Mankind is evolving in mind as well as in body. Indeed the body is a reflection of mind or consciousness.

As we enter the 2000-year span of the Age of Aguarius, we find that the ground rules are subtly different from those of the preceeding age, Pisces. Many changes since the turn of the century in 1900 indicate greater emphasis on a scientific approach to life, choosing a way of life that is more suited to one's personal needs, and redefining roles, such as God-self, man-woman, parent-child, society-individual, and so on.

To me life must be a conscious journey to have meaning. But mind must be balanced with heart.

Recorded here in this manifestation of the Aquarian age, the web-log, will be personal observations, discoveries, and points of illumination. If you would like to comment, feel free (but be aware that I delete spam).

DISCLAIMER: I reserve the right to be silly sometimes, to sometimes completely miss the point, to be unfocused until I'm focused and to occasionally speak from atop a soapbox.

Note: Original blog description.

The concept of "dualistic, egoistic thinking vs. a transformational
perspective" has been in mind lately. What does that mean? And how do
you illustrate it once you understand?

I came across an article in TIME magazine ("The
Revolt of the Generals" by Michael Duffy, 24 April 2006 issue) that
uses the phrase "a chorus of retired generals" and it struck a chord.

To me military generals do not usually sing in concert -- they may
work as a team, each doing her/his own part of the effort, but (I'm
guessing) they don't stand around waiting for consensus. Theirs is a
job that demands personal responsibility, strong-mindedness in the
sense of not succumbing to self-doubt and apparent defeat (lose the
battle, win the war type of thing) and decisiveness. Each is
accountable for thousands of lives. A part of the job requires
respecting the chain of command and adhering to a rigid code of
conduct.

In other words, generals are the epitome of dualistic thinking.
Their motto might be "Our purpose is good, honorable and worth killing
for, the enemy's is not."

When they begin singing together to bring down the current head of
the military, Donald Rumsfeld, they are stepping into an arena that may
be new to them, where the good of the military rank-and-file -- and the
country -- is greater than the system. Notice that all the generals in
the chorus are retired.

According to the article --

Open revolts by the top military brass against their civilian minders are rare but not unprecedented. General MacArthur objected to Harry Truman's handling of the Korean War and was fired in 1951. The Air Force didn't like the way Lyndon Johnson handpicked bombing targets during the Vietnam War. And Bill Clinton had to back down after he ordered the Pentagon to openly admit homosexuals in 1993 by settling on the narrower "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.

But what distinguishes the latest rebellion is that the retired generals are taking on their old boss not over policy or budgets but the operation of an ongoing war.

While I'm pretty sure that no tiger is changing its stripes in this
situation, one thing is apparent: instances where "top military brass"
challenge "their civilian minders" are increasing.

You'll have to read the article to know what their objections to Rumsfeld are.

There will be more later on the topic of "dualistic, egoistic thinking vs. a transformational perspective."

Journal entry dated 9 June 2006
Category: Eye on a world becoming