28 June 2008

The Real Story of The Three Little Pigs

I was chitchatting with my son the other day, and he said that even though he thinks it will be fun after the shift is complete, that if he had to choose a time period to be born into, he’d choose this time period. He said that it was exciting to move from one set of strongly held ideas into a group of ideas that are so radically different. He’s got a point.

Individuals born in the last century and moving into this one are mavericks. They’re individuals who thrive on challenge. Because this time period doesn’t feel like a shift in perception to me; It feels more like a flip. We’re taking the idea that almost all power is held outside the individual and moving into the idea that all power is held by the individual. These two ideas are so different that they seem opposite of one another.

Sometimes it’s good to look at where you’ve been and where you’re going in order to give yourself a boatload of credit for where you are and your chutzpa for participating in this reality at this unique time.

We’re all in process, moving from one paradigm to the next. Plenty of ideas that will soon be outdated are still present and rearing their heads each day. For example, in a universe where all power is held by the individual, the idea of working hard is outdated. An all-powerful being doesn’t have to work at anything. An all-powerful being explores. Yet, for the most part, hard word and struggle are still portrayed as valiant expressions. This is a last century concept. This is the before mode. The before mode is just dandy, but it’s the platform from which we’re going to be taking off into another platform.

But let’s look at that platform for a moment. I think the story that illustrates the belief structure of the last century quite well is the story of the three little pigs. For those of you who don’t know the story, it goes like this.

The Last Century Story of The Three Little Pigs

The first little pig plays music all the time, and doesn’t work.

The second little pig works on his house, but he doesn’t work hard. He manages get it together enough to construct a house of straw.

The third little pig works diligently and, because of his determination, he builds a house of brick.

Along comes a wolf and threatens the first pig, who doesn’t even have a house to hide in. He goes running to the second pig, who takes the first pig into his straw house. The wolf blows that house down, so the first and second pigs go running to the third pig who, because of his superior work ethic and fine construction materials, saves the day.

The idea is that it’s irresponsible to play (the first little pig), that it’s lazy and dangerous not to work hard (the second little pig), and that you’re only safe if you keep your nose to the grindstone (the third little pig). The underlying assumption is that it’s an unsafe universe (the wolf). In sum, this is a perfect picture of the American work ethic, and the reason for that ethic.

Once again, these ideas are a platform for experience. They’re not right, and they’re not wrong. They will, however, yield a particular kind of experience, and as we move along it’s not the outcome that most people are yearning for. In fact, some of these ideas act as blocks as people try to apply reality creation ideas in their daily lives.

In the old paradigm, a good, moral, responsible person is a hard working person. These seemingly innocent associations can be a bugger when you actually try to incorporate the idea that you’re living in a safe and giving universe. As you try to trust that you can have what you want without working hard for it, as you try to become more experience-oriented as opposed to outcome-oriented, you may find yourself rather frustrated.

There are many channeled authors trying to guide people to be more playful and light, and many of us struggle with this because if we do that won’t we be eaten by the wolf? A serious person (read: a person who understands that life is not on your side) who pays her bills and is compassionate to others is concerned about the state of the world, right? If I’m not serious and focused on the dangers, then how are the bills going to be paid? How will my friend who is struggling know that I care? How will the world become safer? I have to be vigilant. I have to watch out. I have to anticipate all the things that could happen to me and then take action to make sure those things don’t happen. Anything less than hard work, tempered with a good dose of seriousness and a side of worry is a threat.

These ideas are a snare. So let me tell you a little secret. There’s another version of the story of the three little pigs. It’s the story that belongs in this new era. It’s the real story. Here it is.

The Real Story of The Three Little Pigs

In the real story of the three little pigs, there is no wolf because the universe is on the side of the pigs. Therefore, the pigs know that there are no dangers.

The first little pig has such trust in the world in which he lives that he freely expresses his joy through music. He doesn’t worry about the daily necessities because he knows that the world is abundant and that his needs are always taken care of. This isn’t wishful thinking on his part. He has actual knowledge of the mechanics of life.

The second little pig, like the first, loves life. He loves experimentation. He loves trying things out. He’s an inventor. He’s working on a new way of constructing houses, using materials that are abundant, natural, and self-generating. He hasn’t quite figured out the best method to employ yet, but he enjoys the process. Even when his inventions fail, it doesn’t bother him a bit because his interest is in the study of new ideas.

The third little pig is a mason. He loves the feel of brick and mortar. He loves to be outside in the fresh air with the birds and the wind and the sunshine. He loves to work with his hands. And he likes the immediate feedback of his work. Each day he can see his accomplishments as the walls that he builds get higher and higher.

One day, after he’d finished his house, the third pig is bored. “I need someone to talk to, some excitement in my life,” he says to himself. “The house feels empty. It’s too big.”

Then he has the good fortune to meet the first pig, and the third pig thinks, “This is perfect. I need to be around music, and this guy is so expressive and free. He’s a breath of fresh air.” So the third pig invites the first pig to stay with him for a while.

Then the third pig has another stellar day and meets the second pig. The second pig is so full of ideas and always evaluating and thinking. The third pig is impressed. He thinks, “This guy would be a wonderful pig to bounce ideas off of. New ideas don’t come to me so easily.” The third pig decides to invite the second pig to stay with him for a while. After all, he’s got plenty of room. In fact, the house echoes when it’s empty. He enjoys the company.

The three pigs are sitting around one evening, and the second pig says, “I can’t seem to get the construction of my straw house right. Maybe I shouldn’t use straw. Maybe I was wrong about straw. Maybe it won’t work after all.”

The first pig, who’s an abundance kind of pig says, “Stay with the straw. It regenerates. And it’s everywhere. It’s a great material.”

The third pig says, “I find that bricks work well in construction. Maybe you can find a way to turn the straw into bricks.”

The second pig says, “Like a bale?”

The third pig says, “Yes, like a bale.”

And there you go. The straw bale house was invented. It was invented in a safe universe, where many different lifestyles contribute to a plethora of ideas and experiences. It was invented in a universe where diversity of perspective and experience add to the richness, and underlying quality, of life.

This is where we’re going. We’re headed toward a platform of ease, appreciation, and exchange. And that does not mean hard work. It means that following natural impulses and inclinations will become primary. It also means that a fundamental trust that those impulses and inclinations add to the quality of all life will be the norm. In practical terms, it means that the diversity of working styles and living habits and ideas will be valued. Differences will not be viewed as threatening. There will be no wolf.

More importantly, people will no longer measure their value by what they do. Their value will be taken for granted. And if they measure their life at all, it will be by the level of trust that they afford themselves in any given situation. In illustration, they’ll feel comfortable going to bed at 3:00 a.m. when everyone else in the neighborhood is in bed by 10:00 p.m. They’ll feel comfortable not producing any product or service when many of their friends may find joy in doing just that. They’ll speak their mind even when those ideas might be contrary to what everyone else may be saying in that exact moment. They will be confident with their everyday acts, knowing that even when they don’t see how those acts fit into the bigger picture, those acts are still playing an important role nonetheless. In other words, in a safe universe, there’s a great deal of comfort with the act of being spontaneous and natural.

There is tremendous freedom to be had now and into the coming years. And that freedom doesn’t have to happen at once. It’s fascinating to go from the belief that you have to corral yourself, discipline yourself, organize yourself to the idea that spontaneity, impulses, desires, intuition are not only trustworthy but valued and fundamental attributes. I’m talking about moving from a state of constraint to a state of ease. These are very different ways of existing, and feeling the difference creates a level of understanding and experience all its own. In other words, in a very real way, the act of moving from one paradigm to the other is really the adventure itself.

 
 

Comments

# D.R. Johnson said:

Hi Samantha,

Your post is full of timely reminders for me since I am working on remembering the true state of affairs - power held by the individual.

Great stuff, thanks a lot!

Another story that might apply is "The Ant and the Grasshopper".  I am definitely the grasshopper type and have often felt bad because I am not an ant.  I will do better after reading your post!

Best wishes,

Don

30 June 08 at 8:07 PM
# Samantha said:

Hi Don:

It's funny you should mention the grasshopper/ant analogy because I was rereading some Elias material recently and realized that I'm about 101% sure that I'm of the soft orientation while I've been living my whole life trying to be a common. I had a bit of an "aha" moment. It's was like, "Ohhhh, so this is why I've always felt like I see the world differently. I actually see the world differently."

The thing I like about the shift the best is that it's teaching me that it's okay to be different. It's a big relief, that.

Thanks for reading!

Love,

Samantha

01 July 08 at 12:25 AM
# John Beder said:

Hello Samantha,

I love your story, part of my appreciation is generated by a feeling of coincidence. Just prior to reading your blog, I had been wrestling with a wolf of my own, or in my perception, a bear, like bearing down. It had to do with a chronic anxiety, a feeling of un-ease, that eventually resolved into a feeling that I was always paying for something, with no feeling of satisfaction. It was like I was indebted just because I was alive, and that I had to pay for existence. Part of it was a perception that I had to pay for my mistakes, whatever the “conviction” was. Unmet expectation of reward made up a large proportion of my “conviction” and it kept bearing down on me like an unending punishment. I noticed a deep longing for freedom. My practice with the guest house metaphor formed the habit of seating desire with consideration. I considered the question, who is it that says I should not experience freedom, since striving for, or laboring for, freedom is an oxymoron. I considered, after reading your blog on money, that money represented freedom to choose where to live, what to do, and what to have. I reconsidered my past, and realized that even during periods of disappointment, I still freely chose all three of being, doing and having. At issue were preferences and it was there that I noticed the judge was at the center of court. May it please the court came to mind. The conviction was that many of my choices did not please the court of preference and that somehow I should be afraid of this and or be punished for the failure, or perhaps non-compliance.

I considered the third pig. He worked hard for security, his preference. I considered the question, who would prefer insecurity? It occurred to me that the third pig didn’t work hard for security, the third pig worked hard to fulfill a perception of security, represented by the stone house, much like a castle or fortress. The idea is that thick walls offer security and that uninvited visitors may be kept out. As I work on a resolution, it occurs to me that I don’t have any thick walls, but I still have a belief that thick walls offer security. At the same time, I am considering ideas of what it means to be truly human. Truly human is truly free and I know that, if I owe anything, I owe myself the trust, the belief that I can afford the trust, to be free.

Thank you Samantha,

John  Beder

01 July 08 at 11:35 AM
# Samantha said:

Hi John:

You've just expressed my sentiments and struggles to a tee. Very well put. Beliefs are like a puzzle, and slowly you begin to see the pieces. Once that happens, you can rearrange them into something more natural. That's what I'm trying to do, in any case!

Love,

Samantha

01 July 08 at 12:11 PM
# NewWorldView News said:

Happy July! We welcomed over 3,200 unique visitors from 81 countries and 52 new subscribers to our forums

02 July 08 at 5:00 PM
# John Beder said:

Hi Samantha,

I am right in the middle of cooking dinner while experiencing an aha moment.

Here it is:

Money, by definition is a medium of exchange, which structures in the idea of trading. Your story of the pigs is about sharing, not trading. Sharing associates with the idea of spontaneity, unpredictability, and finally trust. The trust is built, if one wants to use the idea of  building a house, on the beiief in our unique impulses, another word for abundance, and has the inward impetus to go forth, and inform "others". Trust says that "others" will spontaneously appreciate what is offered and, in the parlance of money language, afford to share in the idea of everyone ejoying the feeling and experience of furthuring through sharing abundance. Sharing in this sense is a confirmation, a proof, of individual abundance.

Impulsively yours,

John Beder

03 July 08 at 10:01 PM
# Samantha said:

Hey John:

What you just wrote there is absolutely perfect. We're on the same wavelength here. You're describing this world that I see. Only you're taking it further, which is really nice for me because I love expanded ideas. And I really like the way you've described abundance. That's just spot on and a beautiful idea all in one.

Impressed and enjoying this,

Samantha

03 July 08 at 11:41 PM
# John Beder said:

Hi Samantha,

Talk about sharing, eh? I feel immeasurably richer having shared ideas with you.

My desire after the last post was to own the idea of impulses as abundance, and the idea of sharing this with others. It happened to be the fourth of July when I began to resolve more issues with the doubter, and it occured to me to make my own declaration of independance.

I declare that I need not look to what I consider the real world for proof of any thing. My experience of being human is symbolic of the source of all that is given, given freely without effort or struggle. The fact that we all share the abundance and miracle of being uniquely is a deeply beautiful and awe inspiring perception. The experience is its own proof.

With love and understanding,

John

08 July 08 at 8:09 AM
# John Beder said:

Hey Samantha,

I wish to share an idea that I "recieved"  this morning. I think you're gonna love this one.

Ever since I can remember, the equals sign in arithmetic always bothered me. This morning I thought,  what if I say same as instead of equals.  So, let's consider the abstract five. If I were to say three plus two is the same as five, why do I bother with the distinction. What is the distinction? The only thing I could come up with was point of view, which is another way of saying perspective, which is another way of saying proportion. So when mathematics uses the equals sign, it is implied, or assumed to be self evidently true, that the two sides of an equation are about differing points of view regarding an abstract idea. In that sense, equals, is not absolute, it is an approximation, leaving out the virtual energy used in "arriving" at differing perspectives. How's that for a piece of sillyness?

Arithmeticaly yours,

John Beder

10 July 08 at 9:59 AM
# Samantha said:

Hi John:

There's actually a whole different type of math implied by your post. Every once in a while, I get glimpses into it, and I'm always intrigued. Obviously you've tapped into it.

What you're saying is that there are underlying, unstated assumptions in basic math, and this is something I think about often. One of the biggest assumptions, in my opinion, is that there's a "thing" to be counted. Things aren't really things; they're actions (and another way to phrase that is to say that they're ideas). Right then and there you have a whole discipline based on something that at its center is questionable. In other words, the process of counting a thing is, in reality, the process of counting an action, and how do you really count an action? I mean, what's the purpose of counting an action in the first place?

I once had a law professor who said, "He who frames the question, frames the answer." I believe rudimentary math has been based on misleading questions. So what if you change the underlying assumptions? What if you assume, as physics is discovering and the channeled material has known for some time, that everything is a unity, and what we experience as separations--air, trees, cars, people--are actions within a unity? I think it changes what questions are asked.

In light of that, your comment about the equals sign in arithmetic is profound stuff. Because when you change the underlying assumption to that of actions within a unity, then you can begin to see that not only does two plus three "equal" five, but two plus three can also "equal" seven. Whatever you have on either side of the equation is always going to be a different perspective of the same "stuff." It's just that "stuff" in a different form. In other words, everything is nothing more, or less, than a different perspective of the same "thing."

This is why I'm such a big believer in diversity because everything is dependent on it. All "things" exist because of the differences in the same underlying "stuff." I think my husband once said that perspective was nothing other than light falling on a different facet of the same gem. That's the idea in any case.

So, this brings me to your abundance comment and the concept of zero. I never made the following connection before, but thanks to you I have. I think you can say that the idea of zero and the idea of abundance are one and the same. How's that for new math! I put together a little dictionary for myself a few years ago, and this was how I defined zero, and now I can see that this also applies to the idea of abundance:

"Zero is the belief that there can be an absence of something. Since there is no such thing as the absence of anything, only the experience of the absence of something, then zero really stands for potentials. Zero is the realm in which all things exist. Zero can be considered a synonym for consciousness. It can be considered a word that stands for action, but action without specificity. It is the undirected motion if motion could be viewed as something that wasn't yet in motion."

In other words, you were right when you said I was going to love the idea you received this morning! One of my favorite things to think about is how science is changing and how it's going to continue to change. And I think changes in math are going to be big.

Thanks for keeping me thinking.

Love,

Samantha

10 July 08 at 4:43 PM
# John Beder said:

Hi Samantha.

This is the consolodated version of a couple of days of focusing on the concept of numbers.

The number One is an idea. As IDEA, it is also a point of view, a perspective and an action. Same with Zero. We usually think of Zero as part of a reduction, as in reduced to zero or zeroing in on some thing.  Yet this ONE WAY direction would break symmetry.

It seems to me that to express the compleat idea or identity of Zero, it would necessitate going the other way, expanding to include all things, to become "one and the same" thing. This would achieve the same effect as reduction, that of no difference.

The identity of Zero appears to be two fold, stretching, as it were, between no thing and all things. That would be Zero's intention and perspective. Again we are on the same wavelength, Zero from what I can tell, spawns by shifting from every thing to no thing all "at the same time".

12 July 08 at 8:38 PM
# Samantha said:

Hi John:

I think you may be right. By the way, I looked you up on the Internet. Beautiful art! Just gorgeous.

Love,

Samantha

14 July 08 at 11:22 PM
Anonymous comments are disabled

About Samantha

Samantha Standish is a writer and a former intellectual property and corporate law lawyer. She received her B.A. in history with honors, and her B.A. in Spanish with honors, in 1989 from the University of California, Santa Barbara and went on to get her law degree Cum Laude from the University of Maine School of Law. In her legal career, Samantha worked in government and the private sector, most notably in the financial planning and software industry. In her personal life, she’s been married for twenty years and has a fifteen year-old home schooled son. Samantha resigned from the bar in 2005 and has devoted herself to bridge writing (making complex ideas about space/time easy to understand for the average reader) ever since, focusing mostly on self-help articles for artists and writing bridge books on the side. In her words, “The first forty years of my life were fact finding; the next forty years are about applying, expanding and exploring what I’ve learned.” Her books can be found at samanthastandish.com. Samantha’s NWV blog is titled The Magical Life.