The picture of change

Let compassion reign!

It's no secret, to anyone who's been here awhile, that I think Jason Silva is a slick mouthpiece for the globalist agenda.   Sorry Gary, don't mean to rain on your parade; just calling it like I see it. 

These Shots of Awe videos always sound so nice and good, but just what is the real message?  The video shows us images of the Earth from space as Jason has us imagine a world without borders.  Is he talking about lifting national borders and restrictive passports and visas to enable ordinary people to immigrate freely to whatever country they choose?  Hardly.   This video is a plug for the annual Global Citizen Forum which was held in Monacco.   And surprise, surprise, guess whose video (Jason Silva) is on the Global Citizen Forum homepage?  I wanted to be fair before I commented, so I visited their website and had a copy of their agenda sent to my email.   What I discovered from the pdf is this convention is all about money, folks.   If you look at the list of guest speakers, most are highrollers in the financial industry.  It looks to me like this annual gathering is nothing more than yet another opportunity for rich investors to exploit poor countries by deciding financial policy without our knowledge or consent.

This came from the GCF website:

WHO SHOULD ATTEND?
The Global Citizen Forum is of interest to: Government
representatives, European and international lawmakers
and lobbyist lawyers, NGOs, foreign diplomatic corps, UN
agency representatives, refugee goodwill ambassadors,
Immigration consultants, industry regulators, global citizens,
ultra high net worth individuals and philanthropists. 

I'm in favor of lifting regulations to facilitate free travel across the globe, but too often we see countries like the UK, whose government encourages poor people from Africa and the middle east to immigrate in droves, create numerous internal problems through such policies.  What has happened to England is a massive influx of immigrants who are now on the government dole, the erosion of traditional British culture, and a growing resentment by the English to the tens of thousands of poor immigrants invading their homeland.   (My friend is English and what he talks about most is this very problem.)   The same thing has happened in America with the influx of cheap Mexican labor, for example.  (Don't get me wrong.  I think immigration can be a great thing, but it depends upon how it is done.)

If you watch the video closely, you'll notice things like images of Nazis and concentration camp victims while Silva's voiceover says,"WE have organized ourselves in hostile tribes, subjugating ourselves for land and resources and misrepresenting the big picture into a story of lines and borders."   Give me a break!   It's not WE the normal people who commit such war crimes and atrocities, it's the people in power who make self-serving policies behind closed doors.  Looks to me like that is exactly what the Global Citizen Forum is doing.  Sure, this organization does some philanthropy, but then so does the World Bank... by offering loans to poor countries and then collateralizing their assets when they can't pay them back.

(Refer to All Wars are Banker's Wars  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfEBupAeo4)

And another thing... just how would the virtual reality glasses, shown at the end of the video, create more empathy among different people?  I don't get it.

I suspect that being a "Global Citizen" involves human microchipping in order to facilitate travel.  If so, then count me out.

Sorry Gary, I see this video as just another propaganda piece for the globalist NWO agenda.

Oh, I thought my point was clear.  Silva is promoting the globalist NWO agenda... whether he consciously knows it or not.   In order to see it, watch the video with the sound off.  What message do the pictures convey?  Then watch the video again while listening to what Silva is saying.  An objective mind will see that Silva's words and the images presented do not match up.  These messages are subliminal so they may not be apparent to the casual viewer.  It's a tried and true marketing technique used in nearly every television commercial today to manipulate public opinion.  To me it's obvious, Gary, but I respect your right to see things from a different perspective.

What's the harm in it?  Over time, it programs our consciousness to accept the edicts of the NWO - one world government, transhumanism, genetic engineering, etc.  If that's the future you want, then I can't help you, but if you embrace videos like this thinking that they are only some feel-good concept about open borders, then I hope that my comments will help you become aware that things aren't always as they appear on the surface.  No matter who the messenger is, we must use a discerning mind to see  the whole truth.

Here's another example.   Somehow an organization that I had never heard of started sending images with nice-sounding slogans to my facebook page, like this one....

I thought to myself, this sounds like a group I can get behind.  But when I visited the the link on their facebook page listed under "about", I discovered that they support the NWO agenda.  This group is similarly calling for an end to nationalism and borders.  If the intent behind it is altruistic, the concept could be liberating for all people.  But if your intention is global control, then getting people accustomed to the idea of borderless countries only serves to support your evil agenda.  Understand?

http://www.i-thorts.blogspot.co.uk/   ('about' page for the World Alliance Party)

5 Steps To Global Government

The current climate of Austerity makes the overwhelming need for a Global Government even more drastic then it ever has. I hate the fact that good people are being harassed and harangued by nation-states that insist its for our own good. This is clearly wrong.

The published goals of the World Aliance Party is global government, a global bank and a one world order where all lives are equal. This might be a tall order, but so was democracy.

There are 5 steps in achieving our first goal: A Global Government. And I'm going to let you into a little secret... They're achievable in our life times.

EVERYONE PLEASE:  Things are not always what they seem.  Be aware of wolves  in sheeps' clothing.  Question everything and use discernment.

Sorry for the weird formatting in the post, it can be a bit unpredictable when I write a post from my phone. 

My point is that Silva is disguising a darker agenda behind flowery words and images.  I'm not trying to convince anyone, just advising you to read between the lines and decide for yourself. 

Just don't take the bait. Falling into the same patterns every time...

Say what you want to say (or post) and let others be who they are. Some will find inspiration, some will find a pariah. Personally, I don't look without for verification. This is a wild and woolly world. Anything and everything one can imagine is out there, somewhere

Hi Guys, 

This is a bit off-topic, but I think it's relevant in terms of differing perspectives, motives, and moralities at play. 

Politics have been on my mind for the past few weeks, because in we've just recently had the longest federal election campaign in Canadian history and the nation has elected a new prime minister. 

Over the last ten years, the Conservative Party of Canada has been in power with Stephen Harper as their leader, some of which was a minority government, and the rest a majority. Under a minority government, in order to pass a bill through the House, the leading party needs the support of opposition members to get 50%+ votes. Under a majority government, the ruling party has enough members for 50%+ votes, so bills can be passed without the approval of the opposition. 

This is my perspective:

Over the past ten years, Harper has dismantled democratic process and facilitated destruction of environmental resources and fundamental freedoms by:

- always forcing his members to vote the way he wants and not independently according to their constituents' wishes as intended (whipping the vote) 

- removing protective legislation around thousands of Canada's lakes and rivers

- shoved through huge (omnibus) bills without allowing debate or amendment 

- muzzling scientists, not allowing them to comment about the environment or climate change

- refusing to speak to the media except for two pre-approved questions per appearance

- forcing his members to speak with pre-approved talking points only and to refuse to attend any local election debates

- putting out anti-marijuana propaganda and trying to get physicians to endorse it, but they refused

- damaging and secret trade deals, some of which can't be withdrawn from for thirty years

- inciting hate and xenophobia by making a huge issue over two women wanting to wear the niquab at their citizenship ceremonies, and promising to install a 'barbaric practices' phone line so people can leave anonymous tips about...  not sure what, but it has to do with hating Muslims 

- the list goes on and on. My point is, I think his actions have been damaging to Canada, horribly misinformed, and it's hard to come to any other conclusion than he has a skewed and sick perspective of what he thinks is good policy.

I don't truly think that he's evil, though I think many of his actions are. I think it may be more like his world view is dangerously ignorant, and I can relate with that. How many of my own actions are made with ignorance of their consequences, when meanwhile I think I'm doing the right thing? 

I'm a supporter of the Green Party of Canada, because they have a comprehensive, democratically developed platform that aligns closely with my own values. It's the new party in town though, but it's slowly gaining momentum. 

During this last election campaign, many people have been sick of Harper and wanted to put a stop to what he was doing. People united under the acronym ABC (Anything But the Conservatives). Unfortunately, our voting system is first past the post, which grants membership to the candidate in a region with the most votes. That presents a problem where, in the case of 70‰ of people wanting to unseat the Conservatives, if they all vote for three opposition members, the Conservative member might still get in with the most votes. So people vote strategically, choosing the opposition candidate that has the best chance of winning. 

That resulted in most people voting, not for which party most represents their values, but which party has the best chance of defeating Harper. So we now have a Liberal majority, which is better for more left-leaning people, but in the end it's principally no different than the Conservatives winning a majority. 

However, Justin Trudeau is promising to:

- get rid of the first past the post system and introduce proportional representation (which in this election would have given the Green Party 12 seats instead of 1)

- legalize marijuana 

- withdraw from combat in Syria and restore Canada's international role as peacekeepers

- amend or drop some of the damaging legislation the Conservatives introduced

- work more closely with First Nations and improve environmental protection measures 

- he's actually talking to media and average people

From my perspective, I'm hopeful that some sanity will finally return to Canada's political system and the nightmare of Harper's government which was evolving into a dictatorship is finally over. 

However, the perspective from the other side is totally different. 

I can't explain it with as much detail, because I don't fully understand it, but people who supported Harper believe:

- that he was doing the best thing for our country

- that he had sound economic policy

- that legislation to grant more spying powers is protecting us from terrorists

- members thought of themselves as good 'soldiers'  and were proud of how their leader was running the country

- that low-income people and immigrants receiving aid are receiving handouts and not contributing to the economy, whereas the average hardworking Canadian has to pay for them and receives less pension because of them 

- that they are proud of our troops fighting terrorism and protecting our country

- that the Alberta oilsands is good for the Canadian economy, creates jobs, and any dissent is from extremist groups with political interests and foreign radicals. The Conservatives have even called people with environmental concerns 'terrorists'. 

- that marijuana is harmful, addictive, and it will be easier for children to get access to it if it were legalized. 

With Justin Trudeau coming into power with a Liberal majority, they are freaking out just as much with a 'the sky is falling' mentality as people in my position were with a Conservative majority. 

As I've observed this, I've wondered if either perspective is more right than the other. From my perspective, it seems that the party I support has more policy based on proven facts and policies that have worked well in other countries, whereas the Conservatives appear to be in denial (the Finance Minister denied that Canada was in a recession even though the facts showed that all the qualifying factors that indicate a recession had been met).

However, that's just my perspective, and I think that truth is murkier and more like 'all perspectives are right'. Not individually, but all together. I believe this aligns with the Buddhist concept of 'right view', which Alan Watts said meant more like 'all views'.

My struggle has been, how do I detach from the feeling of rightness and stubbornness towards my particular view? It is clear that such attachment creates suffering and causes me to be willingly ignorant to the rightness and virtues of other views, and more importantly, the other people who hold those views. 

Because I have observed what I do with other people who hold the opposite views to my own, and I don't like it. I judge them, I vilify them, I distance my energy from them and categorize them in my mind and heart as 'other'. Words come to mind like stupid, ignorant, dangerous, stubborn, selfish, blind, sheep, bigoted, etc. 

I don't think it's wrong to have ideas about how the country should be run, to prefer a particular party, or to attempt to make changes. However, if the mind and heart are strongly attached, it causes suffering, violence, and judgement within. 

So how to hold neutral loving kindness to all beings within, while still having personal opinions without? Even the Dali Lama, when he came to Canada a few years ago, said, "if I could choose a political party, I would choose the Green Party." 

For me, I'm trying to loosen my attachment my preferences by viewing conservative opinions with compassion. Reading 'The Righteous Mind' helped me develop some empathy around the moral facets that drive conservative values as compared to liberal values. It would probably help me develop even more empathy to read some books written from that perspective so I can understand better why they think the way they do and humanize them in my thoughts. 

Anyways, my main point is that all perspectives are right, and we can honour one another for the facet of truth that they hold, and bow in reverence to the life that is so complex that it cannot be fully understood from one vantage point. 

Love, 

Trish 

I don't object to your post, but I fail to agree with any part of this video.  'To augment' is to make larger.  As I watch a digital world, via cellphones, text messaging, even computers I am at the same time very aware of the ways that they can bring us together and the ways they isolate and separate us. I don't see what's presented above as enlarging or improving our physical reality.

As an example, one can meet a myriad of people they presume to 'know' when in reality it can be absolutely untrue if the people themselves are not truthful. I've watched individuals walk away from good marriages, kids leave home for someone that isn't at all who they've been lead to believe, adults spend more time with their gaming software or texting than interacting and interfacing with their own children who are in the same room. (shame on us)

See me, touch me, feel me...(no I'm not talking dirty) I once asked someone what's real-what we see or what we feel?  In a digitized, desensitized, convoluted, man made version of the world who's feeding us what? If what I see and feel can be so easily manipulated (which in many ways we must already be wary of) then how do we trust our own innate wisdom? 

In Ian (eyejays) post about Aotearea, Franchelle Ofsoske Wyber, a medicine woman talks about not watching television or listening to the radio as both distort her abilities to 'see'. That rings very true to my own experience-there are times when disconnecting from all devices etc. is exactly what my Spirit and psyche need to listen more closely to the messages I receive.

I feel that technologies like the above virtual reality stuff are another way of distorting and delivering messages that have the potential to be very harmful to us even as some perceive them as fun and games.

I feel some applications of technology are indeed helpful to improve vision in the blind, or hearing impaired, to produce prosthetics that mimic real limbs more effectively etc.  I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater-but virtual worlds-we can't even live together on the 'real' one (if this is reality!)now.

I am not sure you can 'see' a sandy beach in virtual reality and have any real perception of running your toes in the sand if you have not done so in the flesh. imo.      kristyne

1. where art and science meet for an augmented/expanded cognitive experience.

2. an esoteric source I read some time back mentioned that developing/evolving humanoid species have 2 major hurdles to overcome in their collective evolving: the splitting of the atom and the myriad of possible pitfalls during the development of technology.

As in most things you can develop good or not so good experiences from "it", whatever it may be.

I definitely understand and agree with where Kristyne is coming from, and also very much agree to not ever throw the baby out with the bathwater.  That said, I still have never owned a cell phone, G4, G5, G6, GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGeeeeeeeeefrigginwizzzzman.

I saw and still see our/their present use of technology (especially from the perspective of how its being rolled out) as having the primary goal of herding people into a common, more manipulated perspective and maximizing bottom line profits from the very well thought out profit-oriented intention, whatever the latest gadget "it" is.

And it appears that people in the developed world, and even in much of the third world now, are willing to eat it up as fast as "they" are willing to roll "it" out.  With less than altruistic intention at the helm, it would seem to me that any upside would almost have to occur as a happy accident.

I was talking about the possibilities with my wife the other day and thought how amazing would be the potential of mankind if profit and hoarding of the illusion of wealth were not even on the list of common primary consideration in the human psyche.

No innovation or invention worthy of consideration was ever stifled, only encouraged.  No one paying some form of money for anything, therefore never suffering from the stifling illusion of fear of loss or not having "enough", and therefore (well fed and housed) free to explore their own personal imaginative possibilities with the primary intention of enhanced contribution to the resource-based collective of human existence.  No incentive to steal because there is no buying or selling in a resource-based worldwide economy.

One can still dream while quietly fearing the worst may be upon us due to cause and effect.

    I think about it all the time. Everywhere I go, I try to imagine how it would work.I know that zeitgeist man is still having his gatherings around the world,I just got an  email for the next annual event. I tried to follow it for a while,but got overloaded with the "conversation" on his q and a feeds.

    Technology is so amazing,,but such a drag! I did without a cellphone for the last 8 years before I went to China, but once I was there, i needed a translator,and had to be "reachable" at all times, so I fell back into it.I love the part about being able to talk with people around the world. But whenever I hear about virtual reality,I flashback to soilent green,,,(IT"S MADE FOM PEEEEPLE!). When charlton heston's dad is dying, he gets to a "virtual room", at least for that time in movies,,,where he gets to see videos of what the Earth used to look like,,,,,,,then he dies,,,then they make wafers out of him! I can't help it, so I still see it as something we will need to see what we should be protecting and enjoying right now. I'm sure there are many valid uses for it, but we all know who gets to use and manipulate the tech long before we get it, and when we do,,it's not for useful purposes,mostly entertainment. I'm sure ,given the way tech is used for 20 or 30 years,maybe much longer by the MIC before we see it,that many things to help people  could have been on the market long ago.. So,,,I just throw my hands in the air when tech comes up, I can only imagine what is truly possible..

   I just try to keep my water and electricity flowing these days,,trying to repel the bad shit,,and use early morning hours to build my shield for the day,then step out into it and see what happens..

Initially I was not excited by Jason Silva's stance that technology will solve everything and more. Yet as time goes on, I see him evolving in ways that I like. I love how his message has shifted towards compassion and interconnectedness.

For me, technology is a tool that does not intrinsically have good or bad value. It's how we choose to use it that makes all the difference.

I love how I am using technology and how many others are, too. And it is also being used in horrible ways for control and dominance. Yet in the end, I believe it is up to each of us how we choose to use these tools.

Thanks for sharing this Gary, and for all the stimulating conversation it has brought up.

With much love and warm wishes,
Fred

Whatever anyone wants to call or label this shared experience... 

I have no obligations and I don't owe anyone anything. I'm not responsible for you. Just myself. That being said, there are MANY ways to work with the law of karma. When an individual integrates and becomes whole, they are no longer subject to all of the other parameters. Hence, the lack of verification. There will be an opportunity to rebuild upon firmer foundations once this thing fails and collapses even more. Until then, this is what people choose to believe in. Harmonic or not. It's all most of them consciously know or can recollect. Until they approach death or spend more time in other worlds.

Best idea? Focus on your Self. Become

such a great topic to chew on for sure!

Gary, you said,

"data integration required for any sustainable knowledge or understanding"

it may take a very long time, and we aren't even guaranteed to survive the process that other sentient intelligent evolving species on other planets may have successfully traversed, but what you said is certainly paramount.

the sufficient integration of certain data by enough of the whole.  sustained knowledge that doesn't get misplaced, and then hopefully a metaparadigm shift shoots the collective us out of the cannon of this amazing "Novelty Machine" we call the Cosmos.

I have to believe that others in other locations of the Cosmos have made the journey successfully, but I am also pretty sure that no evolving culture in the physical 3D world is guaranteed a successful transition.  And that's not even a bad thing.  It's just part of an ongoing process in this ever evolving novelty engine.  And in the end, nothing really ever gets lost except opportunities...

Makes me think of that Beatles song,

And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love.... you make

Omnia mutantur. Nihil interit.

Everything changes. Nothing is lost.

No beginning and no end.

Novelty engine. I like that. Who knows what we're capable of, when we really put our minds to it? Let's get creative

Just read this on Deepak Chopra's home site, feel it relates strongly to the diverse opinions shared, for me I love diversirty, it's very colourful (English spelling) see COLOUR diverse

Who Controls Your Mind? (Hint: It's Not Your Brain)

In SF Gate - On February 1, 2016

By Deepak Chopra, MD

One of the easiest bets to win is to offer a million dollars to anyone who can accurately predict their next thought.  It would be foolhardy to accept such a bet. As we all experience every day--and yet rarely notice--our thoughts are unpredictable and spontaneous. They come and go at will, and yet strangely enough, we have no model for where a thought comes from. 

This lack of understanding has serious medical significance in mental disorders, for example. A common symptom of various psychoses, particularly paranoid schizophrenia, is the belief that an outside force is controlling the patient's mind, usually through an alien voice heard in the head. Being sane, a normal person has the opposite experience, that his thoughts are his own. But if that was true, we'd call up any thought we wanted to have, the way you can call up a Google search. But this is far from true. 

If you are asked to add 2+2, you can call up the necessary mental process, and there are millions of similar tasks, such as knowing your own name, how to do your job, what it takes to drive a car home from work--these give us the illusion that we control our own minds. But someone suffering from anxiety or depression is the victim of uncontrolled mental activity, and even in everyday circumstances we have flashes of emotion that come of their own accord, along with stray thoughts of every kind. Artists speak of inspiration that strikes out of the blue. Love at first sight is a very welcome example of uncontrolled mental activity.

So at the very least, the human mind can't be explained without understanding the dual control feature that gives us total control over some thoughts and zero control over others. That challenge is hard enough, but several others are just as thorny. If I listen to rap music and love it while you listen to the same music and loathe it, what creates this difference, given the same input? This is a vexing question for any theory that attempts to put the brain in charge of the mind. The brain is supposedly a machine for thinking. But what kind of machine churns out a different response to the same input? It's like the world's most dysfunctional candy machine. You put in a nickel, but instead of getting a gumball every time, the machine spits out a poem or a delusion, a new idea, or a trite cliché, a great insight or a totally wrong conspiracy theory. 

This gives you a tiny glimpse into why a science of consciousness has taken decades simply to be born, and is now as lawless as the Wild West. If a model of the human mind ever proves satisfactory, I'd place my faith on the work of Prof. A.K. Mukhopadhyay of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, because he is an expert in how the brain operates while not getting trapped into the fallacy that the brain creates the mind, much less that the brain is the mind.  In a brilliant 2014 interview on YouTube (link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IveWxQ-KRvM) Mukhopadhyay goes far beyond any TED talk you'll ever hear, negotiating the choppy waters of the brain-mind problem with ease.

He begins by stating his allegiance to the "mind first" camp, which holds that consciousness creates the brain instead of the reverse, the "matter first" camp, which holds that the brain creates the mind. But instead of putting his foot down about this, Mukhopadhyay asks a simple question: Why are neurons, among all the cells in the body, attracted to the mind? What turns them into thinking cells? The "mind first" camp has generally failed to pose the issue so simply, and Mukhopadhyay offers an answer that has five dimensions.

1. Brain cells are alive. a dead cell obviously can't express thoughts.
2. A brain cell exhibits its own level of consciousness. It knows what it is doing.
3. A brain cell has a self. It is self-regulating and self-organizing.
4. A brain cell responds to mental events around it. It has a life of the mind.
5. A brain cell processes information. It can communicate meaningful data, not simply random signals. 

The breakthrough posed by Mukhopadhyay is that all five of these factors--life, consciousness, mind, self, and information--are being generated at the same time.  They account for why no two people think alike. Each of us has life experiences, a mental history, a level of consciousness, a developed self, and a storehouse of information that is uniquely our own. Therefore, no science of consciousness can focus on only one dimension. The biologist who focuses on how cells acquire life is far from the mystic trying to understand the higher self. The psychologist trying to fathom human motivation is far from the neuroscientist trying to pinpoint consciousness in terms of cellular activity. 

It seems undeniable that Mukhopadhyay's basic insight is correct: without the full dimensionality of life, mind, consciousness, self, and information, there is no way to explain the human mind. What makes his argument undeniable is that we've all experienced exactly the kinds of differences he is describing. This is a huge leap from the cramped local approach of biologists who don't speak to psychologists, who barely speak to neuroscientists; none of them answer the door if a mystic comes knocking. To the extent that various specialties stick to their own guns, they are wrong--only a holistic approach has any chance of being right. 

If this single insight were fully absorbed, the entire field of consciousness studies, along with every specialty involved in mind and brain, would be revolutionized overnight. We'd be starting with a five-piece puzzle that forms a complete picture, where the present state of confusion is based on specialists hoarding one piece of the puzzle and claiming it offers the answer. So how should the five pieces be assembled? There is a way, and we'll discuss it in the next post. With any luck, hitting on the right answer will restore control of the mind to each person, where it belongs.

     Not the last one I met,ha! I like the analogy that technology is the outpicturing of our minds, and will continue to grow exponentially until we realize that we don't need it!

Amen to that Todd!  The technology training wheels that segway to our lack of need of it, them!!!!

I've been reading WM story again, and this is it. We DO have the technology. Right here in our own bodies! We can travel through time and space and access information and knowledge in many ways. It is about becoming responsible and unlocking these potentials...

The stuff we make (I.e. computers) are just toys, mediums and vehicles. Not inherently necessary...

But fun to create and play with all the same! ...

;)

This makes me think of Neo in the Matrix, struggling to see through the dense and dominant illusory Matrix construct so he could be free of the strong belief system that had kept him bound to the illusory limitations of maddening alluring bogus understanding.

i.e. thinking I know something is usually what is limiting me, binding me to the mental construct of that belief or presumed understanding, certitude, believing so so strongly with so much emotion that I am so damn sure I know what I know, when in Reality I so certainly do not.

we are creatures of belief and emotion with a physical navigation skillset.

more clear-minded meditation and less reinforcement of belief systems may be required...

Totally in congruence. Also, remote viewing (bi-location) and other references from the Matrix and Johnny Mnemonic about being able to ride data streams and navigate consciously through the web...

Belief systems are good guides but also limitations in that they may not serve you in other realms. Even if that's just connecting to someone with different parameters. And a strong sense of Self so that one can remain centered and grounded and able to leave and return to their physical body... Or able to deconstruct and reconstruct it at WILL. Other matter[s] too...

"able to deconstruct and reconstruct at will"...made me think of a picture I first saw in William Henry's 'Freedoms Gate, Lost symbols in the U.S. capital' .  It is called Jesus and the two Mary's (The Risen Christ with the Two Mary's in the Garden of Joseph of Aramathea) c. 1847.

In W. Henry's book, "Hunt explains in his memoirs that he began painting this as a young artist, but when he was an atheist and could not complete it. Fifty years later, he had adopted a personal form of Christianity as evidenced by his world famous painting, The Light of the World, and completed this masterpiece. "

Not getting all religious on y'all...but search Jesus and the two Mary's (I still can't get a blasted thing to load and show up here...arghhhhh. 

This picture to me, is of a Master (whose message was that we can all do as he did), walking from one world to another  errr ummm 'deconstructing and reconstructing at will'.  Pretty cool and something to look forward to imo.

If anyone else can post the thing...help out the techy challenged again would ya please!  love kristyne