The New Paradigm
vol. II, Number 1

Dear Friends,

It's hard to believe, but this old Earth has taken a 360° turn around the Sun since the Inaugural Edition of The New Paradigm was tentatively ventured a year ago. (In fact, we've only turned about 357° 2' 28", being slightly ahead of the actual anniversary date of 8 December 1997.) At that time I had very little idea what the "new paradigm" was, or what to say about it; but looking back over the accumulated editions of The New Paradigm, I must say that some ideas have come through that I think now are very empowering, illuminating and encouraging. At least for me; and I hope for you as well.

I'd like to take a moment to express my deep and heartfelt gratitude for each tnp subscriber; for without your presence, literary contributions in some cases, and enthusiastic encouragement in others, the past year's exploration may never have taken place. I've said more than once over the course of the past year that each of us knows everything there is to know, about anything; but we've forgotten most of it, which is why life is so often such an impenetrably perplexing proposition. Well, for me, The New Paradigm has definitely been a catalytic agent for bringing a number of important realizations out of the dark, beyond the horizon of conscious awareness, and into the illuminating circle of conscious attention and scrutiny.

The original intent of tnp was to be a forum for discussion of "new paradigm" ideas from many points of view. It started out that way, but gradually became largely a monologue by myself. However, if you hadn't been "out there" giving me positive, encouraging feedback, it would quickly have ceased being even that. Also, particularly early on, we've had numerous contributions from a variety of sources, notably from Sue Fowler and Karen Mills in New Zealand, Bill Boehmer in New York, Rupert Wontner in the United Kingdom, and another contributor who requested to remain anonymous. To each of you I would like to express a deep and heartfelt "Thank You." And to those who have not put your "new paradigm" thoughts in writing, "Thank You" too, for you were there by choice and by request and have constituted a vitally important pole, enabling a circuit of communication to operate. You know, without a circuit electric current doesn't flow; and neither does thought, without some exchange between poles.

Now to round out the year, I would like to take a backward glance over some of the ideas so far advanced, in preparation for plunging forward into those yet to come. I think some genuinely remarkable thoughts have been expressed in The New Paradigm, and from a perspective of conventional modesty, I am somewhat embarrassed to have been the "author" of a number of them. So I have to say here that it seems to me of very little consequence "who" actually wrote what: if I were to encounter The New Paradigm Essays and they had been written by somebody I've never heard of, I do sincerely believe I would consider some of them to be among the most extraordinary pieces I've ever read. Conventionally, I'm not supposed to say that; but that's my honest opinion, and The New Paradigm is a place for honest opinion. As I see it, we're all in this together, and we all need desperately to remember who we are and what we're doing here; and if anybody is able to open a channel for inspiration and illumination, we all benefit when such inspirations and illuminations are deliberately shared; even if such channel happens to be opened by "me" instead of, as is more fashionable, by "somebody else."

The key "new paradigm" idea, I think, which is so uncompromisingly simple that it is almost impossible for us to grasp, is the idea of Oneness. "We" (plural) are in the most fundamental Reality...One (Singular). That's all.

Yes, that sounds good, maybe; but what does it mean? This is what we've been grappling with for the past year now; and if you're anything like me (and you must be, or you'd never read The New Paradigm), you've been grappling with it for a whole lot longer than just the past 12 months, right? We're so used to perceiving ourselves as "one of many;" as, so to speak, a single inconsequential grain of sand on an endless stretch of beach...that the idea of being One, of being the Whole, of being the Totality... simply boggles the mind.

Besides, we've all been taught by every priesthood on Earth, for as far back as we can push our personal or historical memory, that that very idea is the one unpardonable heresy. That's blasphemy against God! "You! Insignificant worm! Dare you lift up your pitiful face and call yourself equal with the Mighty God!?" (In a word, Yes.)

That was the "old paradigm" priesthood speaking, which has no basis for existence if it cannot occupy a privileged position as intermediary between gods and men. When Men (and Women) - and Dogs and Cats and Trees and Birds and Fish and Flies - grasp the real, profound meaning of the statement, "We are One!" ...the need for intermediary priesthoods will cease. Somehow the priesthoods all understand this; or think they do. That's why it's heresy.

Anyway, so that's been a major theme running through The New Paradigm for the past year, and will continue to be so indefinitely into the future. It may seem repetitive, and it is; but this is an idea that has to be looked at again, and again, and again, from as many different angles as possible, before its meaning begins to penetrate our incredibly shackled minds and hearts.

Another vital matter, which was addressed early on, severally by Sue Fowler, Rupert Wontner and myself, and still hasn't received the attention it deserves, is the ego. Ah yes, the ego: how on Earth are we to reach an enlightened "new paradigm" accommodation with the ego? We'll have to focus more attention on this in the coming year; but significant ground was broken, I feel, with the illuminating realization that in a very real, comprehensible way, each of us is far, far more than our individual ego identity. It was pointed out in "The Ego and the Self" [tnp #11, 1/31/98] that even our individual physical bodies and bodily organs extend functionally to "the ends of the universe." Our lungs breathe air, for instance; so the entire atmospheric envelope of planet Earth is an inseparable "vital organ" for each of us; as are all the green plants that manufacture the free oxygen we breathe; as is the Sun which keeps our bodies at a proper metabolic temperature; as is the Galaxy, which gave birth to the Sun and the Solar System.... And so on. "Little Me" is thus disclosed to be a genuinely Cosmic Being, which in a very practical way necessarily includes everything, excludes nothing. And one of the best parts is that the disclosure of our Cosmic Identity doesn't have to threaten our ego identity at all; for ego is still the center of local conscious awareness; it provides us a "point of view," without which there could be no differentiation, no contrast, and consequently, no experience. All we need come to terms with here is the self-evident realization that there is far, far more to Self than the narrowly circumscribed contents of ego.

This sweeping realization is far removed, however, from the chronic problem of the "inflated ego" encountered at every turn here in our "old paradigm" "civilizations." The "inflated ego" doesn't share any such expansive vision, but chooses instead to play the mean-spirited schoolyard game of, "I'm Not Much, But At Least I'm Better Than You;" which has given rise to most if not all wars, racism, religious bigotry, tyranny, and endless additional mischief throughout Human history. (As ego inflates the game becomes simply, "I'm Better Than You;" forget about the "I'm Not Much" part.)

An often repeated theme which also made an early entrance was the provocative idea that "death" is either impossible or utterly inconsequential, depending upon how we look at it. In "A 'Christmas Message' on Existence, Fear and Death" [#4, 12/16/97] it was pointed out that existence is an utterly undeniable, yet impenetrably mysterious fact. It is the one thing we know, even if we know nothing more, with a bedrock certainty that springs from nowhere "out there," outside ourselves. Each of us knows by our own incontrovertible and incontestable experience that we exist; so we know there is such a thing as existence. What about its semantic opposite, "non-existence?" Upon careful examination it emerges that so-called "non-existence" doesn't have any meaning at all, and doesn't make any possible sense. It is entirely unimaginable. It is what we call an oxymoron, an utterly self-negating, self-contradictory concept. Nothing that exists can ever, ever, possibly also "non-exist." Existence, in other words, has no opposite. ( ! )

So what of so-called "death," that great bogy, the "inevitable threat" hanging over all Life? It can't mean "non-existence," so it must mean "change." Well, shucks, change is something we all do every minute of every day, there's nothing new in that. Did you happen to notice that you just "died" a moment ago? And were just "born" again in the same moment as a new person? No? Then why don't you do it again - and pay attention this time! There! Did you see that? Happens all the time. The person you were a minute ago is "dead and gone forever," for you can never recapture the person you were in a previous instant - unless you can reach "absolute zero" and cease changing altogether. So why all this terror of "death?"

Then it was suggested that the fear of "death" is the basis for all fear; for every calamity we fear is but a "miniature death," i.e. something that if sufficiently amplified would threaten our "non-existence." But if "death" is an illusion or a meaningless commonplace, so must be all its lesser siblings. Hence, "There is nothing to fear!" Again, it bears repeating, for our "old paradigm" fearful habits are well entrenched by centuries and millennia of grinding, perpetual reinforcement and indoctrination.

Related to this, and to the near "event horizon" that inescapably circumscribes any ego awareness, is an idea that was repeatedly mentioned, but didn't make a dedicated appearance in The New Paradigm until #31 [8/22/98], in the form of an article titled "Knowledge." Here it was pointed out that virtually everything that passes for knowledge in this world is in fact belief; for knowledge can consist of nothing that is not absolutely certain, with no possibility of error. An easy-access exploration of early quantum theory was then negotiated, which brought out in sharp relief the shattering (to conventional "old paradigm" thought) implications of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle; which extended beyond the narrow focus of quantum physics, implies in effect that nothing can be "known" with undiluted certainty about anything; for always there is unavoidably missing information. Yet, it was further pointed out, each of us is possessed of certain knowledge, even by the most rigid, uncompromising definition of the term: for each of us knows with unalloyed certainty that "I exist." This is an item of genuine, practical, real-world knowledge - which demonstrates 1) that knowledge is possible, and 2) that it comes from within, from internal personal experience; not from "out there," from books, lectures, sermons, scientific research, sensory input, rational analysis, or tablets graven in stone by the Finger of God. Or, it was also mentioned, from letters such as this one.

Another vital topic that was put off until late in the year (frankly, because I felt inadequate to address it properly, as evidently did "everybody else"); and so did not receive the attention it deserves, is "Love" [#34, 9/22/98]. There is much that may be said, and ought to be said, about Love; #34 briefly addressed the mutually exclusive relationship between love and fear, and concluded, "Do you want love in your Life, or do you want fear? You can have one or the other, but not both, and not neither; and the choice is yours and nobody else's. That's the deal."

Line these ideas up in a neat row, and they might come out looking something like this:

1. All is One, all is connected in a seamless web that includes everything, excludes nothing; therefore any certain knowledge about anything at all is inseverably connected to all knowledge about everything whatsoever.

2. Therefore, if I can lay hands on any single item of knowledge, I must at least potentially have access to all knowledge about everything.

3. Knowledge is possible, for I know that I exist; this knowledge springs from within, not from any "external source."

4. Existence has no opposite; "non-existence" is a self-contradictory impossibility.

5. Fear is founded upon the illusion of "death," which is either impossible (if it means "non-existence") or inconsequential (if it means "change").

6. Love is the underlying quality of existence, without which existence is impossible; its mutually exclusive "opposite" is fear, which has no foundation in Reality.

7. "My" true nature is that of a Loving, Free, Sovereign Cosmic Entity, unfettered by any limitation whatsoever, including especially the illusory limitations of ego. I have nothing to fear; consequently "nobody else" has anything to fear from Me. Simply, "I AM." It is sufficient.

Interspersed with these perhaps somewhat "rarefied" philosophical concerns were occasional articles addressing such "practical, down-to-Earth" matters as "The Internet as a New Paradigm Manifestation" [#7, 1/4/98]; "You're Entitled To My Opinion" [#10, 1/23/98] which addressed the larger "new paradigm" issues that formed the context of a specific legal confrontation between the United States Federal Trade Commission and the Fortuna Alliance L.L.C. in May 1996; "Priesthoods" [#14, 2/24/98]; "Money and Metabolism" [#15, 3/2/98]; "Open Letter to the De Facto 'Leaders' of the World" [#21, 4/20/98]; "Civilization and Anarchy" [#25, 6/2/98]; "Corruption" [#30, 8/11/98]; "Aliens From Outer Space [#37, 11/4/98] (that one was possibly not quite so "down-to-Earth"); and the concluding essay in vol. I, "Governance" [#38, 11/23/98], which may have summed up many implications of earlier articles.

Looking ahead, there are numerous topics that ought to be addressed from a "new paradigm" perspective, and I hope we'll get to some of them in the coming year. Actually, it seems to me there is not a topic you can name that won't display surprising facets and lustrous depths when illuminated by "new paradigm" considerations; but some I would like to look at in particular are such issues as "Education," "Religion," "Politics," "Sex," "Science," "Technology," "Tradition," "Television," "Sports," "Warfare," "Ego," ...and I'm sure there'll be many others - indeed, "all the things you're not supposed to talk about" if you want to keep your friends; and much more besides! Well, if you like, we'll talk about them, and I invite your input at any time; tnp has evolved into a virtual monologue only by default, not by design. And if you don't like, then you don't have to read, that's all.

In sum, The New Paradigm Essays, vol. I [#1-38 inclusive] have been, I think, a stimulating and mind-expanding exploration of the paradigm shift that I and others believe to be in progress upon planet Earth at this time. They were never intended to persuade, but to stimulate; for each of us must determine for shimself what the "new paradigm" is and how it translates, if at all, into the conduct of our individual lives. I suggest, if I may, that The New Paradigm Essays are unique inasmuch as they provide an approach to global systemic problems on the planet that explicitly precludes warfare or adversarial confrontation; that they provide concepts and open avenues of thought that have been traditionally missing from our "old paradigm" patterns; and that they might be highly valued by a wide spectrum of quietly searching individuals who are struggling privately to articulate thoughts that I suspect are rising spontaneously in numerous minds, regions and "social strata."

I hope this has not been too shamelessly self-serving a message. Actually, it is intended to be Self-serving; i.e. serving the interests of Self: That which includes all and excludes none. Thank you for being with us; I hope you'll "stick around" for vol. II - and even "put your oar in" from time to time.

Love & Light,

-- Harmon
J. Harmon Grahn