I start this clarion call in June 2020. During the post-lockdown era that began in March 2020. Where the decision to wear or not wear a mask is on the minds of many. I observe so many of us feeling inspired to make an authentic contribution on this contextual backdrop.
Issues of polarity are many, and it appears the gap between each side has widened. Ultimately, it would seem that the most relevant truth to be known could reduce this gap. And yet … here we are.
I have long described our world as an unsustainable system of systems. The truth is much more relative than is commonly understood.
JP Sears recently shared a 5 minute video parody, “How to Get Angrier at People You Disagree With”. Click title to view. He pokes fun at a collection of groups.
Certainly a nudge towards the more peaceful option to “agree to disagree”.
A new approach is beckoning.
We truly need a new Truth System to develop making collective decisions that support our world in Unity (I define here as understanding).
It is definitely not about assigning right or wrong. We require a new template to establish a process to make decisions that affect all of us.
I have many ideas.
The biggest roadblocks:
Willingness to create a new process.
Ability to identify the problems: areas that require exploration for better outcomes.
I am beyond convinced that our current model of collective decision- making is simply suboptimal. Broken even.
This impacts Every. Single. One of us.
Bentinho Massaro offers some pearls of wisdom in his 19 minute video, “This Rude Awakening & The Endgame of Unity”. Click on title to view.
What is required now is Regenerative solutions, not simply sustainable ones. We have sustained the status quo long enough.
Heartmath Institute’s 4 minute video on “The Importance of Resilience” describes the optimal physical state of coherence.
In a nutshell: I see the need for the optimal people in an optimal state of coherence and personal awareness to collaborate in a whole new way in order to discover solutions that work for everyone.
We require a whole new Truth System.
Completely outside of our current unsustainable system of systems with the over-representation of control and authority.
I feel I am one of many of us that have been developing ourselves to have a role in positive system change. In this article, I hope to attract the perfect storm of individuals to start to develop a group of approximately 10-13 people with the diverse skillsets required for the task of introducing a Solutions Service: to develop plans and strategies for solutions.
My personal mantra is to enable and empower optimal human health.
This or something similar would be the basis of establishing solutions. My 53 years on the planet showed me that the systems as they exist act as a roadblock to establishing optimal human health for the majority of earth citizens.
Is this a valid exploration in your own mind?
My sense is the mission statement sets a solid foundation for assessing solutions.
Can we collectively agree that this is a worthwhile aim? Optimal Human Health? I do believe our current normal is better termed suboptimal.
To truly dive into this purpose, requires a lot of collaboration and exploration.
We would need to get curious and question assumptions.
We might need a large table to collect the variety of expertise and experience required for issues of collective importance. Health is one of those.
Tribunals of Truth. Has a ring to it.
We would not want to exclude any sincere, high integrity groups from that table.
A table like this has not been set within my lifetime, as far as I know.
The most efficient and effective way to find solutions begins with an honest and sincere description and inventory of the problems. Identifying them at the most foundational level accessible.
To be optimally effective, each individual seated at the table would be highly self-aware.
Here is where the challenges start to line up.
How do we define self-awareness?
I feel it exists on a spectrum, like every human characteristic.
How would we determine the “threshold”?
How do we assess self-awareness?
Who is best suited to assess this for each participant at the round table?
There are many entanglements and mindsets within our larger community.
I have long known this is a good model to solve any and all world problems.
Without willingness, this would never be enacted.
How uncomfortable do we need to become before we are willing to develop an efficient, effective way to optimally make community decisions?
It appears we may be discovering this soon in the post-lockdown world.
Possible ways to assess an individual? I share my first brainstorm how to actualize a method (this would ideally be collaboratively arrived at):
1. Assess whether whole brain thinking is taking place. Would an EEG be a simple way to assess? I wonder if psychologists have developed questionnaire-style assessment tools yet. I have had the idea of creating a short video, created with discernment, that upon assessing the reaction of a person after viewing would be clearly delineating whether someone functions purely left-brain, right-brain or whole brain. This feels like a relevant marker to be aware of for all team members in a roundtable environment. To enable unity. By unity, I mean understanding. Not for using in a polarizing, judgmental way. The challenge is that the less self-aware individuals risk feeling offended by this whole process. Masterful facilitation is required along with a basic willingness of participants. I envision the initial groups would demonstrate this to the skeptical. Initial steps would include discovering a collective problem to sample this theory.
2. A group of 5 suitable “psychics” who have developed the gifts of assessing state of being. I choose 5 as it would allow for a more holistic assessment. I recognize that this may feel concerning to some. It is not about judging, ranking and sorting. More about one modality taken in consideration with other physical measurements.
3. Heart-rate variability assessment via heart monitor can estimate coherence as described by the Heartmath Institute.
4. Assessment of the EMF (electromagnetic field) or similar. I have no knowledge in this area yet I invite the appropriate collaboration with a variety of individuals interested in exploring the theory I present here. I desire connecting with experts in the field of biophysics. I sense all this exists already, it has not found its way to wider attention … yet.
5. Authenticity Scale: 0-1000 modified from the Scale of Consciousness first described by David R. Hawkins in the book Power versus Force.
6. Mindset awareness. By discussing current issues to assess whether accessing 4-point logic. If only 2-point logic being used, and polarized style of assessing current events, then novel solutions serving everyone collectively are MUCH less likely to be formulated by an individual. This is relevant to add to the exploration of the people best suited to sit at a roundtable to assess collective problems with the aim of creating long and short-range solutions to serve everyone.
7. Willingness to collaborate to develop a novel Truth System.
I include a Highwire video link, 2 hours long to direct you to a short clip at 1 hour 51 minutes. (I cued up the link).
I happened to simply peek in at 1:51 and resonated strongly with Denis Rancort’s response to the question, “What should be the policy?”
“Our policy moving forward, what do you think we should do?”
They are discussing the Covid-19 situation.
His answer was perfection to my eye.
A key quote:
“(We need) to hold people responsible for the decisions they made in the absence of science”.
I will boldly state that there is no system setup to enable this very important task.
Yet. I always like to include the “yet”.
I, weeks back, chose to subscribe to the Highwire YouTube channel yet almost never actually watched any of the videos. I quickly became saturated by the polarizing machinations of the various issues. Until this unique moment. I am hoping to give the reader “raw data” about how efficiently one can live when they hold a strong physical coherence and have clear alignment to their specific role/dreams/purpose.
There is a lot of data out there.
It would be fairly easy to collect a myriad of differing, polarizing opinions on any topic du jour.
To consume all that exists and competes for our attention feels neither efficient or effective.
I have intended to only understand an issue well enough to be able to create a framework for the solution.
This does not require me to know very many details.
It is naturally how my mind has worked my entire adult life.
I will add in another key concept that caught my eye when I went back to 1:34 to find the beginning of the Denis Rancort, PhD
(Ontario Civil Liberties Association) interview.
“Winter burden all cause mortality”– the same this year. Consistent for decades. Interesting …
I feel to share a small, not too challenging, “true to my life” example from 15 years ago.
I earned a playful moniker as “a snack nazi” following the front page publication in my neighborhood newspaper, The Riverbend Rag, of a letter I had written to the Edmonton Public School Board.
It was far from my intention to appear on the front page of the sweet little neighborhood paper.
A friend of mine was the Editor and a fellow Education Advocate at the time.
I shared the letter with her and she asked if she could publish it. The front page status startled me.
(A low news day to be sure. Haha)
The topic: snack policies in the school system. My oldest child, daughter, reported that she had enjoyed an entire donut to celebrate a classmate’s birthday.
It acted as the straw that broke the camel’s back. I had, over 3 years, become quite horrified at the volumes of non-nutritious snacks consumed by school children. It appeared a sloppy lack of attention to the health of students.
This may appear so trivial, yet it is a clear small example of what I am encouraging on a grander collective scale.
Prior to taking it to the district level, I had presented my concerns to the parent council, including the Principal and a Teacher representative.
Looking back, my stance was confident, clear and even hierarchical. Not the optimal way to enact change, I now know.
I was truly shocked by the response to what seemed so logical and “backed by Science”. Yet my concern was definitively and nearly unanimously shot down.
To be clear, I was not proposing elimination of junk food but a policy to consider the responsibility to maintain a balance between shared treats and health. Portion control. Some gentle encouraging policies to guide families as they sent the volumes of treats to school. What I naturally did with my children when they were in my care.
I clearly stated I could not support a teacher handing out full doughnuts to grade 2 students. My rare habit was to purchase a doughnut and cut it into 4 pieces. I had playfully learned that I enjoy tasting and the second bite offers not much addition to the first bite.
(Yes, I have learned how ridiculous this sounds to most people. And yet, that was my authentic, educated choice.)
I took photos of large piles of candy associated with each event:
Birthdays (over 30 children in the classroom at the time)
I can tell you, each portion was far more than I would ever choose to put into my own adult body.
Having practiced as a Family Physician, I had given this issue a lot of thought over the years.
I landed firmly on step 1: portion control.
I sincerely felt this was a reasonable solution.
Reflecting back on this today, I recognize that I was hurt by the response. And I learned that my approach was not optimal.
The biggest reason I felt to share this anecdote was based on a beautiful conversation with my daughter recently, in 2020.
15 years later.
My daughter is now a practicing Dietician working at a local hospital.
I recalled this memory to her and she was inspired to hear all the details.
She followed with what I now wish I had recorded.
Firstly, she recounted how all of my concerns have been met with policy at the district level.
Secondly, she eloquently reviewed her knowledge about how to inspire change.
Her knowledge obtained during her Program sounded like a TED talk.
I would have loved to hear that 15 minutes presentation prior to approaching what to my training felt to be very straight forward.
She reviewed the baby step by baby step process of initiating change of behavior.
I happen to have a current example of taking action to communicate my desire for change from my life today.
The Flouride in drinking water issue. That likely a majority of you may not feel is an issue.
I understand that, just so you know. A polarizing issue to my perspective.
My Letter via the City of Edmonton website:
“I was pleased to hear from Epcor that the city water is not being fluoridated while an upgrade is installed.
They mentioned that it is the City of Edmonton that mandates fluoride be added to water.
There is ample scientific evidence to suggest that fluoride is a neurotoxin.
Long ago, the focus on bones & teeth took center stage.
I, and many others I know, spend money to ensure we do not drink water that contains Flouride.
I encourage the City to revisit the choice to add flouride into the water.
There is a court case that I am aware of underway in the US.
I recognize that this is yet another polarizing issue in our community.
Yet, I believe we all share the desire for optimal health.
Historical decisions benefit from re-assessment.
Thank you for serious consideration of this fundamental support of the most health beneficial water supply for Edmonton citizens.
I am concerned that polarizing issues are challenging to address.
I am a retired Family Physician so am well aware that this would be seen as controversial by many, including Health Professionals.
A decade of contemplation about SO many health issues, I have come to feel that a formal Tribunal is a possible tool to review important issues in our world.
Best to include a vast array of multidisciplinary people ensuring to represent all perspectives.
To be most beneficial, this would require inclusion of “non-allopathic” professionals also. And a wide array of high integrity individuals at arm’s length of the health field.
I am very concerned that our world requires structures to discover the most optimal truth for everyone.
To my perspective, these do not exist. Yet.
Edmonton could create a beautiful new model that the citizens would come to embrace.
I believe, now more than ever, we all want community decisions to reflect an optimal support of general health.
Their response after 1 day (impressive turnaround):
“Good morning Angele,
Thank you for your email regarding fluoride in the water. I can understand your concerns and would be happy to assist you.
Fluoride is added to Edmonton’s drinking water under terms of a 1966 plebiscite (Edmontonians supported). EPCOR manages Edmonton’s drinking water to ensure it is among the best in the world. Edmonton’s drinking water meets or exceeds all required and recommended health and regulatory standards, including Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality, Health Canada.
The Canadian Dental Association supports fluoridation, as it benefits all residents in a community, regardless of age, socioeconomic status, education or employment.
The amount of fluoride in our drinking water is 0.7 parts per million (ppm), the optimum level approved by a Health Canada expert panel; changed from 0.8 ppm in 2009. Fluoride dosing is continuously monitored and reported daily to Alberta Environment.
I have submitted your comments under reference number 8021491630 for review.
More information from the Health Canada expert panel report can be found online at https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/environmental-workplace-health/reports-publications/water-quality/findings-recommendations-fluoride-expert-panel-january-2007.html
Thank you again for taking the time to email us, your feedback is important.
I guess I choose to share this true life example of the challenges in our world.
If we want to go where we have never been, how can we if we keep doing as we have always done.
As a retired Family Physician, I get it. This is how the system works.
I am concerned about the neurotoxicity of Flouride, yet the Canadian Dental Association gets a big role in assessing the safety of Flouride as it related to teeth and bones.
I came up with a fun little analogy: To use flouride to build strong bones and teeth is kind of like using cocaine to enjoy high productivity. They each have their side effects, yet if we focus simply on the “positive”, is there a problem?
One simplistic view that I would prefer is that when we know there are polar issues, can we land on a solution that leaves both sides the freedom to agree to disagree? With flouride, if someone feels to take it, they can freely do so without it being in the city’s water supply.
As for masks, if someone feels a need to wear one for their protection, go ahead. The grave concern I have is that one mindset has the habit of requiring the other mindset to act in a way that serves to reduce their fear.
How much are we held captive by the fears of others? I know it is complicated.
I see our systems encouraging fear and creating elaborate smear campaigns for those who are not in fear. Clearly, the 2 groups believe differently.
Live and let live goes a long way to world peace.
My last 10 years of exploring consciousness, I have come to a few hypotheses/conclusions that I will simply list without too much explanation. As one of my top motivations to share is to find likeminded collaborators. You will know who you are.
1. Science, as it exists today, is like a religion. The profit-driven Science system bypasses so many caveats.
2. Consciousness is the foundation of health (and reality).
We are like film projectors able to create our reality yet many have been led to believe they are simply like a camera, taking still shots of some solid reality that exists independent of them. The Physics of Consciousness is the most fundamental Science I am aware of.
3. Physics trumps Biology, Chemistry and Genetics.
4. Our systems are not built on strong foundations. Hence, they appear to be crumbling. We can rebuild regenerative systems that enhance and support optimal Human Health. I know it.
I must admit that this all feels silly and petty on one hand.
Yet the foundation of freedom and the responsibility implied feels at risk.
I strongly believe that a new Quantum Truth System could handle the complexity of our world challenges. It requires a higher level of consciousness for those at the decision making level.
The feeling of being manipulated by strong-willed individuals acting upon unhealed aspects of themselves who have control of the common narrative is … quite unsettling.
No human left behind. Yet, not every human is best suited to develop solutions for the highest good of all.