TED Conversations

Vivienne Eggers

Writing Thesis on Gaia Peace Philosophies Intl Law & Global Gov , Founder Gaia Life Way Intl Peace Institute

This conversation is closed.

World Peace - What do you think are the necessary and most important factors to create and sustain global harmony for more than one day?

Everybody desires peace - harmony and balance forming comfortable life for themselves, family, communities and ultimately society. Yet every person's individual ideal of peace varies. Often it is dependent on their environmental conditions. For example a person growing or surviving in a conflict zone may desire shelter and protection from violence; an Indigenous tribe forced to flee their homes due to commercial logging may desire preservation of their natural habitat. A person in an abusive, violent relationship may desire a refuge and means to relocate.

We have a contemporary, expanded definition of 'peace' that encompasses and extends beyond human security. We understand poverty alleviation helps societies minimise crime, sickness and violence. We value the benefits of peace prevention diplomacy and mediation as we do the peace building strategies of disaster aftermath - new ways forward.

Yet what are our collective priorities for peace in society? Is it individual tranquil, prayer and meditation? Good neighbour relations? Giving our children a pristine clean environment to grow in with minimal threat?

What does peace mean to us to achieve? How do we create peace? What values for peaceful cooperation do we give priority? What are the issues in achieving peace? What will our world be like when we 'achieve' peace? Will we be peaceful alone or sharing this world? How? How important is others' peace to our own survival? How important is preserving our environment to achieving peace? What would you give up or change for the sake of peace?

The term 'peace' and its nature has many facets and many perspectives from which to view. Its ultimate definition of 'homoeostasis' can be applied in a myriad of scenarios and perhaps its achievement remains elusive when systemic model fosters the adrenal edge that challenges human stress threshold.

Any insights, thoughts or comments to any of these questions or any related to peace are invited.

Share:
  • thumb
    Nov 14 2011: The most important thing for world peace is for each one of us to experience peace as individuals. When we do that the "world" will automatically be "at peace."

    Now, if it seems unlikely that we will all concurrently experience peace individually, then the next best thing is for me (and you) to experience peace. Then at least, for us the world will be at peace, even if the other people who live in it are not.
  • thumb
    Nov 14 2011: The world we live is a world of contrast.
    It isn't manageable on a whole and who can manage the managers.
    The human mind is limited and his efforts as well.

    Yet peace is to be found inside and reachable for any individual.
    The more people will find that peace, the more it appears on the globe.
    • thumb
      Nov 14 2011: Only when the power of love overtakes the love of power, then and only then can there be PEACE.
      • thumb
        Nov 15 2011: What a wonderful statement. Thank Goddess the power of love by nature always overcomes and transcends the love of power.
    • thumb
      Nov 15 2011: Thanks for your insight. Just wondering - is it your world, my world or a collective world that 'isn't manageable' on a whole?

      The reason I ask is because your second statement qualifies the spiritual truth that peace IS to be found inside for any individual. In my cognition finding peace within is a holistic realization of within and without - self and selfless, giving and receiving - i.e. balance in the environment of "contrast" you label - others Maya or yin yang, paradox etc. of Planet Earth life systems. Earth of which we are a part is governed under a dual polarity system of balance - through electromagnetic energy. This natural cycle within her core is manifest outside and reflected in all life related to Earth.

      When I am born - I am that pure consciousness described in spirit or quantum physics - yet just by going through a birth process into human form I am impacted by environment and others - just by 'living' I am subjected to factors of an external world. This in human theory equates through a thinking intellectual body that registers and makes assessments or judgements by my experiences in that environment and by the emotional reactions and feelings I have. All is inter-connected and I make judgements by hurt feelings, fear and negative thought forms, which in turn build emotional reactions to future situations when I encounter an impact to trigger the original judgement. In addition to this my parents, peers and society reinforce on my susceptible vulnerable child form - what they have formed in judgement. Ultimately the outcome is a global societal normative framework based on negative thought forms - the framework evolving more slowly by a minority number of individuals who break through and challenge the security ropes that form it. These are what I believe the limits your refer to on human mind and his efforts. Yet we are not 'all' mind. Finding peace within helps us to find that source beyond mind and emotion - higher self.
      • thumb
        Nov 15 2011: Vivian, thanks for your elaborate and beautiful description.

        With my remark on managing the world I pointed at the notion that many people hold as common sense. They think that somebody somehow could run the whole show on earth by reason of mind.
        They think that an incorruptible, intelligent well informed government can establish a peaceful world which I think is an illusion.

        So the world of common sense is that world the senses are in contact with and is called reality. Yet this touchable world is the projection of an inner world and functions as the stage on which we play our parts. In this play we work out the inner reality of a more primal order. It is mere the mirror in which that inner state materializes.

        So to work in a world of appearances is senseless. It is as in a conflicting family that holds their appearance perfect to the outside world yet is torn apart from the inside. Everyone knows then that solving this problem could only be done on the inside and the upholding of the outside only takes all energy and strength and is totally false and unsustainable.

        That’s why I suggest to reach for peace within because as one changes a bit within, the world that one lives will make a shift. So, whether this is a world of peace or not has nothing to do with that world itself but has everything to do with the state of inner confusion of any individual.
        • thumb
          Nov 15 2011: I understand that there are higher minds or spirit incarnate corresponding on TED forum - and why I choose to be here and not another social media tool.

          Without any disagreement to your words I wonder whether by finding inner peace - do we then 'expect' it manifest in the miracle of the moment, or should we come to peace through accepting what we are - here in the mundane you so aptly describe in both your posts.

          What I refer to is the principles of manifestation at 'desire' for peace. The thought enters from empty silence into 'no mind' or space of potential and like a little sperm swimming upstream heads with determination to fertilise that egg of possibility. At some point the desire transforms into thought and becomes form through intellect. We then associate emotive feeling to it. The feeling is an expansion flowering in our heart - we breathe easy and feel relaxed, comfortable 'good' because we have minimal threat to our survival. There - we know peace in a moment - and one moment can carry to all moments - reclaimed in any situation.

          Yet we have a dichotomy in our species. Do we continue sitting in our zen sunlight haven perpetuating moment of peace within - or do we take action in an 'external' world. When having found peace we may desire to take the contentment and compassion forward in our life journey.

          Finding peace within creates the knowledge of what peace is. Being born into human species places stresses that in turn take us out of homoeostasis simply by living, moving and interacting. True - having found our individual peace - we will reflect it to others - and reclaim it when environment puts new demands on life. Yet, is to create 'ways' for asserting that peace we now hold through valid societal frameworks - a divergence or escape? Or is it rearranging society in a higher manner now that we know better as individuals - i.e. passing the value of peace so we may experience with all more easily?
        • thumb
          Nov 15 2011: You may find my very deep returns intense. I do this because although I am in the process of an academic framework - I am well aware that the consciousness of individuals walking our planet is far beyond our systemic model or 'mainstream' acceptance. Possibly due to the limits of scientific control (although new science is very expansive) - more I think because as you point out we all adhere to a kind of false level of 'how it is' - and all go along with that - even though our consciousness already knows way beyond. I believe we do this collectively so that we can continue as animals (humans) who need social peer organisation, external love, family and acceptance. We do it not to rock the boat to keep our own networks of love and safety. This means our systemic framework is very primitive and mainstream does not truly reflect who we are - instead panders to those still just waking up.

          I'd like to work these profound statements by contributors to an intellectual clarity - so as to reveal just how conscious we truly are now - when we don't need a job, a house and to support a family through money and other agreements we currently form socially to survive.
      • thumb
        Nov 16 2011: Maybe this exercise helps to your quest.

        If you ask anyone, they do desire peace.
        Yet peace doesn’t respond to desires as one isn’t centered in that peace already.

        To seek it you won’t find peace. To be at ease as you are, and love all that what made you will bring you there. This what made you isn’t outside nor is it inside, as all what you are is as well the reflection from outside that you’ve generated from inside hence both is one.
        To reside in the middle you’re everywhere at once until the moment you focus on some thing, this then will be what you become. This thing entice you to identify and be then where your focus rests and then again you think: “Where’s peace, where can I find it?”
        To reside at heart and to let it respond naturally to all you meet or come across will let it radiate without you mingling in between. This peace is acting as it’s resting like the sun gives its warmth at the restless waves.

        I’m no more than you seeing me and without you I’m lost, out of touch with our shared heart.
        • thumb
          Nov 16 2011: That is so beautifully expressed, eloquent. Reading reminded me of Rumi poetry I greatly enjoy with music and peaceful times outside of stillness.
  • thumb
    Nov 20 2011: Thanks Michelle - glad of your input. I'll be certain to take a look at your site. Is there any main statement that you would like to share on TED regarding your 'peace'?
  • thumb
    Nov 20 2011: Hi Vivian Eggers, This is a great question. I have a whole bunch of ideas written up in my blog at: http://www.internationalpeaceandconflict.org/profiles/blogs/a-blog-of-all-my-blogs-and-contests-and-scholarships if anyone would like to check them out. Michelle
  • thumb
    Nov 15 2011: Something called a 'supraordinate' task is the answer!
    There have been studies done in psychology where they have taken rival groups and despite their 'team' based hatred of one another gave them a task where they needed each other to accomplish a goal that was meaningful to both sides. It really works. Thus I think we could try withdrawing all funding and financially isolate both sides in some conflicts and tie any aid or restoration monies to continued cooperation between the groups. In real life they come when we face great disasters. Look at the cooperation around the world when there is a great tsunami or flood. We can put aside our differences when we face a common enemy. We just have to cultivate that very human impulse, which is very strong among the nonviolent, to our common good.


    Another thing I think we should consider is re-educating politicians in math. Killing another 100.000 or more to avenge 3000 is not only bad math- it should be considered counterproductive.
    • thumb
      Nov 15 2011: Definitely seen the power of elements of this through the measures against South African Apartheid. Not too sure the recent Libyan blockades were similarly effective. I'd be interested to scenario test your statements to case of Israel and Palestine for instance - where long term 'team based hatred' is fostered and ingrained over many generations.
      • thumb
        Nov 15 2011: Yes, I have to admit that it is pretty challenging there. Unless we could get everyone else to get their grimmy self interested hands off the situation it would be impossible but maybe that is the real first step to the solution- getting everyone else and their 'stakes' out so that the people who are doing all of the suffering have to deal with each other and not the world wide politics so that truth can prevail.
        • thumb
          Nov 16 2011: Yes I agree, and what you say reflects what in effect started the ball rolling in South Africa. I once shared a noodle bar with a man called Leonard who as well as a rugby union coach was an avid Australian unionist in this era. and working the docks and maritime. He and union members had a meeting and decided to take action because they didn't think any of the governments at the time were doing anything sufficient to the severity of the situation. So they started the first embargo - networked with other trade unions and within a short period it went global - and at that point governments and media picked it up and supported the movement against Appartheid.

          This highlights the 'grubby hands' issue you mention. I think if we are at all serious about any reforms - we've just got to pick the ball up and run with it ourselves. But the key is that we have to come together in a really open and useful manner for the change to be powerful and sustained - i.e. such as Gandhi starting the walk to make salt. Alone his gesture would have minimal impact but because others believed in either him and/or his purpose they sacrificed and supported him. Change had to happen. Culture pressured governance change - and military change which is a biggie.

          Another big issue in the coming together is that we have a lot of hero walkers who incite or market world causes - in a Messiah fashion - and it gains media and culture popularity - but its short lived because its more about hot air - or a marketed concept that doesnt have the thought, time and depth of real strategy - real collaboration of many minds like those together on TED forum. These marketing messiahs get lots of publicity and by media publicity then get political decisions - but they are not generally anything substantial. Everyone claps and admires the person and then goes on doing what they always do.
  • thumb
    Nov 15 2011: Ironically I think religion has to go first .Most want peace.
    • thumb
      Nov 15 2011: I interpret your knowledge statement to say you believe religious controls create conflict with other societies.

      Yet I will be anal as I know many have conflicts about definition of religion.

      You say ironically. Is that because you perceive religion or a form of spirituality has high value to aspire to? Do you like many differentiate religion as a political or systemic 'way' (in fact was the political system in past patriarchal empires and early post flood transition matriarchs like Sumeria, and Babylon).

      Does spirituality have to go? If so what replaces it? Science? How does science evolve if the scientist cannot contemplate and receive insight from consciousness (aka spirit) or desires etc. to form hypothesis and then set up test controls? In other words even science has to start conceptually - and that concept has to be 'visioned or dreamed' 'imagined' as a possibility before it can be evolved. Those are all terms categorised under 'spiritual' philosophies.

      What about if people are free to practice their own form of religious customs and beliefs without the judgement and dismissal of others. Here in Bali the people are attributed by every person I have ever met - to be amazing in tolerance - and the most peaceful society. They still honour the Mother Earth and her natural systems - yet practise an integrated patriarchal hindu-buddhism. This is one of the few places left where religion in the family and community is stronger than poltical and systemic rules.
  • thumb
    Nov 14 2011: I think the key to achieve peace is starting to forget our supposed "human nature" (let´s face it: we are naturaly conflicting with other people) and start thinking about our real human nature and learn how to live by that nature.
    • Nov 14 2011: What is our real human nature then? If we are to think about that then we should probably know what it is.
      • thumb
        Nov 14 2011: "Real" human nature is not much of a mystery. For example, it is in our nature to use "cognitive shortcuts" to make sense of the world. These shortcuts are very useful but they are not accurate.

        We think they are. (Because they "work." ... Which leads to the most insidious shortcut of them all: "What I think is true and accurate.")

        An example would be: "When we build an egalitarian society, we will achieve harmony."

        This "makes sense" - we hear it and we think, "Yes, that is true, when we build an egalitarian society, we will achieve harmony. The only problem is we cannot build an egalitarian society because of _____." [And the "blank" is another cognitive shortcut - humans are naturally aggressive or ... whatever.]

        The thing is, building an "egalitarian society" very likely will NOT result in harmony. Why? Because that might not be what some of us want; and, more importantly, it presumes that our inner state is determined by our external environment.

        What else do we know about our nature?

        We are all pretty much the same but we amplify the differences (we even have a pretty good idea why and how we do that.)

        Having said that, I do not agree with João's statement that, "...the key to achieve peace is starting to forget our supposed 'human nature' ..."

        I think it is also in our nature to strive for harmony and peace but if we look for them in the wrong place, or if we try to "create them" in the wrong way, we will (quite obviously) be disappointed.
        • thumb
          Nov 15 2011: Does being able to 'make sense' of one's world make the world a 'safer' place to be in? Does our childhood sense of 'not being safe' without routine and societal frameworks to live by through parent authority and environment drive us to shape new paradigms that compensate for the lack rather than create a holistic harmony? Do we really feel 'not safe' in our childhood core because we receive the fears and limits of our parental generation born into without being given the understanding that our parents are also children within whose needs have not been met and all are evolving?

          In my last question I am referring to your comment that it is in human nature to 'strive' for harmony and peace. This to a psychologist would reasonably be explained as inherent in more than one mode of our being. For example - our 'instinct' for survival and resilience sits at our core - and drives us for security. This is why we pursue a short term mortal power over spirit. The fear of death causes us to strive for survival by reacting - accumulating what we think we lack and need. This carried over from the society we are born into and the conditioning that we receive and accept.

          Do you think if we opened flexibility of our values passed on through societal structures and instead of saying 'this is how it is and what is fashionable, popular etc." and said to our kids - ok - we are no smarter than you are so its ok, you are safe to challenge what we tell you about life, yourself and your world - then we might create a greater chance for transforming true cultural change - rather than dictating and passing on what we have been taught - without consideration as to its accuracy and currency for the state of our consciousness. For example - at one time we taught that the world was flat. Politically, it had to be flat. If you didn't agree you didn't fit in, were not intelligent and really a bit of a heretic if you challenged the reasoning - possibly even a terrorist/security threat
    • thumb
      Nov 15 2011: Just to clarify your statement - are you referring by supposed human nature - to the 'image' and set of agreed norms that we structure our society and live by?

      By 'real' human nature - do you mean our innate desire to survive as a mortal, to exist beyond our mortal smallness and to have a unique sense of identity and personal empowerment or importance that gives our ego a sense of being in control and able to extend beyond and overcome all the restrictions and lacks we feel emotionally as human?

      Further what do you propose to be your ideal of a 'right way' to create harmony and peace. What makes peace in your world society?
    • thumb
      Nov 15 2011: QUOTE: "Does being able to 'make sense' of one's world make the world a 'safer' place to be in?"

      Apparently it does. And some would argue that that is one of the places where we "learned" the value of these "shortcuts" - they made our world safer by having us respond to the "rustle in the grass" as if it was lion and then figure out it was a breeze; rather than the other way around. (The ones who took the second approach were removed from the gene pool and added to the lion's lunch menu.)

      QUOTE: "Do you think if we opened flexibility of our values passed on through societal structures and instead of saying 'this is how it is and what is fashionable, popular etc." and said to our kids - ok - we are no smarter than you are so its ok, you are safe to challenge what we tell you about life, yourself and your world - then we might create a greater chance for transforming true cultural change - rather than dictating and passing on what we have been taught - without consideration as to its accuracy and currency for the state of our consciousness."

      Yes.

      ---

      Now, I am sure you may have noticed that, to have this conversation, you and I have defaulted to several "shortcuts" of our own (Holistic harmony, routine, fear, death, and so on - these shortcuts lead us to others such as "short term mortal power," "spirit," and so on.) Not all of which I agree with, by the way.

      If we examined each of these, in turn, it would take some time (and one of our shortcuts is, "we-do-not-have-enough-time-so-let's-acccept-the-obvious-ones-as-givens.")

      Time is not an issue for me - 2000 characters is.
      • thumb
        Nov 15 2011: Thank you for responding. I find resonance in much of your clarity here. I will make the time for 2000 characters if the topic is close to a life purpose for me.

        I am quite willing if you wish to particularize my choices of 'language'. As Derrida would purport - language is the medium deconstructed we attach form and meaning. Similarly Irigaray expands to define language relationship as 'between two lips' implying the exchange is as much vacuous and receiving as it is impelled and directional. These two perspectives on the nature of literary discourse highlight that definition is ever a perspective and those debatable short cuts you mention are interpretive in as many paradigms as they may be delivered.

        My 'seeming placement of the discourse' was not so much a wish but a conciliatory response - a bid iin relationship building with a fellow human who made 'point' of singularity of some of of terms of language expression. I was offering my willingness to give further explanation of my personal filter in the name of improving social harmony with you - and peace! All ideas begin as a microcosm emerged from a void and then grow. As with all cosmos growth is determined by nurturing. If my language causes you or another to misinterpret or misjudge and I do not offer my micro detail of further assistance - the idea's growth can start to gather shape and form that doesn't serve its original integrity. Another antipodean adage - 'better to nip in the bud' any potential misunderstanding than to allow a great hoax to bloom. At this level of pedantic posting I think you and I might be well equipped for conversation in a General Assembly forum.
        • thumb
          Nov 15 2011: If there is nothing outside the text, there is nothing inside the text either.

          At the level you seem to wish to place discourse, there would apparently be no purpose to it (at least, nothing that is not arbitrary and so self-determined. Pointless really.)

          A sophisticated idea, and a simple idea, are both ideas.
  • Nov 14 2011: Cross-cultural education and understanding.

    As broached in another topic, one of the biggest shortcomings of the modern education system is its lack of emphasis on curricula such as language and history; resulting in wholly culturally ignorant people being churned out at its ass-end.

    Education systems, especially in the West, are heavily geared towards satisfying workforce requirements instead of creating intelligent people. Thus you get people who have little to no interest in what's foreign to them, with eyes only on how they can fit into the societal machine.

    I heard somewhere that the Indonesian language in Australia is available for study in so few schools now that the country will soon not have a single, tertiary taught speaker of said language!
    (NB: Indonesia is Australia's No.1 holiday destination! =/ )

    Education systems need to change to better suit the 'global village' we are now living in if people are to garner genuine cross-cultural understanding; and as an extension of thus, for us to achieve global harmony.
    • thumb
      Nov 15 2011: Hi - first of all I apologise if my profile implies that I think Ubud Bali has moved into Australian territorial jurisdiction. I am very much aware I am located under Indonesian Sovereignty - the profile filters have limits for the way we write our information. I included Australia to show a country of citizenship - although also Zelandia Baru. Thanks for your astute observations which in my research of world academic experts and those who spend time and energy in that UNDP extended definition of peace (i.e. global sustainability through poverty alleviation, education and health etc) it seems you are not alone in your opinion. I also note from my own personal 'evolving' insights and research that you highlight cross-cultural education. This in my opinion and learning also reflects what I call the 'last bastion' of societal globalisation - that is state territorialism and cross border migration and travel. We live in a global multi-cultural society yet still struggle with 'controlling' borders of state regimes - how to govern a domestic or territorial population when the world is increasingly unified in living and business practise. Indonesia and Australia as territories have long suffered diplomatic issues regarding migration policies as Indonesia is perceived as an ideal exit and entry point into the first world 'lucky country'. Rapidly turning out to be not so lucky anymore as affected as everyone else by natural disaster and climate change, economic crisis and so on. The reality is only 1 percent of displaced refugees get to permanently migrate out of those camps they are in - and within 15 years researchers and 'experts' predict the increase of climate change disasters (incredibly some people are still in denial about) will result in over 250 million in forced diplacement camps - and these (as with Hurricane Katrina) will be in any country - wealth and GDP will not be a factor.

      The obvious arising need is that cross-cultural education is priority.
      • thumb
        Nov 15 2011: QUOTE: "I apologise if my profile implies that I think Ubud Bali has moved into Australian territorial jurisdiction."

        You can do what I did (see my profile) ... it took me a few tries before I got it right ... but it worked.
        • thumb
          Nov 15 2011: Thanks Thomas - I saw you in China - I'll take a look
    • thumb
      Nov 15 2011: Sorry to get into such a long debate with all - yet I really appreciate collaboration and others individual thoughts when forming assessment and researching to develop solutions, strategies and frameworks. One sided analysis or pure academic research does not gather the heart and truth of individuals and culture.

      Anyway, I just wanted to say (particularly as you discuss Indonesia) the reason (or one) I established the first GAIA Intl Peace Institute and develop a global framework in Bali after interacting with world cultures for 15 years is very much to address deficit in global governance and cultural integrity, alternate migration, environmental and human rights - that includes values education and cross cultural migration and assimilation programs. Its an area that has not been adequately addressed because of the UN nature (e.g. founded on war alliance) and state regime - international society governed under sovereignty. Yet I do not knock having the UN - it is fortunate we have a form of global governance. But we are one world now in they way we live. We have to break down these walls of territorial protectionism and find alternate means to 'keep' our sense of unique culture, identity and right community. Universal human rights - first formed out of 'natural law' is our blue print - because this is a fundamental upheld belief in all human societies. Where we take it from there is a great deal about education, flexibility and accepting that we have failed so drastically our very existence is at threat. Continuing blindly - considering any kind of action is beyond our individual control and power is as destructive as the people and organisations we point our fingers in blame at - as is justifying our own desperate need for power through material acquisition that results in the destruction of what remains of life in the balance. (oops a soap box).

      As I'm in process of setting up some educational programs also in Indonesia - interested further comment
  • thumb
    Nov 13 2011: What a wonderful thing to be writing a thesis on, Vivienne. I wish you the very best!

    I think that the first and most important step we need to make as citizens in a world where we want peace to prevail is for average people in every country but most especially in countries where the rule of law is working fairly well, is to insist that our own countries begin to deal fairly with other countries. After all , they are not just 'other countries' they are other homes for people just like ourselves. We have to realize that we cannot cause mayhem, cruelty, poverty, injustice or crime in other countries. We must ensure that when our governments act, they act according to our own personal sense of what it right and fair. Would you as an individual want to do a trade deal that caused more people to be hungry in another place? No? Well then we need to insist that our government does not act that way either. Life is a gift and a treasure not just for us and for our children but for everyone. To not see that is to condemn our own children and grandchildren to a world where the 'other' has valid justifications for reprisals agains them because of the actions we allowed or to which we contributed. It is time we started to choose justice and truth over simply where we live and who we know.
    • thumb
      Nov 13 2011: Thanks for your comment. I note you emphasise the cross border extension of practices that are legally upheld by advanced democracies - do in other back yards what you do in your own. Perhaps the permissions 'taken' to behave inappropriately outside one's own territorial jurisdiction have remained with some cultural reinforcement from the era of Colonial rule. Any thoughts on how we could transform the accepted norms of the cultures on the delivery and receiving ends? What and how do we need to educate people 'how to behave' in business or personal when moving beyond their own territory? How do we uplift the social justice model of those in formerly oppressed nations that they might safely assert their rights without financial compromise, violence or other repercussions?
  • thumb
    Nov 13 2011: I personally find environmental peace in nature and wild places. The beauty of green trees, fields and flowers, water and soft light from sunlit skies and cloudy raindrops - silent moments in dew drop frozen dawns and night skies of dark brooding that emit a galaxy of expansion. These factors 'fill' my psyche, my being and my heart feels joy. I can relax in these moments and take them with me to hostile chaotic places where Nature has already been challenged and usurped by deluded development 'progress'.

    Harmony to me comes with aligning my vibration and consciousness with macro cosmic cycles - the universe that I am also. This consciousness I embody through meditation, yoga and celebrate through dance and activity. Yet my drive for peace is that I want to preserve and extend these sacred experiences - and share them with others, children as something so wonderful and precious. A long - too long a diversion from the adrenal drive of capitalist success. We must form another way where 'more' can have - 'more' and still benefit from global footprint efficiency. That is my personal desire anyhow. What use is a large amount of money and comfortable house if outside the door, in the world - all is tainted and destroyed and those moments only remain as memories, pictures and images of a past?