The New Paradigm
vol. II, Number 18

Dear Friends,

This may be a bit rough for some of you, as since our last conversation I had to reformat my hard drive in order to recover from a problem I was having; and one of the casualties was the entire New Paradigm List of subscribers to The New Paradigm. Fortunately, I didn't lose the letters from most of you requesting inclusion on the distribution list, so I was able to recompile the list with little difficulty. In doing so I was struck by recognition of many a name I haven't heard from directly for a long time; yet here you are still, presumably receiving tnp practically from Day One. To you "old timers" and more recent arrivals alike, whether or not you have had anything to add to our discussions, I would like to send a warm word of greeting and sincere appreciation. For surely, if it weren't for you there would be no such thing as The New Paradigm. Thank you, just for being there.

The possibility exists that some few individuals may receive this edition in error, although I meticulously endeavored to remove from the list any who had in the meantime requested removal (a total of two, if I'm not mistaken); or conversely that some few who were on the list have inadvertently not been restored to it. So, if you do happen to receive this edition in error, please be assured that I am not spamming you; just let me know you do not wish to receive it again, and you will not. It has been my intent from the beginning to distribute tnp only to those who have specifically requested it. Similarly, if you fail to receive this edition, but wish to be included in the distribution, please let me know that as well ...ah, if at all possible.

It's been over a month now since the last edition [tnp vol. II #17, 7/23/99], but the "Rambling Conversation" with Govinda has continued through the interval, we think with no less general interest than its predicessors. And so, without further preamble, here's what we've been talking about:

Saturday, July 31, 1999 Govinda wrote:

Harmon,

A little question: All matter is composed of Atoms, do we consider also atoms as living parts and is Spirit or Source Intelligence also resident or part of a Atom, do we know all the parts already of a atom or are there things we don't know?

Love & Light,
-Jos email: govinda@skynet.be

Wednesday, August 04, 1999 Harmon wrote:

Dear Govinda,

Please forgive me for such a tardy response. Sometimes I have to put "philosophical issues" on a back burner while I deal with more "immediate concerns," mainly because "philosophical issues," while of the most immediate concern to me, also require more time and thought to deal with; and so they sometimes get postponed.

As usual, your question about atoms is deep and thought-provoking; and as usual, I am unable to state "the answer," but can only share how I prefer to look at it. I surmise your question may spring in part from Daniel Pouzzner's comment that "It is flat-out bonkers to maintain that electrons and stones and rain drops have any consciousness intrinsic to them at all. To do so is not only loony, it tears consciousness down to the level of a stone."

I suppose it depends upon how one defines "consciousness." If one means the kind of thought processes that take place in the Human mind, then it may be so that electrons, atoms, stones and rain drops do not share "consciousness." But even that, it seems to me, can hardly be said with utter certainty, for I cannot recall having experienced life, for instance as a stone; so if a stone is possessed of a species of "consciousness," I do not myself know what that is like.

In his autobiography, Memories, Dreams, Reflections [Recorded and Edited by Aniela Jaffé, Translated from the German by Richard and Clara Winston, Random House, Inc., New York, 1961, 1962, 1963, Vantage Books Edition, 1965], psychologist Carl Jung relates a sensation he had as a lad. There was a large stone in his yard, upon which he used to like to sit and contemplate (or possibly "daydream"); and he says that he sometimes had the sensation of being "a boy sitting on a rock," or alternatively, "a rock with a boy sitting on me." This may be "loony;" but then Carl Jung had a pretty illustrious, if unusual, career. Then isn't there a Chinese sage who once said something to the effect that, "Last night I dreamed I was a butterfly; so how do I know today I am not a butterfly dreaming that he (she) is a man?" "Bonkers," by some lights; but I must confess that I greatly enjoy exploring these realms of thought.

Then this matter of "consciousness" may be turned around and looked at from another angle as well. The so-called "Sperm Whale" or cachalot, Physeter catodon or P. macrocephalus, has been plying the world's oceans for the past 26 million years, harboring the largest brain ever observed on the Planet (weighing 17 to 19 lb. (7.7 to 8.6 kg), as compared to the Human brain, which typically weighs about 3 lb. (1.4 kg)). I have often wondered what such a creature has been using such an astounding brain for all this time? It must be used for something; but it is a certainty that it is used for something entirely different, at least in large part, than what we use our brains for. Such a prodigious brain could not have persisted, generation after generation, for the past 26 million years were it not put to some use. I have no idea where to carry this speculation, but I can share with you a poem I wrote about it a couple years ago, which you may share, if you wish, with attribution:

Deep Thoughts
J. Harmon Grahn

A moving mind in depth serene
Descends and rises, seldom seen.
Flukes up, he sounds, dark, deep, below;
An hour past, to breathe and blow,
Ascends he then to wind and light:
A mystery of muscled might
Is the Cachalot, now breathing
On the billows gently seething.

His world is wet, a salty brine;
No ocean yet does he decline.
He moves at ease around the Earth
At home in seas that gave him birth,
And lives from infancy to age
Without committing to a page
A single thought or memory
Of his aquatic history.

And yet there dwells within his head
A Brain like which it has been said
There is not one in sea or land.
The Brain of Man can hardly stand
Comparison with that of his
Who spends his time amidst the fizz
Of frothy wave, or windblown spume,
Or silent depths where there is room
To contemplate whatever he
Lets his imagination see.

I wonder what he thinks about,
This Whale with Brain so strong and stout,
He takes with him when down he goes
Into dark depths, and what he knows?
More acquainted with the sea
Than any Mariner can be,
He roams the world at will for sport,
Yet never docks at any port.

He hasn't hands to mischief make;
He can't begin to bake a cake,
Or build a bridge, or ride a bike,
Or fly a kite, or take a hike
Among the mountains on the land,
Or write a speech, or take a stand
On whether to make peace or war
(Although he is a predator).

I wonder if he hasn't found
A simple way to get around
The self-made troubles known to Man
By living without any plan,
Washed by currents, tides and breezes,
Roaming freely where he pleases,
Without obstructing Life's progression
(Save for Squid, for his digestion).

Of course he's been around awhile,
And so he may have cause to smile
At complications Life imposes
On a race that presupposes
All the world is what it seems,
Instead of tissue made of dreams.

So...the "consciousness" of a Whale is no less a mystery than the "consciousness" of a Stone, or a Rain Drop, or an Atom. Is no less a mystery, for that matter, than your "consciousness," or mine; although we have the marginal advantage, perhaps, of being able to look at our own "consciousness" "from the inside." But what is it, after all?

A great deal follows, it seems to me, from the idea that the "plurality" of "All-That-Is" is ultimately and finally a Singularity. "We" are One: nothing more; nothing less. And as "individual, distinguishable things," each of "us" is in some profound and inextricable way linked with every "other" "thing" throughout the Totality of "All-That-Is." Therefore, in some way beyond my capacity to describe or clearly imagine, every "thing" must somehow share all the qualities of the Totality, and exist in peer relationship (as opposed to hierarchical relationship) with all "other things." This implies to me that if I experience something I call "consciousness" as intrinsic to myself, its counterpart must somehow reside as well in all "other things" with which I share existence. That would necessarily include "electrons (and atoms) and stones and rain drops."

And why not? Am I, or even the Planet Earth not, with all our complex thoughts, intuitions and emotions, no larger than an Atom in relation to the Galaxy, or the Local Cluster, or the Universe? What fundamental Cosmic Law prohibits the possibility that an Atom too cannot harbor, on its scale of existence, as rich and complex a tapestry of being as may be found on this or any other Planet in the Galaxy? "As above, so below," says the Ancient Wisdom; and lo! it is borne out theoretically in the complex geometry of fractals. If you have examined the Mandlebrot Set in any depth you are aware that there is no limit to the scale of "magnification" for that astoundingly complex geometric figure; which seems to me a kind of metaphor descriptive in myriad different ways of the structure of living systems, or even of the structure of the Universe.

Mandlebrot Set images courtesy of Fantastic Fractals

Thus in the clumsy way we must communicate with words, I would say, for myself, that any quality, including "consciousness" (whatever that means) I can experience within myself, I may also attribute in some way to all "other things;" and conversely, any quality I can perceive "out there" in "other things," must also be an integral part of myself. For there is no "thing" that is not an integral part of Totality, and therefore of every "thing." That is (approximately) how I see it. How do you see it?

Love & Light,
Harmon

Thursday, August 05, 1999 Govinda wrote:

Thanks, Harmon, I have passed it to govinda@ultimate-list.com our list to share topics. Will you stay longer on govinda, OK, otherwise tell me to unsubscribe you.

Love & Light,
-Jos email: govinda@skynet.be

Thursday, August 05, 1999 Govinda wrote:

Harmon, I think that matter is composed just as living entities of Atoms and atoms are composed of several smaller parts that are all part of the ever being universal or multi-versal Intelligence that we can call Spirit or Source Intelligence.

I think or my mind thinks that Spirit is first, then comes energy and matter in existence and thinking processes are just a part of it.

I agree completely with you on that matter and I feel that even within an Atom or parts of that Atom, Intelligent processes are going on and so Spirit is part of it.

It would be nice if via tnp we can delve deeper and more correct into all composants of matter and spirit and explore the current cosmology and how we can interpret it, I'm not very well knowable about those small parts of Atoms and What is String-Theory or Super String Theory? Do you know what it is?

Love & Light,
-Jos email: govinda@skynet.be

Monday, August 09, 1999 Harmon wrote:

Thank you, Sir; I am flattered that you share my words with your group. I think maybe at the moment you should best unsubscribe me from Govinda List; it's swamping my other correspondence, and to be truthful, I'm not so interested in the business opportunities being communicated. I am at the moment rather occupied with other projects.

As regards your very intriguing questions about the fine structure of the universe, particularly string theory and superstring theory, I'm afraid I'm in over my head. It's taken me this long just to assimilate some of the more obvious implications of relativity and quantum mechanics that were being discussed in the '20s; meanwhile the leading edge of physics has surged ahead and left me far at sea. I've heard the terms, is about all I can offer, but I do not know what they mean. I would like to meet somebody who is a) knowledgable about such matters and b) is able to discuss them in terms that somebody with "common sense" but lacking a Ph.D. in Physics could understand. It may be an impossibility, like observing a "wavicle."

Nevertheless, I have the intuitive conviction that understanding the "secrets of the universe" does not depend upon gaining a grasp of vast and obscure concepts, only after exhaustive study of the most arcane and unfathomable ideas; but is rather a matter of astounding simplicity that can be grasped in an instant by the mind of a child. Those who have studied these things in depth may not agree, but I suspect that if anyone could gain a truly penetrating understanding of anything at all: a grain of sand, a flower petal, a snowflake - and especially, shimself - shim would possess the key to understanding everything. I cannot claim such understanding myself, and I am not aware of anybody who makes such a claim; so it remains in the realm of idle speculation. Perhaps this is the admission of a profoundly ignorant man.

A time or two back you asked, "do we know all the parts already of a atom or are there things we don't know?" I would be quite surprised if there isn't a very great deal yet to learn about atoms, particularly for those who have devoted their lives to studying them. Come to that, how will we know when we do "know it all," say, about atoms, or about one kind of atom, such as hydrogen? What "knowledge" of the past has not been subject to revision, modification, or outright scrapping, over the course of time?

There is a New Paradigm essay about "Knowledge" online at www.olypen.com/harmon/np31.htm which, if you haven't seen it yet, may interest you. It deals with a number of things, the history and implications of quantum theory and chaos theory among them.

Love & Light,
-- Harmon

Wednesday, August 11, 1999 Govinda wrote:

Harmon, thanks for the reply and message, I have shared in on govinda list. I have unsubscribed you as you requested.

I study must of my free time the Bhagavad-Gita as it is of the Hare Krsna Movement, and I come to the conclusion that Vishnu is nothing different as Prime Creator and Param Atma is the same as Source Intelligence or Spirit of Wingmakers so I will stick to that philosophy and religion, do you know the Bhagavad-Gita already?

Love & Light,
-Jos email: govinda@skynet.be

Friday, August 13, 1999 Harmon wrote:

Dear Govinda,

I have heard of the Bhagavad-Gita and have read at wide intervals short commentaries on or about it, but I have not delved into it in any way. I think it must be so that all the major religions and religious writings have a core of common wisdom to them which resonates universally with the Human Spirit. If not, they would not be "major," which is to say, enormously popular.

My speculation is that people encounter "Holy Books" and recognize within them wisdom that is already theirs, but far more effectively articulated than they are able to do themselves. This, as I see it, can be both a "Good Thing" and a "Bad Thing." What's "good" about it (meaning, of course, "what I like about it") is that the inspired writings to be found in "Holy Books" are genuinely inspired, and inspiring, and may contribute significantly to the elevation of the spirit of shim who seeks out the inspiration to be found therein. This is a rich and valuable potentiality common to all inspired writing, whether canonized in "Holy Books" or not. What's "bad" about it, potentially, is that it may (and often does) foster the illusion that the wisdom is in the "Holy Book" and not in shim who reads the "Holy Book." This illusion inevitably leads to tyranny and is the essence of the "psychocognitive warfare" Daniel Pouzzner writes about. (See The Architecture of Modern Political Power [*] [www.mega.nu:8080/conspiracy.html] "Compiled and edited, with introductory and interstitial essays and commentary, by Daniel Pouzzner," an independent system architect and system analyst at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.)

I hold with mounting conviction and confidence that there is no wisdom, virtue, nobility, goodness, beauty or value "out there" in the words, deeds, matter, energy of "others," whether people or things or phenomena, which does not reside at the essential core of the beholder. You, in other words, must be a "Holy Man" or a "Holy Woman" in order to gain inspiration from a "Holy Book;" for if the "Holiness" were not already resident in You, you would be entirely unequipped to apprehend or appreciate it "anywhere else." Do you find the writings in the Bhagavad-Gita, or the Koran, or the Bible, or the Tibeten Book of the Dead, or the Tao Te Ching, or Conversations with God, or The New Paradigm, or the philosopy of the WingMakers, or... speak to you? Very well; read them, or such of them as speak to you the most clearly. But know this: You already understand what they say, or you could never recognize their wisdom.

Much mischief has been done in this world by those who claim a special power or wisdom, either for themselves or their messianic "Lords," which is not available to the "common man." This is always a lie, and is the foundation upon which all tyrannies have been built in this or any other world. Abandon hope, all ye who believe it! "The Truth" is that "we" are all, all, ONE; Singular, not plural, and are combined in such a way that every "separate individual" includes within shim's being everything; and excludes nothing. Each "one" is THE ONE, All-That-Is; and "no-one" can lay exclusive claim to any power or wisdom or nobility not of the essence of "every-one." "This is so." If not, then I declare "before Gods and Men" there is nothing in this world of which I have the slightest understanding, or hope of understanding.

Therefore I think it incumbent upon "each one" of "us" to form and evolve and develop our own "individual religion" in harmony with our developing understanding and perception. If this or that "Holy Book" aids the process, or does not, very well. I believe the greatest harmony in social commerce results when "each" exercises this freedom / responsibility in such a way as never to obstruct the same in "another;" and that the greatest joy and satisfaction imaginable will spontaneously blossom throughout Human society when and as "each Individual" discovers within Shimself the profound, the Cosmic Nobility, Pride and Honor of simply Being Who Shim Is. "I AM (Whoever "I AM") worthy of the most exaulted reverence, appreciation, honor and love." Seeing - really seeing - That in You, You can never again deny it in "another;" and so the natural result is to treat all "Others" with the same reverence and appreciation appropriate to "God;" THE ONE; All-That-Is; for That is what "You" and "I" and "We" and "They" are. "Amen."

Love & Light,
Harmon

Friday, August 13, 1999 Govinda wrote:

Thanks Harmon, I think you have right with it. It resonates with what is correct and common sense in anyone's mind. It's universal. The first law: Don't hurt and cause pain and don't kill, this is a universal law. Any living form that is aware of life and that kills or causes pain to something, will feel not good. I think this is universal as God is connected to all matter and spirit and spirit is spread over all life forms.

God is not connected to organizations and companies or groups of the hierarchy, but the members are. What is wrong now on governments all over the world, that they support and subsidize organizations and companies, and in fact they should support and nurture with minimal income for any member of the state or country. Then organizations become automatically supported as the members have a minimal income. They should concentrate on subsidizing the individuals, all members on a equal level in place of organizations and companies.

Love & Light,
-Jos email: govinda@skynet.be

Friday, August 13, 1999 Govinda wrote:

http://www.asitis.com/

This site contains the whole Bhagavad-gita online... for those interested it outperforms NeoTech - ZonPower talks...

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1390/wkrishna.html

Love & Light,
-Jos email: govinda@skynet.be

Sunday, August 22, 1999 Harmon wrote:

Dear Govinda,

Again, Sir, please forgive my tardy response to your valued comments; sometimes it takes me longer than others to make the rounds of my correspondents.

I gather through our recent exchanges that we see things in quite complimentary and resonant ways, although from the perspective of diverse cultural heritages and life experiences. This naturally serves only to underline the thrust of the large issues upon which we intuitively agree. Your comments about government, however, provoke me to offer some comments of my own in return. I am drawn back to our earlier discussion (eventually published as The New Paradigm vol. II #17, 7/23/99) revolving around the "secret government" discussed in the work of David Icke, Daniel Pouzzner and others.

Actually, David Icke and Daniel Pouzzner provide a very illuminating base line from which to undertake a consideration of "government;" for they are philosophically poles apart in many respects, yet they agree in depth upon the idea that the whole world is in fact under the clandestine, "conspiratorial" control of some sort of hidden and very powerful fraternity of elite rulers or tyrants. At the time of our earlier conversation I had only a nodding acquaintance with the work of David Icke; but I have in the meantime visited his web site and found there a very interesting and provocative in-depth interview titled "Are 'Their' Aliens Among Us? The Biggest Secret An Interview With David Icke 7/30/99 ~ RICK MARTIN" which may be viewed in its entirety at

http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles/aliens.html

The voluminous presentation of Daniel Pouzzner titled The Architecture of Modern Political Power is also online at

http://www.mega.nu:8080/conspiracy.html [*]

Two more unalike researchers into the same domain of interest can hardly be imagined; yet they corroborate each other in striking ways in the conclusion - at least as I understand it at the moment - that our so-called "governments" - all of them, all over the world - are mere cats' paws to facilitate the hidden agendas of a tyrannical oligarchy that administers the entire Planet as if it were a huge "cattle ranch" with the single purpose of serving the needs, desires and whims of the oligarchy.

If so - and after all, who am I to say "yea" or "nay" to the theory? Anybody who is interested may read about it to the point of satiation, and draw their own conclusions - if so, then the entire concept of "government" comes up for personal review. What do we mean by the word, "government?" What does it consist of; what purpose does it serve; what "benefits" do "I" (whoever "I" may be) derive from it, and what "costs" do "I" bear?

This entire issue is rather filled in many ways with emotion and stress, and I have for long been grappling simply with the issue of how to even "talk about it." The idea of a "global conspiracy" to "rule the world," if taken seriously, can be a terrifying one; yet I maintain terror has never yet done anybody any good. Fear is never a sound source of motivation for any action; I think that is a fairly reliable principle, at least as far as I am able to see. Nevertheless, it may be sometimes necessary, or at least prudent, to examine some very fearful apparitions. Frequently the result of squarely facing a source of fear can be the disarming of the fear with which it is charged.

Regardless whether it is true or not, the "conspiracy theory" about the "New World Order," in which the Human population is supposedly to be managed like a well-organized cattle ranch, or plantation, or factory, by its very existence in the minds of a growing number of people invites critical scrutiny of the entire concept of "government." For one of the bedrock founding principles of "legitimate government" in any form is that it is conducted with the consent of the governed. Any so-called "government," on Earth or anywhere else, that does not meet this fundamental criterion is in fact, by definition, not "legitimate government" at all, but tyranny, and is utterly void of legitimacy. Thus, if the so-called "governments" of the world are in fact the cats' paws of a "global conspiracy," as alleged by Icke, Pouzzner and many others, then they are inescapably operating outside "the consent of the governed" and have no legitimacy and no claim upon the allegiance of their (alleged) "constituents." This is a matter of simple definition of terminology: "government" is defined, in crucial part, as "having the consent of the governed;" "consent" means "agreement;" "agreement" requires "informed consent" or "full disclosure" of all terms upon which "agreement" is reached. "Full disclosure" and "conspiracy" are mutually exclusive conditions: therefore where there is "conspiracy" there is not "government," by definition.

Now before getting too carried away by all this, I should also mention that even tyranny has a kind of "legitimacy" for those who acquiesce in it. It's a free universe; if you don't want to be free, there's no Cosmic Law says you have to be. If you want "somebody else" to make your decisions for you, dictate what you "can" and "cannot" do, that's okay, you can do that. Conversely, if your ambition is to be yourself a tyrant, and dictate to "others" what they "can" and "cannot" do - and can find "others" who will acquiesce in or agree to your tyranny, that's okay, you can do that too. So the implication here is not that tyranny, or tyrannical "governments," are a "Bad Thing;" they only represent some of the choices available in a free-will universe. This may at first appear to, but does not, contradict the preceding paragraph.

The key point here is that, in Cosmic Fact "You" (and "I") ARE Sovereign. This means We are free to choose the conditions of Life We will and will not accept; and there is nobody qualified to dictate Our choice to Us or for Us. If We are willing to live under tyranny, then surely We do, whether or not We realize it; but if We are not, there is no way tyranny may be imposed upon Us. And if, having lived unconsciously and unaware under tyrannical conditions for generations and millennia, We awaken to Our Cosmic Sovereignty, and elect to reclaim it and draw it to Our Selves, there is no power in the universe can prevent us from doing so. This "is so" not because I say so: "You," Whoever "You" may be, may verify it conclusively within Your Self at any time.

It is impossible, however, to reclaim Your Sovereignty, should You wish to do so, if You are unaware that You have surrendered it to "others." This is where the illusions and deceptions of so-called "governments" assume some importance. For it develops upon careful scrutiny that all so-called "governments" on Earth are by nature deceptive and conspiratorial and deliberately withhold their full agendas from their (alleged) "constituents." They therefore operate outside the definition of "informed consent" and are consequently not "governments" at all, but tyrannies in disguise. Ultimately this is nothing more nor less than a perfect reflection of what We have been, individually, Our Selves: so it is important to realize that, whatever inconveniences We have suffered at the hands of tyranny, the "fault" (if any) is Ours, not "theirs." But just because We have acquiesced in tyranny in the past does not mean We must continue to do so should We wish otherwise. The choice is always and irrevocably Ours, every moment of every day.

But Sovereignty, particularly for We Who have been slaves throughout Our memories and histories, is a mighty big concept, and bears considerable contemplation. What would You do if someone "in authority," with the legally recognized power to do so, were to hand You a Legal Document officially acknowledging Your Cosmic Sovereignty upon Planet Earth (and off it, if that ever becomes applicable)? What would You do? How would You change Your life? O.k., now You're Sovereign, and You've got a Legal Document to prove it. You owe allegiance to no-one but Your Self and Your God, however/whatever You conceive That to be. You are no longer a "citizen" of this or that "nation;" you are not subject to any but Cosmic Laws; nobody has any "authority" over You whatsoever; You do not owe any "taxes" to any "jurisdiction," and have Your Self no claim upon any of the "benefits" allegedly supported by "taxes." You're free to go, and do, and be, whatever, wherever You like. What then?

I think the question is an important one, and bears serious consideration and personal introspection; for in Cosmic Fact, that is, or can be, the condition of each of Us, right here, right now, if that is Our genuine, certain and unequivocal intent. But it cannot be done "by halves." You can't be "half in, half out" of "the System." You're either a Sovereign or a slave, not a mixture of both.

This thought will lead inevitably to a vast chain of other thoughts, far too lengthy to pursue at this time; but this entire consideration was provoked, Govinda, by your remark,

"What is wrong now on governments all over the world, that they support and subsidize organizations and companies, and in fact they should support and nurture with minimal income for any member of the state or country. Then organizations become automatically supported as the members have a minimal income. They should concentrate on subsidizing the individuals, all members on a equal level in place of organizations and companies."

For I think that "subsidizing the individuals" is one of the primary mechanisms whereby "governments" maintain and expand their tyrannical control over the Cosmic Liberty of individuals, and always has been. People dependent upon the subsidy of "government" cannot afford to exercise, or even contemplate, their Cosmic Sovereignty. Slavery is always an option in the free-will universe, but I think no-One will ever experience Shim's full potential, which is literally without limit whatsoever, without first realizing and exercising Shim's Cosmic Sovereignty.

Love & Light,
Harmon

P.S.: Over the past month our exchanges have again grown into a rather extensive collection of thought. Have you any objection to the idea of combining them once again into a New Paradigm edition, "A Rambling Conversation, Part III?" L&L, H.

Thursday, August 26, 1999 Govinda Wrote:

Subject: Harmon, you are free to share our conversation with tnp members. Thanks.

---- My comment and question: 'How do I become Sovereign?'

Harmon, I can understand your reasoning about governments and also that we should be able as sovereign-beings to support ourselves, but How do I live as a sovereign being in a world that is governed by bogus authorities and how can we avoid to pay taxes and operate really sovereign while those governments impose laws and rules on us that we cannot get rid off by our own recognition of sovereignty? The only way I see to get more freedom is to influence our political systems and influence governments to support the individuals or sovereigns at the entity level with a minimal living standard income and then let them operate free without too much imposed rules and laws and let them pay government income (or what is called now taxes) when they buy services and goods ( eg. 1% to government on all bank transactions in the respective country) to support the country infrastructure that we as so called sovereign beings can share and use.

"Sovereign" is also simply a concoction in our mind and really we are in no way Sovereign as the infrastructure is not yet present now. We are all dictated by too many rules and laws all over the world imposed on us by others.

Love & Light,
-Jos email: govinda@skynet.be

I have not yet answered Govinda's excellent comment, and as it enters upon a domain of vast consideration, I think it best to truncate our conversation temporarily at this arbitrary point, and continue it in a later edition.

"How do I become Sovereign?" Very good question, and one about which there is much to be said. Indeed it may be not too far off to observe that that at bottom is very possibly what The New Paradigm is all about.

Until next time...

Love & Light,

-- Harmon
J. Harmon Grahn