"We must find a shared spiritual language to create an inclusive Parallel Polis or Symbiotic Society rooted in Divine Love and mutual benefit. That’s why I’ve moved beyond words like “oneness,” which can unintentionally deepen the divide, and chosen more universally resonant terms"
If Christians cant bring themselves to give verbal agreement to the idea, what makes you think changing the term will help? Fundamentalist Christianitys core tenet is separation. You cant work with them. Its the classic paradox that you can be tolerant to everyone except the intolerant.
Thank you for this important point. I agree—some expressions of Christianity, especially fundamentalist ones, are rooted in separation. But I’ve also seen a deep hunger for connection even in those places. That’s why I shift language—not to dilute the message but to make it more accessible across traditions. For example, I’ve found the Transcendent to be a more universal and resonant term than oneness, which can carry assumptions that inadvertently exclude.
And to your deeper point: fundamentalism isn’t unique to Christianity. I’ve seen the same rigidity in spaces that use words like “oneness” or even in regenerative and political movements. It’s not just a theological problem—it’s a human one. The deeper work is recovering a way of being that honors truth without needing to control others.
For me, the goal is to build a container strong enough to hold differences, yet rooted in Love. That’s the real invitation.
For the collective, as long as it’s all voluntary. Instead of control, There is an agreed upon protocol - purpose, principles Virtues, common community needs, and gentle network structure. I have found that’s enough.
Maybe I'm a little dense or I'm missing an assumption, but how is the collective voluntary? Are these ideas only relevant to affinity groups? I'm looking for a framework that can address society at a broad level.
I can understand what you are saying. How much of the book have you been able to read? I’ve released three out of four sections over the last year. I’ve covered all of the practical applications in real communities in that time. Section four provides the framework for anyone who wants to build broad community networks. That will be released when the book comes out end of month or early July.
Thanks for the clarification! Maybe U misunderstood the overall purpose? Broad community networks, while valuable and noteworthy, etc...how does that get us to the ovethrow of fascism ala Poland? (Which incidentally is also currently reverting back to fascism) Is that addressed in the last section? Im just not fully seeing how one leads to the other, though I certainly understand it as necessary for preparing fertile ground, so to speak.
"...mutual regard and inherent equality...aren’t goals we strive to reach; they are the sacred assumptions we begin with. Inside that space, there is no need to prove worth or demand dignity—it is already woven into the relational fabric."
(!!!)
An echo in the room: Australian Original elder Dr. Mary Graham speaks of this often, as what is unquestioned in the worldview of the ancient culture from which she comes. She translates that worldview as "a place-based, sacralized, collaborative, self-regulating ecological stewardship," in which everyone is considered with autonomous regard, as we are all autonomous beings. Included in that regard is the orientation that, while one may or may not agree per se, "all perspectives are reasonable and valid."
(You can hear Mary speak of this a few years back here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unbtHQnTAxk - there are later videos as well. She and Dr. Maloney are also working on a book together.)
"We must find a shared spiritual language to create an inclusive Parallel Polis or Symbiotic Society rooted in Divine Love and mutual benefit. That’s why I’ve moved beyond words like “oneness,” which can unintentionally deepen the divide, and chosen more universally resonant terms"
If Christians cant bring themselves to give verbal agreement to the idea, what makes you think changing the term will help? Fundamentalist Christianitys core tenet is separation. You cant work with them. Its the classic paradox that you can be tolerant to everyone except the intolerant.
Thank you for this important point. I agree—some expressions of Christianity, especially fundamentalist ones, are rooted in separation. But I’ve also seen a deep hunger for connection even in those places. That’s why I shift language—not to dilute the message but to make it more accessible across traditions. For example, I’ve found the Transcendent to be a more universal and resonant term than oneness, which can carry assumptions that inadvertently exclude.
And to your deeper point: fundamentalism isn’t unique to Christianity. I’ve seen the same rigidity in spaces that use words like “oneness” or even in regenerative and political movements. It’s not just a theological problem—it’s a human one. The deeper work is recovering a way of being that honors truth without needing to control others.
For me, the goal is to build a container strong enough to hold differences, yet rooted in Love. That’s the real invitation.
Honoring others without control is the ideal at a personal level. At a collective level, there has to be some mechanism of control, don't you think?
For the collective, as long as it’s all voluntary. Instead of control, There is an agreed upon protocol - purpose, principles Virtues, common community needs, and gentle network structure. I have found that’s enough.
Maybe I'm a little dense or I'm missing an assumption, but how is the collective voluntary? Are these ideas only relevant to affinity groups? I'm looking for a framework that can address society at a broad level.
I can understand what you are saying. How much of the book have you been able to read? I’ve released three out of four sections over the last year. I’ve covered all of the practical applications in real communities in that time. Section four provides the framework for anyone who wants to build broad community networks. That will be released when the book comes out end of month or early July.
Thanks for the clarification! Maybe U misunderstood the overall purpose? Broad community networks, while valuable and noteworthy, etc...how does that get us to the ovethrow of fascism ala Poland? (Which incidentally is also currently reverting back to fascism) Is that addressed in the last section? Im just not fully seeing how one leads to the other, though I certainly understand it as necessary for preparing fertile ground, so to speak.
yes yes yes. i wuv you richard
"...mutual regard and inherent equality...aren’t goals we strive to reach; they are the sacred assumptions we begin with. Inside that space, there is no need to prove worth or demand dignity—it is already woven into the relational fabric."
(!!!)
An echo in the room: Australian Original elder Dr. Mary Graham speaks of this often, as what is unquestioned in the worldview of the ancient culture from which she comes. She translates that worldview as "a place-based, sacralized, collaborative, self-regulating ecological stewardship," in which everyone is considered with autonomous regard, as we are all autonomous beings. Included in that regard is the orientation that, while one may or may not agree per se, "all perspectives are reasonable and valid."
(You can hear Mary speak of this a few years back here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unbtHQnTAxk - there are later videos as well. She and Dr. Maloney are also working on a book together.)