:
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die. John 12:31-33
Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. John 14:30
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. John 16:7-11
And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Luke 10:18-19
Finally we have an unusual reference in the book of Jude to this being:
Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. Jude 1:9
Here is what we have concluded as definite truths testified to by the scriptures as well as the words of Jesus.
(1) There are those who dwell in the light and those who dwell in spiritual darkness.
(2) Christ, God, Michael and other benevolent beings are a part of a hierarchy on the side that dwells in the spiritual light.
(3) There is a hierarchy of spiritual darkness opposing the hierarchy of light.
(4) There are “rulers of darkness” in this world and in the unseen world. Jesus called one such being the “prince of this world” or Satan. He was also called the “devil”, which means “accuser” and the “prince of the power of the air.”
Of course, one can maintain that any part of the scriptures one does not want to accept is just allegorical and interpret them according to one’s imagination, but if they have any truth at all as written, there does definitely exist beings dwelling in the light and darkness in this world and the next.
Even if the scriptures are totally rejected the following is true:
(1) There are individuals and groups on this planet who have designs to do good unselfish works to benefit humankind and bring greater freedom.
(2) There are individuals and groups who have designs that are evil, destructive, misled and will enslave others to further their own selfish or illusionary purposes.
(3) These two group exist among those of all grades of intelligence as intelligence is assessed by orthodoxy.
(4) There is a high probability that there are groups of high intelligence, unknown to the masses, on both sides of the equation.
This would support the idea of a Brotherhood of Light and Dark as both have representatives in physical bodies in this world. All it takes to accept the possibility of their existence is the acceptance of point four.
On the other hand, if we accept the teaching of the scriptures that light and dark extends beyond the physical to a light from God that enlightens the mind we can add the following points.
(5) The spiritual light mentioned by Jesus and the prophets reveals truth and he who rejects this light is in darkness where truth is obscured, distorted or hidden. This creates a spiritual demarcation between light and dark.
(6) There are physical and non physical realms wherein intelligent life dwells. If intelligence is divided between light and dark here then it is logical that such a division would continue in some form in at least part the non physical realms.
To those who outright reject the probability of a dark and light brotherhood let me ask this question.
At what point does the demarcation between light and dark cease?
Anyone who watches the news any evening can see that the demarcation exists. There are stories of organizations that are attempting to do good things and others who are attempting to do destructive things. For instance, I just heard the report that Iran wants to destroy Israel off the face of the earth and then hunt down the remaining Jews and gleefully put them to death. I’d say that attitude is a rejection of the light and love from God.
Again, where does this demarcation end? Does it end when a person becomes a master to some and obtains more power over the elements than the ordinary person? Does this demarcation just instantly cease when a certain degree of intelligence is reached? If so where is that degree at?
The Law of Correspondences tells us that as above, so below and as below so is above to a high degree so if there is an obvious demarcation in this world then why would one not exist in some places in the non physical worlds?
Now in the world of souls the light is in much more abundance than here, but there are many invisible realms in the universe and whether high or low some have more light and truth than others.
Unfortunately, there are a few who completely reject the spiritual light and love of God. Shutting off the source of light indeed creates a world of spiritual darkness. Let us hope none of us visits that state of consciousness.
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. Jesus
JJ: On the other hand, if the eye is turned, not outward, but inward toward self, the true light enters not and in place of light that reveals truth the poor soul is filled with great darkness, according to Jesus.
me: This would appear to contradict the many verses that say that to find god you must look within yourself.
The context is important here. I am talking about the focus of the eye or our energy for sending. If we seek to have all gifts come toward the lower self for self benefit then the light that comes in to the body will be darkness and confusion. If we see our fellow men and woman out there as those that we can kindly assist in some way then the eye is seeing in the light and the person will be full of light.
On the other hand, when one is seeking truth and being reflective he must find that true light within and discover what it reveals.
Looking at the true light within and the darkness of the lower self within are two different things. As I said, the astral light appears to be within, but causes great deception. Even in looking within one must discern between the astral light and the light of the spirit.
The key here is that the brightness of the light within is caused, in great measure, by how we direct our eye of attention to the world of service without. He who has discovered light within must share it with the world without in order to keep the light of truth shining bright.
When’s the last time you learned anything of value from some monk who spent half his life meditating in a cave?
The problem is in identifying a organized brotherhood of darkness out to defeat what you define as “the light”.
It is not so much they are out to defeat each other, but their goals are so different that they get in each other’s way.
As I mentioned earlier, the reason why intelligent men and even highly spiritual men can disagree over an issue, is not necessarily am issue of light fighting against darkness. Many times it is light arguing with light.
If one in the full light of the soul disagrees with another then it is because they do not understand each other. When they understand each other they will agree if they run the details by their souls.
Those who not bask in the light of the soul of all kinds of intelligence levels have many disagreements with those in and out of soul light.
For instance I think someone like Ayn Rand was arguing for what she considered to be truth and let’s say it is the Red spectrum, and Karl Marx was arguing for what he considered to be the truth which is maximum equality, which lets say is on the violet spectrum. Neither is completely right and neither is completely wrong. Socialism is needed to balance the excesses of Capitalism. The individual must be balanced against society. Rand erred on the side of the individual, Marx erred on the side of the community. However, these two acting in tension with each other seems to balance the inadequacies of the other. One is not more light or more dark than the other. They are both part of the light.
You seem to think that I believe that either a person is 100% enlightened or completely in the dark. I have never taught or thought such a thing. It would be interesting to see how much we really disagree if you understood me correctly. The problem is that I understand where you are coming from but you do not with me, as you do not accurately understand many of the things I present.
Both Rand and Marx had a desire to improve the human condition and both may have had some insight of light come to them through the soul. I do not see either as soul infused but both were polarized in the lower mind and operated from the vantage point of reason filtered through their illusions.
Where two people are subject to illusion they will disagree on a number of things. When two reply on the concrete mind they will disagree on a number of things for the mind is the slayer of the real. Only two sharing the light of the soul together can see as one. This is the basis of the Molecular Relationship of which I have written.
You seem to think that anything that limits freedom is a move towards darkness,
Completely false. The freedom of burglar to invade your home and many other things need to be limited by law to insure maximum freedom for the individual and groups.
but it can just as easily be argued that anything that leads to greater inequality, is also a move towards darkness.
I wouldn’t argue for either one.
The truth is that no one posses the complete truth and it is a mistake to think that any person, party, ideology, and especially yourself is in possession of the complete truth.
Yes. That is a pretty basic truth that almost everyone accepts.
To me, maximum freedom is the law of the jungle, anarchy. For me that is not ideal. I believe in maximum liberty balanced by maximum justice, balanced by maximum equality, balanced by maximum compassion, balanced by maximum responsibility, balanced by maximum altruism.
I have talked a lot about maximum freedom and that is far far from what it is. If you are going to argue with me you need to argue with what I say and believe, not with what I do not say and believe.
There is little freedom of worth with out the rule of law which prevents roving gangs and criminals from threatening the freedom of all. Maximum freedom is created through necessary laws to restrict the complete freedom of those who will do harm from restricting the maximum freedom of the majority.
I stand by the dark is just absence of light…
I stand by it too but because night is created by an absence of sunlight does not mean that night does not exist and that we have to deal with it by turning on some lights so we can see.
Similarly a dark brother is one who has turned away from the light of the soul and does not share in it. He uses lesser lights to guide him which by comparison are darkness.
Again JJ you do not leap from the natural world to the supernatural and claim you are being logical,
If you believe this then why do you repeatedly leap to the supernatural in your posts? You have related a number of supernatural experiences of you and your wife. Are you saying you are both illogical?
Aug 3, 2015
why do men love darkness, or why are humans so attracted to darkness…………is there a principle to this?
People love or hate what they see and if they reject the spiritual light or have not arrived at the vision then all they have to love is the material world.
when Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the Tree of Life…….eg to know Good from Evil, then they also chose to know evil or darkness, yes?
This story represents the time when humans became self conscious. They didn’t think, “Oh boy, I now get to choose evil if I want.” They merely became aware they had freedom to choose.
Cain killed Abel, because God gave Adam and Eve the free will to know Good from Evil, but then God gets upset because people love darkness…..?
Higher lives do not get upset. Nothing can disturb their peace in their high place.
(d) When the ancient Jews/ Laggards were sent to Earth from the previous Earth or Universe, it was because they failed to pass over the portal, and had to be sent to another Earth, so that they could undertake the necessary initiations again…………and you have said that if one does not learn from their mistakes, or runs away from their challenges in life, then the lessons get harder and harder until one learns……..therefore this Earth is like an even harder challenge and test for those Jews/Laggards to master, which means that the Good and Evil is going to be perhaps even greater than anything that they undertook previously, because they failed to learn from their previous lessons, which means that some of those laggards and/or Jews, already had darkness in their hearts, and then brought that with them to this Earth?
No this earth will not necessarily be more difficult than the last one. In some ways it will be easier because of the vast experience they have under their belts. What I was talking about is a particular problem that the soul wants us to solve in a particular life. If we refuse to work on it in one life then a more difficult situation will be created in another to force us to focus.
The laggard’s situation is like being in school and having to repeat a grade. For most the repeat will be a little easer because they have learned a few things the other students did not.
She asks about the source of evil on this planet. It is merely the cumulative effect of consciousness here on many levels that resist the spiritual light.
Both Moses and Jesus were assigned to this Earth to help the laggards and/or Jews move forwards more into the Light and pass the necessary initiations set out for them, so most of the Bible teachings are aimed “firstly” at the Jews/ Laggards, and then secondly at the rest of the human units on Earth, who the Jews are supposed to be uplifting as part of the plan to pass through the next portal, is that correct?
The focus in a past age was on the Jews hoping they would be a light to the world, but now the focus is on anywhere in the world where light may be received.
The old souls are more stuck in darkness because of their antiquity, and the Karma that they generated in the past?
Some are stuck and some are moving ahead fine.
Is the Reformed Brother, the one Lucifer who “fell” or “rebelled” because he didn’t want to come to this Earth, or because he wanted to rule this Earth instead of being a laggard here, or was he one of the good guys, (see below quote)…..?
I wasn’t talking about Lucifer when writing of the reformed brother.
We do not have many details about the Lucifer (Morning Star) who fell. DK merely tells us that it was caused by a disagreement in the councils of the Most High. He says.
Again, in the council chamber of the Most High, there has not always been peace and understanding, but at times, war and disruption; this is made abundantly clear by several of the stories in the Old Testament. Symbolically speaking, some of the sons of God fell from their high estate, led, at one time, by “Lucifer, Son of the Morning”. This “fall of the angels” was a tremendous event in the history of our planet, but was nevertheless only a passing and interesting phenomenon in the history of the solar system, and a trifling incident in the affairs of the seven constellations, of which our solar system is but one.
He says it was a “symbolic fall” indicating it was not a fall as most literally understand it from the scriptures. Maybe more of just a temporary falling out.
Aug 4, 2015
Molecular Business Attempt
Dan Price, an Idaho native, attempted to implement one of the core ingredients of the Molecular Business, which is an equal salary for all. Consequently he is having major problems and the existence of his company is now threatened.
Click on one of the links below and read the article, then answer the following?
What ingredients of the Molecular Business is Dan not using that is creating so many problems for him?
What results has Dan achieved that indicate that a Molecular Business could be very successful if done right?
What problem did occur for Dan that will probably have to be dealt with by a true Molecular Business?
Here is the LINK.
Before I answer Larry’s questions I want to emphasize that the questions dealt with what Dan Price did contrary to the Molecular Business principles that created problems for him.
1) So how do you reconcile the parable of Jesus where all got paid the same whether they worked a full day or half a day or just one hour?
The point of the parable is that the guy with the gold makes the rules and if you agree to pay a person a certain amount for a product or service and keep your word on the matter then it is no one’s business what you pay anyone else.
On a similar note if I buy a product at a store for $100 and then a few days later the price drops to $70 I have no right to complain because I felt the product was worth $100 and I agreed to pay it. If I complain to the store they may or may not give me a rebate. They are justified either way.
The scriptures say that all the worthy laborers will be entitled to ALL that God has. If you wind up with everything you could possibly use why would you grumble about what anyone else receives? If you put in more labor than the other guy you will have developed more skill that can be applied to the next endeavor.
2) What about people who put off wages for four years or more in order to attend college and make themselves more capable?
What about them? Good for them. They will have more opportunity. If a molecular business lacks certain skills it will do what is necessary to get qualified people even if it has to pay for the education of its workers.
3) What about people who sacrificed home time while working extra hours to make-it-work?
If they work extra hours they would get paid overtime or get extra stock.
4) Why does Stu bother?
I guess he needs the work. Walmart is not molecular so the situation is not comparable. He would have much more incentive in a molecular business.
5) Whatever seems hard, whatever seems challenging, I go there.” Our music listening habits automatically reward excellence. Why would a Molecular Business act any different?
There would be more opportunity to take on challenges in a molecular business because it is controlled from the bottom up. Stu’s situation was the result of a top-down decision.
4) Does not The Molecular Relationship teach that elected leaders get higher pay than floor workers?
Everyone gets the same monetary salary but to supply incentives bonuses are given in stock and more desirable positions. The standard salary is decided by employees.
Most of these questions are covered in the archives.
I never before realized that the Molecular System is a pure form of socialism. Thanks.
The main difference with today’s socialist ideas though is the Molecular Business is completely voluntary and the power base is from the bottom up. The main problem with do-gooders today is they want to implement their ideas by force and if they do not work it is almost impossible to change or improve them so they will work.
Incorporating the Molecular Business
Well, Adam, you were the only one who took a serious stab at answering the questions on the Molecular Business. Looks like you get a gold star.
Let us take a look at your response.
What ingredients of the Molecular Business is Dan not using that is creating so many problems for him?
Seems fairly clear that ownership is missing, at least to the degree suggested in the Molecular Business model. There needs to be incentive for the higher skilled and more motivated employees – stock and benefits tied to performance.
Also, in a molecular business, the hierarchy and structure would require more democracy. Mr. Price would have to subject himself to the possibility that he could be voted into a different position within the company.
These are two good points and incorporating these would have helped the business. But there were two more significant ingredients. Can you figure out what they are?
What results has Dan achieved that indicate that a Molecular Business could be very successful if done right?
He’s demonstrated a willingness to go against orthodoxy through his own free will. An existing power structure, does not easily surrender some of that power/control/wealth, especially without imposition/force from a greater power structure.
Mr. Price has at least demonstrated a spirit that is willing to relinquish some wealth/power in the interest of others. It’s an initiation of an idea that might get others thinking about how such a structure could be improved, to yield the best in profitability, accountability, excellence, self-sufficiency, cooperation, and benevolence. At a minimum, he seems to be trying to establish a viable balance between self-interest/improvement and good will/cooperative spirit.
What you say is true but what we are looking for in this question is the positive results he achieved which were:
(1) The idea attracted a lot of positive attention.
(2) Lots of people wanted to work there
(3) Those who did work there who accepted the idea had an increase of unity, cooperation and feeling of equality.
(4) They lost some customers but new ones signed up.
What problem did occur for Dan that will probably have to be dealt with by a true Molecular Business?
I think it was a bit ambitious to start such a model using a “service industry” business. Service industry businesses are needed and useful, but they are a step removed from the tangible offerings of manufacturing and production. Since sound economics are based on supply and demand, then the demand will always be more easily captured, and supply increased/limited, if the user can better quantify/see the goods, and recognize the immediate need, imo. Service contracts are more susceptible to fluctuation and termination than contracts for manufactured goods.
I also think, assuming Mr. Price was truly sincere in his stated motivations, that he might have been better served by not making the increases public. I think he should have had his employees sign non-disclosure agreements before giving drastic raises. Word would probably get out, sooner or later, but no one would be willing to go completely public, and the “hint” of change would be better PR in the long run. He should have given himself more time to test the idea – perhaps 3-5 years, at least. Then he could go public afterwards, in order to become a model for others.
All of what you say is true and though I did say a manufacturing business would be best for the first model a larger service business could work.
There was a major problem mentioned in the article that the first molecular businesses will have to deal with.
Let us see who can find what it is.
Aug 5, 2015
We are still looking for two main ingredients of the Molecular Business not used by Dan Price. To this Ruth replies that older employees complain because of the pay equality and decision making is too centralized in Dan.
No that is not what I was looking for. Adam mentioned the need for more democracy and soul contact is not essential for the business model, though it would be helpful.
There are two core mistakes that Dan made not mentioned yet.
The last unsolved question is:
What problem did occur for Dan that will probably have to be dealt with by a true Molecular Business?
Ruth gives a hint in the right direction by saying, the “Beast principle.” But there was a problem that occurred because of the business, specifically mentioned in the article, and it did kind of surface because of the Beast Principle.
What was it?
Equal Pay Problems
lwk quotes me as follows:
“[One of] the core ingredients of the Molecular Business, … is an equal salary for all.”
Then says, “The idea that on this earth it is an ideal to struggle for equal pay for all regardless of contribution does not make sense.”
For this to make sense we have to look at the end product of what the real struggle is about. It is not about any forced equality for equality’s sake. It is about the creation of abundance for all in every way, spiritually and materially.
If we create a society where each person has all that he needs for a happy life then who cares what the other guy makes? All are equal if all have everything, which is the principle behind the Kingdom of Heaven.
There are four objections against the equal pay idea.
(1) It seems unfair because those who work harder should get paid more.
Well, this does not happen now. The guy on the assembly line may work with twice the intensity as the CEO and get paid 5% as much.
Two guys may have the same job description yet the slacker may get paid more than the guy working like crazy.
This objection does not fly.
(2) It seems fair that those with higher skills should get paid more than the less skilled. Skills take money and time to develop. The engineer should get paid more than the assembly line guy.
This is not a problem dealing with hard work because the assembly line guy may work harder than the engineer. It is believed that different positions have different value and it is fair that they get different pay.
This makes sense from the normal business prospective, but the Molecular model is out of the normal box.
There are three powerful advantages to the equal pay idea as outlined in the Molecular Business.
(A) It inspires empathy, brotherhood, camaraderie and unity among the workers.
(B) Because the wage can be adjusted up or down with the need it allows the business to be extremely competitive. It can survive in hard times and thrive in good times.
(C) Instead of having an overpaid management, leaders will easily be drawn from the ranks allowing the saved money to go to the workers as a whole.
(3) Those with skills in demand will not take a pay cut and work for a Molecular Business.
One interesting thing that Dan demonstrated was that some skilled workers were attracted to his ideas more than the money itself. There are other draws to working in a place besides the money. If a worker is happy with his job, the people and the opportunity he will often work for less.
Also keep in mind that workers would get paid extra for overtime and those who contribute more value can be paid extra in stock.
(4) People need incentive and money is the best incentive.
As I said, there are other incentives, but let us supposed that the business needs a programmer who’s skill will easily get him a job at $200,000. Why would he work for a molecular business where he would have to take a big pay cut?
There are several ways the problem could be handled. The business could pay for the training of the skill for one or more of its present employees.
The second alternative is to offer stock in addition to the guy’s salary.
If that doesn’t work and the hiring of the expert is essential he could be hired as a contractor and paid whatever the demand is, just like you would hire some guy to mow your lawn at the going wage. He wouldn’t be an employee, but may turn into one if he likes the company and the people.
In my treatise on this I cover the need for incentive and how it is fulfilled on a number of levels. Until civilization reaches is next great stage of business evolution money will be a huge incentive because of the lack of it in many lives. When this lack is eliminated attitudes toward money and material things will be dramatically altered.
One of the things that is evolving to fill this need is robotics. As technology evolves we will eventually all be able to live like kings – if we do not blow ourselves up first.
The molecular business will not be for everyone, at least not until it is near universally accepted. If someone is happily employed at $200,000 a year, and is used to the lifestyle, then it would not make sense to him to take a big cash pay cut. The business is not a religious thing where, if you do not accept it, you will be judged unworthy or go to hell. Most molecular workers will completely understand the skilled guys reluctance to join them.
It is interesting that Dan had an avalanche of job applicants, indicating that a Molecular Business will have no lack of raw talent from which to choose.
Not sure who this is addressed to but I will respond. I notice a number of posts lately that are difficult to tell who is being responded to.
This is not about selfishness, it’s about fairness and motivation. We’ve seen throughout the history of the human race that people work hard and use their most creative juices to earn rewards for themselves. It’s basic human nature. Will you now say motivation of reward means nothing?
I am certainly not saying this. The Molecular Business has all kinds of motivation and reward built into it.
If I see an opportunity to put in some overtime so I can afford a guitar that I want, then should I be arbitrarily denied?
You can work overtime (if available) and get paid extra for it in the Molecular Business.
If I do work extra but everyone gets the same reward, including those who did not lift a finger to earn it, then why should I do the extra work/effort/creativity?
In almost all businesses you will have a number of people doing the same job getting the same pay and some will be working much harder than others.
In a Molecular Business because you are judged from the bottom up you are much more likely to be rewarded with a promotion than in a top down business where the bosses favorite is usually promoted. If a person is too much a slacker he will be rejected by his fellow workers and be out of a job.
Are you saying this issue of basic fairness and human nature is not valid?
Of course not. No idea where you are getting this from what I have written.
Your problem with your previous boss treating you unfairly would be largely solved in the Molecular Business because your main judges would be your co-workers who know how hard you are really working.
I believe in equal pay for equal work. But I do not believe in equal pay for unequal work.
There are two types of equality and inequality to be dealt with.
(1) Equality of effort. For instance, an assembly line guy may be making a greater effort and working harder than the CEO. Should this count for something?
(2) Equality or inequality of skill or job importance.
Should this count for something?
Yes, again. First, the more skilled job has part of its reward built in. Being a computer programmer, knowing you are making a big difference, is much more rewarding than working on a boring assembly line.
In addition to doing more fun work, those with crucial skills are rewarded with more power, opportunity and stock. If that isn’t enough they can work as a contractor for extra cash.
The Molecular Business recognizes that material reward will be a necessary incentive for some time to come, but as abundance for all is manifested it will become less and less a factor.
In the coming age job satisfaction will be the important thing and that will come from the realization that the worker is assisting the greatest number of people that his talents can handle.
Aug 6, 2015
The Needs of the Many
If we create a society where each person has all that (he) needs then what motivation is there to excel? I can push the envelope in achievement or just slack off and do only much as I have to. What difference does it make? I still get paid the same.
Which situation is more conducive to happiness? Where the guy is struggling to make ends meet, care for his loved ones, and has to focus most of his attention on making money?
He has his basic physical needs met today and feels comfortable that they will be met tomorrow?
I don’t know about you, but the closer I get to the second situation the happier and more fulfilled I am.
I believe it was General MacArthur who said something to the effect that we must fill a person’s belly before we can teach him any philosophy.
The bottom line is this. When a person is in a situation where he doesn’t have to worry about the basic needs of himself and loved ones he should be more, not less, motivated to accomplish something worthwhile. If not then he is devoid of imagination.
There are much more interesting things to do than wasting energy in worrying about making a living.
Yes, it’s true that some with free time will use it destructively, but the guy who is desperate for money is the more dangerous.
We as a civilization are rapidly advancing to that point where all the dreary labor will be replaced with technology of some kind. They are already working on robotics that will clean homes, tend bar, care for the elderly and replace many farm workers.
The time is not far distant when any job opportunity in production or general labor will be rare. Such a person will be managing technology.
Work opportunities have already made a major shift from production to service or technology of some kind. As our attention shifts so will our creative energy and our needs. Creative people will find new ways to make money in service and others will find new ways to enjoy themselves by being served.
As the physical needs of the many are filled the consciousness of humanity will shift toward equality, with the realization that the world does not consist of “us” and “them,” but we are all “us.”
When this point is reached then humanity will have reached a major turning point that will allow the consciousness of the whole to expand.
I do not know if I will ever have the power to create a Molecular Business in this life, but it is a blueprint for the future, and others will take us to it in bits and pieces if I am not able to incorporate the whole plan while here.
The end equation is not necessarily how hard or long you work, but what you produce. But then again, many who produce more do work longer and harder than their companions do.
My point about hard work was just one of several that has value. You are right, the true monetary value is based on the end product. In other words, the labor of some workers is of more value than others.
On the other hand, the value of one person’s soul compared to another is not.
This is why the inevitable direction of evolution is taking us toward equality on all levels.
Notice, that I say “equality” not sameness. As long as we maintain freedom, we will always be unique individuals directing our energies in different ways to find fulfillment. The equality of opportunity, evolving through free will, not force, will only enhance such fulfillment.
Even so, the Molecular Business makes concessions to the idea that some work is more important than others. Such people will be recognized, given positions of greater power and additional stock.
Then as civilization evolves the handling of the various qualities of labor may change.
The bottom line though is simply this. If you ideas about the Molecular Business work in a free and competitive environment then that is fair and right.
You are absolutely correct. If it turns out that any of the items in the plan do not work then they need to be changed or discarded until the business does work.
I personally believe that it will be much more efficient than the regular business model and prove to be able to outperform all competitors. We see evidence of this already. Since I have presented this idea almost three decades ago many business have incorporated a number of its precepts. Those who have, have been much more successful than those who have not.
For instance, locally, a small grocery chain called WINCO became employee owned and moved a couple steps toward being molecular. It went from a about a half dozen stores in 1999 to over 100 retail stores today and four distribution centers with 14,200 employees. No one locally can out price them, not even the giant Walmart. Imagine what they would e doing if they were 100% molecular.
I am not saying that any of the businesses moving toward being molecular have done so because of me. Instead, those who are sensitive to soul energies naturally pick up the next sep in evolution. The main advantage of someone creating the whole thing, as outlined in my treatise, is that it would speed things up.
By the way, no one has figured out yet the main thing that Dan did wrong.
Aug 7, 2015
The Welfare Factor
I made the statement to the effect that if a person’s basic needs are net that the situation will be more conducive to happiness and creativity than if they are not.
To which lwk replied:
There are a lot of people on some kinds of welfare today who certainly do have their _real_ basic needs met. They have housing, food, TVs, etc. and often barter their benefits for booze and drugs.
They don’t exactly seem motivated to accomplish much beyond finding more ways to get extra benefits. But their happiness is much diminished due to their envy of those with more and their politically induced feelings of being victims.
I was writing about those who are fortunate enough to labor for their money. When one does his share in the labor market and honestly earns enough to take care of his basic needs then he has taken care of one of the greatest obstacles to happiness in this physical reality.
Now those on some type of assistance who do manage to get enough to live on without having to work are often scamming the system (as noted by Clay), milking it for all they can get. The attitude of those looking for a free lunch, without any constructive participation on their part, is not conducive to happiness.
I have presented a plan in my book Fixing America that will solve many of the problems connected with welfare yet still take care of those truly in need.
To be able to do your part in taking care of the needs of you and your loved ones is certainly conducive to happiness.
The Major Problem
Okay, I guess it is about time to look at the major factor that Dan missed from the Molecular Business treatise.
I think some here will kick themselves when I point this out because it was a factor that we have previously discussed quite a bit and when I do point it out I think that most will see that it is obviously correct.
Here is the major ingredient from the Molecular Business that Dan missed. Here is a quote from my book.
The idea is very simple and the seeds of its manifestation already surround us, but it has not demonstrated itself in business for one major reason: People in authority love the power it gives them, and they will use this power, at all costs, to keep their area of dominion secure. Since that authority is almost impossible to remove once an organization has been established, we will not see the established companies turning into Molecular Businesses. The first Molecular Businesses will be entirely new enterprises. Next we will see a number of faltering companies turning to it to save them from going under. Finally, after it has been proven to produce abundance, we will see the established businesses reluctantly turn to it. The reluctance will come from those who wish to hold onto their power over others.
Now Dan’s problem had not so much to do with the change in the authoritative structure as change itself and the change he made struck right at the heart of all. That important change was in how employees got paid and how much.
As I pointed out in numerous comments I have made in this subject – the Molecular Business requires so many changes that it would be almost impossible to use an existing business as a model for the first one as there would be too much resistance and too many problems created.
Jesus actually pointed out the principle behind this problem:
No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved. Matt 9:16-17 NIV
Taking new ideas and attempting to force them on to employees and owners of an existing company is indeed like putting new wine in old bottles (or wineskins – as was used in that day).
Dan’s brother didn’t risk his life savings with the idea that, once the business was successful, of switching over to an experiment in social engineering.
The employees, especially the ones with special skills, did not join with the idea that everyone would be paid the same wage.
Nether did the stockholders invest with the idea that the business would be making controversial changes in its operation.
Dan indeed verified the principle that you cannot put new wine in old wineskins and that the Molecular Business must begin from the ground floor up.
I cited the success of the local grocery company WINCO, which had incorporated a couple molecular principles with great success.
But they were incorporated at the beginning of their company and all employees and investors knew what they were getting into.
A true Molecular Business will not just incorporate one major change, as Dan tried to do, but numerous ones. Starting the first one using an existing business would be a Herculean task indeed. It will be difficult enough starting it from scratch, but at least this is a task that can be done.
In fact it will indeed be done at some time because this is the direction toward which evolution is heading.
The second major ingredient that Dan did not apply was in how the general wage would be determined. He alone decided on the $70,000 figure and picked it not because it would be good for the business but because that was the wage that seemed to be necessary to bring satisfaction to employees.
In the Molecular Business the general wage is not arbitrarily determined by the CEO, but is made with group approval and is adjusted up or down depending on the cash needed to keep the business functioning successfully.
The Molecular Business incorporates the Principle of Correction. If a process or plan does not work then changes are made until efficiency is achieved.
Aug 8, 2015
Myth or Not?
The theory is that behind many elements of mythology lies some true story on which it was based. As the science of archaeology advances and more ancient writings are discovered we are finding much supportive evidence that this was true.
So, does this mean that there was a real Hercules who was half god and half man?
Maybe not literally, but there was probably a powerful human being who seemed to be as much god as human on which the legend was based.
At one time the Iliad by Homer was considered to be pure fantasy. Until 1884 when German amateur archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann upset the applecart and unearthed the real city of Troy.
That would be comparable to finding the city of Camelot today.
This caused many questions to surface. If Troy was a real city in history then how about Helen of Troy, the Trojan Horse and the gods themselves mentioned? Maybe Achilles and Zeus were real people on which the story was based.
Also mentioned by Homer were Jason and the Argonauts. Surely the Golden Fleece was pure myth, right?
Not so fast. They have recently found evidence that a real golden fleece existed in ancient times. Here’s the story:
Jason and the Argonauts’ mythic quest for the Golden Fleece took inspiration from an actual voyage sometime between 3,300 and 3,500 years ago, scientists say. Jason went from Greece to a kingdom near the Black Sea renowned for using sheepskins to collect gold grains and flakes from mountain streams.
Go HERE for the full story
It is interesting that when Marco Polo published his travels to China many people thought that the stories were pure myth. It took some time to verify that his travels to that strange place known as China really occurred.
And how about King Arthur, Merlin, Excalibur and Camelot? Were they real?
Some give a knee jerk dismissal, but again, not so fast. A lot of serious scholars think there is enough evidence to indicate there is some truth behind this legend just as been the case for many others.
Here is an interesting story giving ten clues to the real King Arthur.
Good comments Blayne. I certainly would not vouch for the literal truth of any of the King Arthur stories though I think that King Arthur, Merlin and some of the story were roughly based on real legendary characters from history lost. It is entirely possible that the original characters had different names.
I have discovered testimony doing regressions that some of the characters of the period were real.
The thing that impresses me about the story is the great symbolism. It has better allegory for teaching than the Bible.
Here are some of my previous comments:
All have heard about the magic sword that Arthur was supposed to have pulled from a stone. The stone was a symbol of “the stone which the builders rejected” [Matthew 21:42] or the Christ. The sword called Excalibur, was a symbol of the commission given to King Arthur, or the “keys of the Kingdom” [Matthew 16:19] It also symbolized the sword wielded by Christ in Revelation 19:15 “that with it he should smite the nations”.
The Holy Grail in the legend symbolizes the “fruits” of the Kingdom of God that they were searching for and attempting to produce at that time. It is also a symbol of the presence of Christ, for when the Kingdom is established the Master will appear. Legend has it that only one or possibly several knights were worthy to see the grail indicating that most knights, valiant as they were, were not prepared for their Master.
Near the end of Arthur’s life he gave his sword, Excalibur, to Sir Bedivere and told him to throw it into a nearby lake. Bedivere was reluctant to obey, but finally gave into Arthur’s demand and heaved it into the water. It was said to have been caught by the hand of the Lady of the Lake. The hand waved the sword three times and then disappeared under the water. The hand symbolizes the rightful owner of the sword, The Christ, and the fact that he waved the sword three times is symbolic of the three time periods when the sword was to be wielded. The first time was in the Jewish kingdom from the days of Moses. The second was from the days of Christ to King Arthur, and the third wave was an indication of a future time.
The legends tell us that another Merlin and King Arthur will arise with another Excalibur and blaze the trail of glory peace and prosperity. How much of the above legends are actually true is inconsequential here. What is important is that they represent symbols which portray real truth. After Excalibur was lost then was fulfilled the scripture which says: “And the woman (The Kingdom of God) fled into the wilderness, where a thousand two hundred and threescore days.” Revelation 12:6
Copyright 2015 by J J Dewey
Easy Access to all the Writings
Register at Freeread Here
Log on to Freeread Here
For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE
Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Join JJ’s Study class HERE