Life Matters by E.C.Nemeth (read aloud TXT) 📕

but do not change the properties of the element.
In this way, hydrogen has 1 proton and its atomic weight concurs with observation at 1.0079 protons. A slight discrepancy, but still manageable. Helium has 2 protons but its observed weight is 4.0026 protons. This means that to bring the weight of helium up to its observed mass requires that its nucleus have 2 neutrons added to it. Lithium, with 3 protons, has an atomic mass of 6.941, and so 4 neutrons must be packed in the nucleus to compensate. On up the 100 and more elements of the table it goes, more and more protons go missing and neutrons must step in to replace them.
Atoms do not change elements with the addition of neutrons, only with the addition of protons. Add a single proton to a nucleus and the element changes but neutrons have no effect on the element’s chemical properties.
Atoms are always neutral: the number of electrons equals the number of protons. If the number of protons and electrons is not the same then the element is an ion derivative of the atom associated with the number of protons present and is considered unstable in certain respects.
All of this data was presented here with only one goal: to illustrate how complicated and convoluted our understanding of the most basic concepts of nature are. The slight discrepancies of atomic weights in theoretical applications to direct observation is quite small and rather consistent as if to suggest that only a small, yet universally misunderstood concept remains to be unraveled. This is the reason science continues to stubbornly use their flawed model.
To bring the discussion back on track then, neutrality is not a derivative of opposition. Neutrality is not a point of stability between opposing forces. Neutrality is not defined by opposition at all. Instead, neutrality is a unique state of mind with an equally unique attitude toward reality totally independent of opposition. In fact, as stated earlier, neutrality does not include conflict as a possibility and so does not see it at all. In other words, the neutral are conflict-free.
Who are you?
For the sake of argument, let's say you suddenly found yourself truly neutral. There you were, only the moment before, judging the events around you, then the next moment you are neutral. What would you do?
That's the telling question for many reasons. What would you do? Only those that judge would think along those lines to begin with. If you have embraced neutrality and someone came along asking what you are going to do now, you would look at them with a blank expression. To do implies a lack or, a more beneficial configuration of events unlike the one presented. To do means a judgment is required. To do is an acknowledgement that you would be better off somewhere else or in other circumstances. To do, as we are using the term here, requires a state of dissatisfaction. But the neutral are always happy, and therefore satisfied. For the first time in your life you would feel absolutely no reason to do anything, and you would look on the asker of the question as if they were from some other planet.
On the other hand, what would you do? Being neutral does not mean that you just find yourself wherever the wind blows you. So what would you do?
Many in today’s world will try to tell you that life cannot be lived without making decisions on a great variety of issues and if you don't make the choices, the choices will make you. That would seem to be wisdom, indeed. Yet there are many things we do now that are automatic and do not require conscious decisions. Things like heart rate, breathing, body temperature regulation, and on and on. The actions taken in those instances still implies that a choice was made but we are not aware of it at a conscious level. Imagine trying to consciously control all your muscles as you walk along the sidewalk - you’d quickly end up on your ass! And that’s the point. Life lived under the conscious guidance of the individual is madness. It cannot lead to happiness because the individual does not know their own identity. How could they judge their way to happiness and fulfillment, being in error about what they are. Being neutral does not mean that no decisions are made, only Who does the deciding.
The modern world is in a great deal of trouble. We cannot seem to agree on how to make it better or even what the problems really are. We try to compartmentalize the problems, break them down into manageable portions. We try to fix one little part only to find that other areas of the problem, in other compartments seemingly unrelated to the problem at hand, got worse as a direct result. Many believe the authorities don’t even try to fix anything any more, they just shuffle social spending among different groups to try to keep them all happy, a few groups and a few years at a time. What is it about our system that we cannot get it right? We lament our decaying social fabric at home while we go and tamper with other peoples lives halfway around the world. And then we do not understand why they resent us. We spend a hundred times more on other countries, in the form of financial aid, peace keeping operations and warfare than we do in our own countries to help the poor and the helpless. It is truly the height of hypocrisy but it is not surprising. Since our world is based on the premise of lack and the belief in separation our world is established on a decision made in error, and as a result all subsequent decisions have also been wrong. For the separated are alone and the lonely must decide everything for themselves, even their own self-concept. Thus, we believe we made ourselves. Now that’s just plain crazy.
There are not many problems, there is only one. There is only one problem underlying all its perceived forms. Form cannot convey meaning. So when we look at the form of a problem we have already overlooked its solution. In other words, we search among the effects for the cause, choosing first this effect as cause and then that one. But the effects did not cause themselves - they did not create themselves because then they would be cause and not effect. They lean away from the cause, toward more effects. The effects, the problems in our world, do not point toward the cause. Effects hide the cause behind endless effects. Problems, too, hide their solution behind endless problems.
This is only true, it must be pointed out, if the effects are perceived, that is, judged, by the individual. At this time 99.99% of humankind judges perception. Even so, with 6,500,000,000 people on the planet, that still leaves several million who do not judge perception! There is hope for us yet.
{This idea is so hard to convey meaningfully and it is of paramount importance.}
So what would you do if suddenly you were neutral? The first thing you'd do is reestablish your connection with your Source. Thus plugged in, no more doing would be necessary. However, there is another consideration. To be neutral does not mean complacency in the face of the suffering of others. Indeed, the truly neutral realize their great responsibility to transfer their knowledge to their peers. It is recognized by the neutral that the healing of others is in their best interest.
Democratic dictatorship
Here we need to diverge a moment to consider a fallacy in our modern world. Throughout history, our leaders have taken a heavy-handed approach to governing. They enact laws continuously with, let's give them the benefit of doubt, the best of intentions. Unfortunately, every law makes a criminal of groups of people that were law-abiding until the law was passed. The problem is one of authority, to be sure, mixed with a mode of thinking that side-steps the pertinent issue. Criminals are the marginalized. They are basically those that have been rejected by society, for one reason or another. Those who are rejected do not have any motivation to uphold the tenets of society. They are a counter-force to the rest of their peers. In other words, laws create enemies.
The problem thus created is not seen for what it is. Instead, more laws are passed to protect the law-abiding public from those that have already been marginalized by previous laws. As time goes on, more and more laws are passed targeting the same group of people. Labeled as criminals, made an example of and basically abandoned by their own countries, these unfortunates have had their voices, their rights, their hopes and their dreams stripped from them.
There is yet another dimension to this scenario. The law-abiding public does not understand why these criminals never learn their lesson. And they blame the criminal for everything wrong in their lives. The criminal is thus labeled evil. Once removed from the human level, the personal level, the problem becomes the age old battle between good and evil. Now morals and ethics can be applied to justify the oppression of the criminal. In this way the public, and most law makers, loose sight of the real problem, which was created by them in the first place.
Instead of finding real solutions to the problems that beset us all, we always blame a certain segment of society and turn to punishment and internment as the solution. However, this is not a solution and only exasperates the problem. We are creating a hardened enemy with nothing to loose and no reason to follow the laws of the land, since no law protects them from their tormentors.
So, let’s look at these evil people. Who are they? Are they really the devil’s lackeys? Are they really a disruptive force? What is to be put forward next will be very controversial.
First of all, it must be understood that anyone convicted of breaking any law, in this discussion, is considered a criminal. In our societies we have made an artificial distinction between criminal and civil disobedience. There is no difference between them. It is always the same issue: an individual makes a decision for themselves to contravene a law. Which law is broken measures an individual’s courage and their ability to stand up for what they believe in, regardless of consequences.
Those that have been marginalized are the modern day heroes. They are ready to step up. They are willing to give up their freedom for what they believe. And, much more than that, they know that the laws are unfair and they will not abide by an infringement of their rights as human beings. Laws are not natural and they never make a positive difference.
The marginalization of the hero is a response of fear by the leaders of our world and the portion of the public that supports them. The hero would quickly remove the fallacy that laws make the public safer. They would wage war on the present structure of our societies and show us that healing can be accomplished only by compassionate action by average citizens, not by the rich elite in their ivory towers. The law makers are so far removed from the average person’s life and problems that they do not understand the situation as it really is. They have the best of everything, and are insulated by money and twenty-four hour a day security personnel. They also live in segregated areas, where there are no poor nearby, virtually no crime and a false aura of peace permeates. They step over the homeless sleeping on the streets when they go to work, and are disgusted by these unfortunates’ lack of drive. Then they sit on their high benches, protected