2008-06-23 Evergreen/Conifer Co-Creative Design Team, – CDT#25
Evergreen, Colorado
Celestial teacher: Sondjah Melchizedek
Topics: Becoming “finders”
Final analysis — sustainability of the individual
TR: Daniel Raphael
June 23, 2008
SONDJAH: Good evening, this is Sondjah. Thank your for your presence here, and it is a pleasure to be with you. Let us begin by reviewing the minutes, the conversations that you had last week after our session, when I spoke with you. These are vital and these are developmental, which we want to build upon. You are beginning to see the co-creative interweaving that is going on between us. You have a thought, we pick it up, we send it back, we talk about it with you, you converse about it among yourselves, and so it develops until time when there are options, then you make a choice and then you take action.
We are very intrigued with your conversations about the team that you have here, that perhaps you have defined yourselves too closely, too tightly. You have made the box of your existence and experience and production too tight. Perhaps it should be looser, should be such that you can, rather than designing sustainable social institutions that you may perhaps become “finders” of those documents, which already report those sustainable institutions. We would build upon that and suggest to you that perhaps you as a team might solicit to the world, those sustainable designs for families, education, healthcare, for all the other social institutions that support a civilization, and that you become a clearing house for reviewing these documents, to see if they are consistent with the sustainability chart, that these documents represent criteria of certain social institutions. You would examine them much as a social anthropologist looking for the expectations, the beliefs, and then to see if they point to values.
This is the final analysis that these documents must pass, and that is that they must contribute to the sustainability of the individual. You have been continually, each session, speaking about that this work always points back to the individual, to the support of the individual to become a sustainable member of a sustainable society and sustainable civilization, that this individual supports that civilization; and the civilization and its social institutions support and assist the individual to fulfill themselves. In other words, the social institutions become the carriers for the means for the individual to fulfill his or her life. It is the carrier of equality, and it is the carrier of growth for individuals. This is the analysis that is necessary for the review of all documents. We suggest that you begin with Patrick’s material. He is a close member of this team; he has been working apart on this material for years; it is being tested, it is tried and now we will see if it is true. It would make a perfect opportunity to analyze this, as his presence here will assist you to review its contents for internal consistency. It must feed the individual in the end. Now I will take you apart from that, as his work is very whole; it has integrity; it is integral.
Now let us look to some of your social institutions in your society, your culture. If you look towards the government, if you look towards the courts, if you look towards criminal corrections and healthcare and education, you will find that there are many disparities internal to those organizations. A lot of the functions internal to them are supportive for the benefit of the institutions, rather than for the individual. We acknowledge that there is a necessity for that, sufficient internal safeguards to protect the integrity of the service delivery of the social institution. This is necessary for its continuity and its contribution to society on an ongoing basis. It also must be amenable, flexible, and adaptable to the changing needs of individuals and of your culture.
You have seen in this society over the last 200 years, where the average education has gone from semi-illiterate to well above the high school level for most people. This has had a tremendous influence in your society, but many of your social institutions do not reflect this education, this maturity. Educated people wish to take on more responsibility to participate more directly in the affairs that affect them, whether it is in healthcare, education or in their own governance.
What we have set out for you may seem again to be a large task, yet it is a beginning. Every large idea begins with a small idea. You may look at some of the large institutions and social organizations and businesses, such as Google—I understand is quite huge. Where did it begin? It began by two individuals thinking about a new way of using the Internet and operating systems. So you can draw an analysis/analogy with your own group here: You are capable, intelligent, educated, and inspired—in the spiritual sense—individuals, who care and have an altruistic concern for your society and for the next generations that are coming into this world. Your work is very important to the future. We have said this many times; we want you to thoroughly understand that you are the beginning of the “new technology in a garage,” though this is hardly a garage. [In reference to how Hewlett-Packard began.] We hope you appreciate this.
I will now step aside for questions, as there are many topics for you to cover, and this one would like to facilitate you in discussing and digesting the topics, which have rumbled around between you in the off minutes, outside of the TR session. If this is unclear or ambiguous in any way, please voice your concerns and I will clarify for you. Are there any general questions?
Susan: Yes, Sondjah, this is Susan. I do have a question: On the higher spiritual realm, is there always an agreement about how something is facilitated? Where we are right now, I know we are all individuals as well, [working] on our spiritual areas, and there are disagreements here. I’m not sure how well we come together on the same page. Do you come together on the same page when you are confronted with things where you are, in discussions?
SONDJAH: No, we do not come to agreement always. There are sometimes quite varied differences among us. We have usually the same interests, but our positions are different, very similarly to your own groups and position taking in your own culture. We, too, have need of facilitators and there are those who are mediators and this is their eternal role, to act in mediation for groups who have differences, so that each side—and there may be many sides within a discussion—can appreciate and understand the other side that is discussing with them. You will have these differences continually among you, but if you can look towards the light and towards the end, you will find a commonality and in many times you must swallow your pride and your position, to move forward. Know eventually that if your position is true, it will come to the forefront, that it will bubble to the top and it will be appreciated, given examination and incorporated into the operating process. Does this help?
Susan: It did. At least my ego certainly did need help on that. Thank you.
SONDJAH: Other questions?
Mike: I have a question; this is Michael. My sense of the challenge that we’ve had in making progress, in a documentable way, on both the task that we took on to define a definable married relationship after the kids left the nest, which we recall was kind of a test case of design methodology. And then we moved into this topic, which is designing sustainable education for youth. It seems to me that maybe the difficulty in moving forward is that we are starting at perhaps a very logical beginning, which is with the values, and then we start to look at supporting beliefs of those values. Then the notion is to look at the expectations of what the outcomes would be if those beliefs and values were accomplished, and then work on criteria for knowing if we have achieved those.
Is it not possible that we would make more progress, if we started more in the middle, that is with the expectations? For example, tying us back to Patrick’s work, if one of the expectations is to create a happy child, then we can easily relate that to the values of life, equality, growth, in an unending list of beliefs associated with that, and we could clearly construct a way, I am sure, to come up with criteria to determine if a program or method—Patrick’s or anybody else’s—which is aimed at developing, sustaining and building happiness, is really working. So we would be able to cover them all, but we would start in a different spot.
SONDJAH: This is a very good approach. There is no “one right way to do this.” You will find that when you begin with beliefs or expectations, you will find that it is more immediate to your understanding and to your own experience. Surely, developing happy children is one expectation, as is developing them to be autonomous and self-sufficient, which is a form of self-sustainability of the individual. You will find, as you suggest, that you will begin very soon to find the universals of beliefs and expectations, that where you have three beginning rudimentary values, which are fundamental, you have more beliefs and then expectations, and that soon you will begin to find that the end of all education has a certain number of expectations, and that these are refined for accountants, for instance, and they are refined for veterinarians and for medical doctors, and so on. Your point is well taken, and we encourage you to explore this.
Susan: Thank you.
SONDJAH: There is one more question, is there not? Are you willing to proceed now?
Susan: Yes.
SONDJAH: Then I so withdraw and ask you to move forward, and I would be glad to assist you at whatever time or whatever place, concerning whatever issues are germane to this topic during your discussions. Thank you.
