Energy Power and Control

[Emproph]

Are they all the same?

Money “energy” (the power of exchange) seems to be the biggest mitigating factor in all the other coveted ‘powers’ such as fame and power itself. My thought here is that he who controls the ENERGY energy controls the money energy.

Along that line of thinking, we have Big Oil Energy controlling every aspect of our lives. I feel like this is an obvious unspoken secret, as all other energy resources are dependent upon oil. No oil = no alternative. Save all the in-between nightmare scenarios, if people can’t get to work, the work can’t be done. Every level of work – of any kind – and the distribution of other energy sources is affected.

Coal can’t be mined, processed or delivered to the Electric companies to make up for any absence of oil. And even if you wanted to extract yourself from dependence on electricity, solar panels can't be made, ordered, or delivered, etc.

As it relates to energy, we need to start looking at our economic structure as an ecosystem. It only takes a few key oil/gas based components for the whole system to crash.

I realize most of you here will grasp this immediately, so along the lines of “everything is made of money energy,” I’m trying to establish the connection between he who owns the ENERGY energy and he who owns the ‘money energy.’ Obviously one owns the other, I guess I’m trying to determine how they manage to appear so separate. What is it I’m not seeing?

~~
God = infinite energy (power)

We are made in God’s image

Ergo, energy on earth = power on earth

It reminds me of the quote about power being the sweetest of all intoxicants.
~~

If the control of the Energy of the Earth is Power, then control of the energy is control of the Earth. And control of all equals God. Or at least “God” of the earth or “King of the world” as it were.

If Power is the sweetest addiction, then those with power are the most susceptible to it’s addictive qualities, namely the desire for more of it. Ergo, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Like Love, power is heaven, at least on Earth, because it supercedes monetary control. Enter politics.

Which might be another reason why the Religious Right allows for the antics of those in power today, they identify with the need for more power/control. Not necessarily to take it away from others, but because they are so prone to fear, it’s perceived as being in limited supply, and thus must be taken away from the ‘less worthy.’ Whether it be from marriage equality or the actual life equality of Iraqi’s, they are long since resigned to the idea that it must be taken from somewhere.

So I’m thinking that they’re thinking that it’s ok if the President lied about the reasons to go to “war” with Iraq because they already understand that we are entitled to the World’s energy supply – because we are entitled (by God) to control the world.

Which makes the phrase “we must win in Iraq” so much clearer. The cost in lives doesn’t matter if it puts us in ultimate and permanent control. If we are in ultimate control, WE decide what money is worth, and thus will have no need to worry about paying off our $Trillions in debt.

If we own the ENERGY energy, then we own the meaning of money energy. We decide what it’s worth and whom we owe.

~~

Obviously Love is the most powerful energy as it keeps even this greedy monetary system going via those in power. We (those in power) have love in our lives and thus have the "love power" to wake up every day and work to maintain our oil profits etc, for the sole purpose of gaining more power – the “sweetest addiction.” The more power, the more heaven on earth you have.

I guess my question is, is it basically this simple, or is there a power source above and beyond (besides Love) those who control the Earth’s energy sources?

And if it is that simple, why is it not so apparent? In that why do we not make the connection between the control of physical energy (power) and political power?

It seems to me that energy, power and control are synonymous and should be understood as such.

[Zerbie]

Why do your most complex posts always appear at night when my brain is shutting down?

Before I give up and retire for the evening, are you asking if there is a more basic way to break it down - a more basic force behind the money drive? I wasn't sure how to take your question.

And as for those with the monetary power (I'll say worldly power,) are you sure they are in control? They are certainly in control of externals, but they are not in control of themselves or they would not require the constant fix of continual exorbitant profits.

I'd rather have peace in my spirit and drive a Toyota Corolla than own a fleet of Name Your Favorite Luxury Brand Heres and be agitated inside. Though even that brings us back to your energy cycle problem. sigh.

[Daniel]

I am going to sound like a Gnostic quoting and then commenting on this, but Jesus reportedly said "My Kingdon is not of this world." With that in mind, one could make a case that, there is a difference between things of this world and that one. Each obeying their own law.

That said, there is notion that thought is energy and that abundance is a product (there's a pun there for ya) of applied thought. And just in case Fundi Christians think this is all some new-age mumbo jumbo, well I have news for them: I remember the '80's when Pat Robertson and others starting yakking about how, if we only prayed, God would bless ya with stuff- you deserved it as a child of God. Sounds like applied thought to me. And magical thinking. One got the notion- in so many words- that having lots of stuff was a sign of spiritual attainment. Well....that burns a lot of oil, doesn't it?

Maybe the point here (I'm thinkin' as I write) is that it's not so much that one has to see everything as a mixing of matters (another pun), that is, a manipulation of divine energy on earth, but the simple recognition of manners: when you visit a friend's house for a longish stay as a guest, its always good to leave it in better shape before you leave and go back home.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

... are you asking if there is a more basic way to break it down - a more basic force behind the money drive?

I think so, what occurred to me was that Money is just an accepted representation of energy. BUT IT DOES REPRESENT AN ACTUAL AMOUNT OF ENERGY.

It may be backed by gold, but without black gold, technically you can't make money. All in all, Z may as well be the Bible. Who sets that standard? It reminds me of the SNL sentimental value pawn shop.

There’s a dynamic at play inbetween money-power, and energy-power, and control-power (political). What is the relationship?

It seems that ENERGY power is the superior of the three because it includes the other two powers, money and politics. Is there something bigger?

And as for those with the monetary power (I'll say worldly power,) are you sure they are in control? They are certainly in control of externals, but they are not in control of themselves or they would not require the constant fix of continual exorbitant profits.

Agreed. It’s not normally those that we “see” in control that are actually in control. Maybe that’s what I’m trying to determine, how deep can we peer. That's why I say "obvious unspoken secret."

The obvious simplicity of the problem makes its solution seem suspect. Like it can't be that easy. Energy=money=power over energy.

..or something like that.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Daniel

I am going to sound like a Gnostic quoting and then commenting on this, but Jesus reportedly said "My Kingdon is not of this world." With that in mind, one could make a case that, there is a difference between things of this world and that one. Each obeying their own law.

One will always be reflective of the other, no matter how dissimilar they seem. I think that's what I'm trying to pin down. In essence it's just another version of survival of the fittest (as far as power, money and greed goes).

That said, there is notion that thought is energy and that abundance is a product of applied thought.

That would be the "love" energy I'm talking about. Not just the sense of being 'in love,' but the inherent and genetic drive to survive and thrive. Ultimately to rise to the top and control all if given the opportunity.

Maybe the point here (I'm thinkin' as I write) is that it's not so much that one has to see everything as a mixing of matters (another pun), that is, a manipulation of divine energy on earth, but the simple recognition of manners: when you visit a friend's house for a longish stay as a guest, its always good to leave it in better shape before you leave and go back home.

Yer so punny!

I think I'm just trying to understand it so I can eventually put it in soundbite form. (hey, I can dream )

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Emproph

One will always be reflective of the other, no matter how dissimilar they seem. I think that's what I'm trying to pin down. In essence it's just another version of survival of the fittest (as far as power, money and greed goes).

That would be the "love" energy I'm talking about. Not just the sense of being 'in love,' but the inherent and genetic drive to survive and thrive. Ultimately to rise to the top and control all if given the opportunity.

Yer so punny!

Drop a letter and I'm a 'small person' in heels!

The person you describe, one who rises to the top to control all beneath him/her, sounds very much like- in the negative sense- an ego that does not see that all living beings on this side of the veil as interdependent. Such a one, in the words of a character from the Lord of the Rings (which Oxy is ever so fond of quoting these days because she either lacks imagination or is simply dazzled by observations on Life as expressed through Art) seems only to live and breath so that he/she can exercise the "will to dominate."

What you are leaning towards is expressed in Hermetic Philosophy as the maxim:

As Above so Below

My beloved answers.com and Wikipedia reveal when asked for a definition of Hermeticism.

Hermeticism is a set of philosophical and religious beliefs based primarily upon the writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus. These beliefs have influenced magic traditions and further, the impact of serving as a set of religious beliefs. Whatever the impact of the beliefs, they stem from teachings and books accredited to Hermes Trismegistus, who is put forth as a wise sage and Egyptian priest, commonly seen as synonymous with the Egyptian god Thoth.

In Islam, the Hermetic cult was accepted as being the Sabians mentioned in the Qu'ran in 830 CE.

...and.....

Hermeticism as a religion

Not all Hermeticists consider their beliefs a religion. Many alloy the beliefs of their own Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, or Islam with their mystical ideas. Others hold that all great religions have a few mystical truths at their core, and all religions point to the esoteric tenets of Hermeticism.

Tobias Churton, scholar of obscure religious movements, states that "the Hermetic tradition was both moderate and flexible, offering a tolerant philosophical religion, a religion of the (omnipresent) mind, a purified perception of God, the cosmos, and the self, and much positive encouragement for the spiritual seeker, all of which the student could take anywhere.

Religious and philosophical texts

Though many more have been falsely attributed to the work of Hermes Trismegistus, Hermeticists commonly accept there to have been 42 books to his credit. However, most of these books are reported to have been destroyed when the Great Library of Alexandria was destroyed. There is some debate as to who destroyed the library.

There are three major works which are widely known texts for Hermetic beliefs:

The Corpus Hermeticum is the body of work most widely known and is the aforementioned Greek texts. These sixteen books are set up as dialogues between Hermes and a series of others. The first book involves a discussion between Poimandres (also known as Nous and God) and Hermes, supposedly resulting from a meditative state, and is the first time that Hermes is in contact with God. Poimandres teaches the secrets of the Universe to Hermes, and later books are generally of Hermes teaching others such as Asclepius and his son Tat.

The Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus is a short work which coins the well known term in occult circles "As above, so below." The actual text of that maxim, as translated by Dennis W. Hauck is "That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing." The tablet also references the three parts of the wisdom of the whole universe, to which Hermes claims his knowledge of these three parts is why he received the name Trismegistus (thrice great, or Ao-Ao-Ao meaning "greatest").

As the story is told, this tablet was found by Alexander the Great at Hebron supposedly in the tomb of Hermes. Such a story assumes a mortal Hermes, whether or not the name is correct.

Interestingly, Hermetic writings were found at Hag Hammadi, specifically a text about Hermetic Mystery School. There are modern day equivalents.

All this aside, the person who wields Love rather than Fear as his/her Modus Operandi seems to be the kind of person you are talking about.

Dominionists need not apply.

[marutidas]

I think it would be best to approch this topic from as many sides as possible.
*DEEP BREATH* realease, ok I am ready.

First if you look at Wicca the idea of Infinite energy and Possiblity is not new, in fact it is the foundation of the religion, spells, the sending out of intention on the intent of desire effect lets for the sake of arguement some extra money. the components are not so important as the strength of the desire for said effect. I see all the time with posers, who only call themselves Wiccas and do not do their research, meditate or practice because that its a short cut for their problems. OK I think I kinda meandered off the point for a second, but ist that the reason for many Sunday Christians who only follow God for expectation of Reward=Heaven?

On the other hand in Buddhism, Material is transient, people, things come and things go. So place importance on the marterial is folly because nothing last, and always needing more, Wars break out and death happens. Reduecing consumers of said material. but this does not sovle the problem only, compounds it because you spend alot more resoures to kill people for theirs.

Also the clinging to an institution, ie, church, temple ect and sacred text literal translation. This would prevent the tapping of true infinite energy potential, unalbe to move forward. You find the most progress in those who don't hold on to institution and go freestlye.

So is eccletic the the way forward. Letting people do their on thing, but that might to a bigger mess that anticipated, but allowing members to read up on other religions and build respect to an interfaith allience and then seeing the Energy potential in all religions is interchangeable.

Ok my brain has just burnt a fuse on this one. I can't think of anything alse to say.

~~~Maruti Das

[andrewlittle]

Fascinating discussion. I am having a little difficulty getting my head around the nature of the discussion, however. That could be because of the dark place in which I've been keeping my head, lately. Because of that, I'm not sure if what I have to say adds to the discussion. You'll have to be the judge.

... what occurred to me was that Money is just an accepted representation of energy. BUT IT DOES REPRESENT AN ACTUAL AMOUNT OF ENERGY.

Modern money is an artificial representation of value. What functions as "money" has varied throughout time, but until the minting or printing of currency with no inherent value of its own, money was itself a commodity - a tradeable piece of material with inherent (if questionable) worth. Even gold coins had value - they could be melted down and formed into something else and retain the inherent value that gold was afforded by culture.

When we went to printed paper, forget coins for now, money became a representation of the commodity that gave it value - but it had no inherent value, in and of itself. Now money doesn't even have to be tangible - actually the majority of transactions now use a virtual representation of value - money is part and parcel of the ether world.

The underlying commodity, therefore, gives money its value. That commodity only has the value that the general populace allows it to have. Currently the commodity is undoubtedly energy producing materials - oil being the obvious king of the hill at the moment, but material that produces nuclear power is also up there. Through control of these commodities, certain entities garner power, in the sense of control.

Ultimately, that power to control comes from controlling the resources that are essential to human life. Physically, humans require food, water and protection from the elements. Given those ingredients, humans will survive on some basis. The inherent value of energy as a commodity comes from the polulace's dependence on energy to acquire the necessities for survival.

No oil = no alternative. Save all the in-between nightmare scenarios, if people can’t get to work, the work can’t be done. Every level of work – of any kind – and the distribution of other energy sources is affected.
Coal can’t be mined, processed or delivered to the Electric companies to make up for any absence of oil. And even if you wanted to extract yourself from dependence on electricity, solar panels can't be made, ordered, or delivered, etc.

Bottom line - Western people, in particular, have become dependent on energy to acquire the essentials to survival. This is not lost on those wishing to gain control, so even the sources of basic essentials have been gathered up and controlled - corporate farming, water rights, etc. In Africa, for instance, control of water garners growing power over domestic populations, while control of energy grants power of world populations.

Enter love as an essential commodity. To survive it may not be essential, but to thrive it is required. "Love", however, is not a physical material that can be stored, accumulated, etc. The answer to that problem for those wishing to control polulations has been to redefine "love" into controllable commodities.

If you can convince people that the feeling of being loved and loveable is directly related to the quantity of stuff that one accumulates (materialism) and constantly seeks (consumerism), then you can provide for means of controlling the way in which people feel loved. You simply change the notion of thriving from a way of being to a way of living (having). In the U.S. that process is damn near complete, except for those people who maintain that love is outside the bounds of the material - who insist that love is something more ethereal or God-generated.

In that instance, you then need to corporately control the perception of divine love. Power-mongers cannot control divine love, nor even filial love for that matter, but they can control how the populace perceives they experience that love. Corporate religion has been doing that for centuries, and now it is redefining in culture what that divine love looks like, in order to maintain hegemony over the population.

For this to be effective the controllers of energy, essential resources and "divine love" have to be one and the same. This requires performing on the political stage, as well as the purely economic.

It's an idealistic stance, I know, when I say that ultimately worldly power is based on the willingness of people to be controlled. Life, no matter what it looks like, is better than death for most people. This is what grants the powerful the power to control.

As bizarre as it sounds, if all people decided that a meaningful death was more acceptible than a meaningless life - all worldly power would evaporate. That has to be prevented at all cost and, historically, controlling religion has provided the means to control the concepts of what is meaningful.

I contend that religious power is the ultimate worldly power, because of that. It requires, however, twisting the bases of almost all religious belief, which generally say the opposite - meaningfulness is more important than meaninglessness, even to the point of dying for meaningfulness.

I'm going to take my medication now, and reread this to see if it makes any sense whatsoever.

[Daniel]

Andrew- you hit it out of the park with this post! I hardly could follow you in my 4 inch heels, but my goodness, the place where the ball lands reveals the paradox inherent in wielding power.

Originally Posted by andrew

I contend that religious power is the ultimate worldly power, because of that. It requires, however, twisting the bases of almost all religious belief, which generally say the opposite - meaningfulness is more important than meaninglessness, even to the point of dying for meaningfulness.

I could not agree with you more. This is why people are blowing themselves up, starting wars, invading countries etc, all with the blessing of 'God', or did I mean ego?

Those in power, to my way of thinking, endeavor to make themselves big by playing to the small, not only in terms to economic advantage, but in terms of the limitation of ideas and thinking. This is based, in my view, on a system build on the principle of scarcity. And when 'power' is mustered, it seems to done so for the simple reason to take resources away from those who have the least: using morality for immoral actions. I'm reading What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America, which addresses this.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

I contend that religious power is the ultimate worldly power

More specifically, the certainty of how to manipulate the fear of death.

this is the most powerful force on the planet.

The powers that be manipulating the fear of death – religious or otherwise.

Authoritarianism=Certainty

However, their certainty is not their own.

Our's IS.

they prey dead prayers about us..

• Three of our prayers could counter a thousand of theirs,
• Three of our prayers could render a thousand of theirs useless.
• Three out of four prayers surveyed...

..Ok I lost my train of thought there

I think my point is that in the process of earning certainty it becomes permanent. If knowing is a thousand times more powerful than "believing," how much more powerful is knowing that KNOWING is that powerful.

Ideally there's no threat to the beliefs of others – what is shared is only certainty.

Perhaps this is the failure of any sincere attempt at organized religion, CERTAINTY – SIGHT OF GOD ITSELF was never the goal.

I say that needs to change.

Who's with me?