It can only happen when we as a society lift the indictment of skin color, of all the institutionalized systems that have created and reinforced a pigmentrocracy*.
"When you judge a man because of the color of his skin, then you're committing a crime, because that's the worst kind of judgment...the Black man can't hide. When they start indicting us because of our color that means we're indicted BEFORE we're BORN, which is the worst kind of crime that can be committed."
-Malcolm X's speech at the Ford Auditorium on February 14, 1965, otherwise known as the "After the Bombing"speech
Justice for Trayvon is beyond the arrest of George Zimmerman and a formal investigation into the Sanford police department. It is the societal consensus we will and HAVE to form to guarantee that no human, like the one below, will EVER be indicted for his or her skin color. Will you commit to ending indictment by skin color?
*There is a caste system in the US, it's called a racial caste system
As the photo is testament to, I serendipitously ended up dead center, practically falling on the stage. The band was on a whole other level of inspired, passionate precision as they played Richie's golden oldies, in some cases remixed, and classic Commodores. Kenny Rogers made a surprise guest appearance to join Richie in a rendition of "Lady." All in all, it was a truly special show because it transformed, from the glossy emptiness of The Dream's set, to an unpretentious dance party---all night long! What also made it special was...that I got in free...and only heard about it hours before as I passed someone flyering for the show on 6th Street....
Remember, in all those moments when you want to rationalize away your health issues, that: you are in power of your body and not beholden to genetic determinism. As Deepak Chopra explains, "You are in a constant conversation with every cell in your body..."
Furthermore, he insists: "This post is too short for me to detail how such a revolutionary change occurred in genetic thinking, so I will only point to the findings of Dr. Dean Ornish, the country's most respected advocate for heart prevention, which indicate that improving your diet, exercise and stress levels leads to improved genetic output from 400 to 500 genes."
In conclusion, this means that, "you can be the controller of your body's trillions of cells, and the control switch lies in consciousness."
Primarily introduced through the 1942 short story "Runaround"by Isaac Asimov
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Krishnamurti defines love as the intense will, resolve, and determination for liberation from samsara (the round of births and deaths), and for union with God. And Charles Eisenstein, author of Sacred Economics: Money, Gift, and Society in the Age of Transition, defines love in one instance as "the expansion of the self to include others" in the viral YouTube video "The Revolution is Love" (which I highly recommend viewing in its 5 minute entirety below). Tying these two definitions is a love predicated on the dissolution of the self, the me, the I, a "perfect unselfishness" (as Krishnamurti called it)---whether it be in the service of and gifting to others or the will to be one with God. It is interesting then, when we look at the cultural manifestation of romantic love---in movies, music, poetry--- that we would be compelled to possess and own the other, or a depend on the other to provide that love one must build within to gift to others..."Baby I want you," "I can't quit you," "I need you," "Please come back to me, I NEED you. I am alone without you," etc...These "yous" that are NEEDED by "me" are usually humans, sometimes, as in the case of Rumi, Hafez, and others, they have been metaphors for that will to be one with God. And as one of my spiritual guides reminds us "Love possesses not nor would it be possessed; For love is sufficient unto love." So what is the appeal of associating love with possession and ownership? How have we come to be compelled with this application of "love"? Can this even be love?
There are no shortage of definitions of love, so why did I think to put the two in conversation with each other? For me, these two definitions do not just create a crossroads of meaning when intersected but more so, the saliency of the connection is that one is a mircocosm standing in for the macrocosm. How can we hope to perfect that consummate unselfishness to merge with One, if we can't first practice that with other humans? Why should we even be qualified to receive to the peace, love, mercy and grace of God, if we cannot even be that for the other? Krishnamutri closes his section on love (one of the four qualifications on the Pathway) by asserting, "For if you yearn to be one with God, it is not for your own sake; it is that you may be a channel through which his love may flow to reach your fellows."
"Consciousness explains physical laws but physical laws do not explain consciousness."
"Selective attention and intention is an attribute of consciousness." "What is the most primal experience of life that we have? It is our subjective experience of reality. and this reality is within consciousness."