know thyself

[blake]

Hello All,

Several posters brought up, in a previous thread, the ancient concept of “know thyself” By living life in a way to “know thyself, in my opinion, will help the individual be more in control of their mind, their emotions, and their life., while understanding the way of the universe more intimately.

As you all know we are not our thoughts, or our emotions, they are merely tools given to us like our senses and hands to connect to this 3d world we live in. We all have emotions but it is what we do with that emotion that is important. We all have thoughts but it is what we do with those thoughts that matter. We all can be physical but it is what we do with our hands and our body that is important. We all have various relationships but it is important what we do with those relationships that determines our experiences; from the relationship with your child and friends, to the relationship with your government and universe. It is all so very complicated and yet in my opinion really very simple. We are on earth to dictate our own destinies. We all are on earth to create what is good and loving and sometimes that means making very difficult choices and disciplining the mind and emotions. A nation usually as some sort of Constitution, laws that the people live by. If you are the King or Queen of your life, what are the laws in your castledom?

If one has morals, what are they? And how do you enforce them in your own behavior? After all, we are now in the world of 3d, it is not so easy to direct our will to accomplish and create a beautiful life. Human nature can be quite wild and undisciplined, and so many humans are so unpredictable of when and how they respond and interact with each other. How do you go about discipling your own self action, and castledom to measure up to creating the peace and love that feels so rich and good in a world where other Kings and Queens might let their emotions and thoughts run amuck and be ruled by them instead of by their will to create peace and love. We all have inherited this situation. We have not been told what tools we possess to level the playing field which often seems unleveled. Because we never spent too much time observing ourselves and our own interactions with others, or even with ourselves, few know exactly what their talents are to level any playing field in this 3d world of human nature.

How much respect do we show ourselves?

I think the first way to start to get to “know thyself” is by direct observation.

One of my teachers told me when I was very young, that if I needed an answer watch my thoughts, watch my action, watch my emotions and watch nature.

I think formality and manners are important in interacting with all humans, especially with humans who do not know you well, or who may have a different background or perspectives if one’s goal is to live in peace and creativity. I believe this is especially true for people who have no or very little investment in you. Although, considering the poster who wrote that sometimes it is easier to be kinder to a stranger than one’s own family, that to me shows that many time in one’s own family manners count even more if one wants the peace and harmony that we all seem to talk so much about.

I think manners are always pleasant, and shows respect. And how does anyone feel when they feel disrespected? Why would anyone want to make any other human, enemy or not feel disrespected if they want to live peacefully?

I think a certain level of formality is the self chosen leash one may chose to keep a tight reign of their emotions from getting out of contro,l and from their minds saying things that perhaps would erupt emotions more, therefore not building peace, but destroying peace.

A wise human uses their emotions and thoughts as fine tune intuition to decide what to say and what action to take to keep themselves and their lives safe while in harmony.

But that is all just my opinion. I would be interested in hearing yours.

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis

[Carmen]

Thanks Mr Davis. To me 'knowing thyself' is what is life changing, evolutionary! It's knowing the Great Self, the Spiritual Being that resides as the Inner part of everyone. This part of us is who we really are and when we recognize this and bring this Great Self out of obscurity our whole life changes for the better. This 'wholeness' of us knows all, our future destiny, all of our other lives, all our limitations and the steps needed to set them aside, our hidden fears and their agendas, and all the steps necessary for us to evolve and change to 'be' this Godlike Being.

This 'Being' is quite different in many ways than our ordinary everyday ego-based self. Its when we start to notice intuitive knowing and prompting from within that is decidedly unlike anything our ego self would come up with we start to be aware of this different, inspirational Self that resides within. And it is nothing to do with something or someone trying to 'channel' through us and yet it is! It is our Great Self, our SpiritualSelf expressing through our humanity. Its a matter of 'letting go' of all we think we know, getting out of the way to allow this expression. This is what is so difficult for the altered ego part of us that has always been in charge. Any sort of surrender is curtains to the ego self and it fights for it's survival through any and all means. This seeking to survive of the ego self becomes more subtle when one is advancing and more difficult to discern, but discern we must to get past what then becomes a kind of'spiritual'ego. One that thinks itself kinda superior to those sleeping sheep that are yet to wake up. The altered ego part of us is actually quite relieved when we finally put it in in it's place and assure it of it's continuance as our body safety monitor for this realm working with the Real Us, the Great Self.

[ceetee9]

Hello Mr. Davis,

This is a subject very close to my heart as my father taught me at a very early age that one of the most important things we can do is to “be true to yourself” (aka “to thine own self be true” or, more loosely, “know thyself”). To this day I’m not sure if it was a blessing or a curse. And I say that not because I believe it was necessarily bad advice, but because I’m not sure it is realistically possible to do in this world with its endless number of rules, regulations, controls and people telling you what you’re doing wrong and how you must conform to their vision, or the status quo vision, of how everyone should live and behave. And to make matters worse, that vision changes dependent upon what part of the planet on which you live.

I have struggled for the better part of sixty years to “be true to myself.” Not so much to know myself—and there is a difference between knowing oneself and being true to oneself, but to “be myself” is the problem and therein lies the rub. For I believe in true freedom and the principle of live and let live. But governments aren’t interested in people being free. People who are truly free cannot be so easily controlled and manipulated and they make poor slaves for their masters. Governments and corporations don’t want people who think for themselves and are self-sufficient. They want good little worker bees who will follow orders and work long and hard for them.

So all of my life I’ve had to compromise certain principles and beliefs to “play the game.” I’ve learned pretty well how much freedom I can take and how much I have to relinquish to be successful in this country. I’ve done a pretty good job of providing a good and comfortable life for my family and myself and I’m pretty sure that most of us have done, and continue to do, the same to survive. Consequently, if we are all willing to compromise at least some principles or aspects of who we are can any of us really claim to be true to our self? I mean, what good is it to know thyself if you aren’t actually going to BE thyself?

As for manners, my parents raised us kids with very good manners and respect and for that I am truly grateful. But that too can be very disheartening when you encounter so many people with little or no manners or respect. I sometimes feel like a dinosaur who hasn’t realized that it is extinct yet.

I would love to see us all be more respectful with one another and communicate in an intelligent and civil manner; where ideas can be discussed and debated and not “attacked” in some vain attempt to demonstrate the victor’s superiority, but I don’t know how we can achieve that when so few demonstrate those qualities any more.

We live in a world where we are taught from birth that everything is a competition that must be fought and won if we are to survive. Is there any wonder why the world is the way it is?

[music]

Morality is a necessary crutch for many.

Crowley stated "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". Rather than being a licence to cause mayhem at will, this statement applies to the enlightened soul. When we know higher consciousness, and when we live seated in the heartspace, we can do nothing but act for the highest good. It is from this perspective that we can do what we will, because our will is Love. Crowley again: "Love is the law."

Know thy self? Thy self is Love.

[blake]

Thanks Mr Davis. To me 'knowing thyself' is what is life changing, evolutionary! It's knowing the Great Self, the Spiritual Being that resides as the Inner part of everyone. This part of us is who we really are and when we recognize this and bring this Great Self out of obscurity our whole life changes for the better. This 'wholeness' of us knows all, our future destiny, all of our other lives, all our limitations and the steps needed to set them aside, our hidden fears and their agendas, and all the steps necessary for us to evolve and change to 'be' this Godlike Being.

This 'Being' is quite different in many ways than our ordinary everyday ego-based self. Its when we start to notice intuitive knowing and prompting from within that is decidedly unlike anything our ego self would come up with we start to be aware of this different, inspirational Self that resides within. And it is nothing to do with something or someone trying to 'channel' through us and yet it is! It is our Great Self, our SpiritualSelf expressing through our humanity. Its a matter of 'letting go' of all we think we know, getting out of the way to allow this expression. This is what is so difficult for the altered ego part of us that has always been in charge. Any sort of surrender is curtains to the ego self and it fights for it's survival through any and all means. This seeking to survive of the ego self becomes more subtle when one is advancing and more difficult to discern, but discern we must to get past what then becomes a kind of'spiritual'ego. One that thinks itself kinda superior to those sleeping sheep that are yet to wake up. The altered ego part of us is actually quite relieved when we finally put it in in it's place and assure it of it's continuance as our body safety monitor for this realm working with the Real Us, the Great Self.

Hello Carmen,

A very spiritual response indeed. I read it twice to absorb your meaning of know thyself. I do agree that all answers lie within, And that part of our soul knows all, even future and past lives which I think of as only pararell lives. But to get back on topic, I suppose there are many ways and many levels in which humans can get to know themselves. I always thought that the various religions were suppose to help humans know themselves and and their spiritual selves better.

I always think of myself as spiritual, but perhaps I am not as focused on the god within as others may be. Perhaps when I say knowing thyself I don't quite travel the dimensions as others may. When I think of knowing myslef, I think of knowing what I think, and not what someone else may think. When I know myself, I think of what my values are, and not someone's elses value. If I want to sing, I learn to love the beauty of my own voice, and not compare it to others, or be influenced by how another may correctly or incorrectly judge my talent. When I think about knowing myself, I want to understand what brings me pleasure, what makes me feel safe, and how to keep my life in the balance of peace. And also what are my various way that I can protect my self in a world that doesn't exist in peace. WHen I think about knowing myself I want to be able to read the signals that my body and greater mind is giving me so I can know who is a friend and who, no matter how much the smile may be a sociopath. I think the earth is a beautiful place to be if one can avoid, and sidestep the tradgey of humans folly.


To put a multileveled, compilcate idea in simplistic terms, I think of god as the same, not of love but of creativity. If one builds things whether it be relationships, or gardens, or stories, one is being godlike. When on is destroying the environment, or destroying relationhips, or destroying trust, one is being the opposite of god, whatever term an individual might have for that.

When I read your post, and please correct me if I interpreted what you were conveying incorrectly, but it seemed like you are much more of the spiritual plane than the mudane plane?

I do not know who god is, however one may define god or goddess. I think there is some sort of univeral mind, but I can only imagine and not know for sure. I do know there are many levels to my mind, and to be sure, one of those levels might just connect to a god or goddess mind, or perhaps one of the levels of my mind is god/goddess's mind. That I don't know. and maybe as I grow older I will learn more aspects about myself as I face losing my intrument for being on the earth. But for now I am an earthling, and the mundane is more important to me than the ultimate spiritual. So in knowing myself, I seek to connect to goodness and sidestep harshness in the mundane task of living life.

I use to attend some spiritual circles over the years, and most would not like it when I brought the subject of money up, and how it relates to spirituality, although they always passed the drum around to collect money!

I am wondering how you define ego? If ego is a tool or a part of the mind that separates humans so we can be the director of our own life, than I think having an ego is a good thing, if one is an earthling. If ego is defined as as an attitude or an emotion that inflates to have an earthling think that they are better tahn someone else or if they think they ar entitled to anything without working for it like evveryone else, then I think ego is not going to allow you to ever get to the point where you can appreciate the beauty of your own voice or any other qualities that being in this human body you were given to explore.

Thank you for responding. Do you think we are talking about the same thing? Somehow I feel I am just not as spiritually oriented as you appear to be. I am truly a very practical, down to earth, nuts and bolts type of person. I beleive in goodness and I strive to build a good life, as I learn about who I am as an individual and to continually delight in my search for various talents and powers that society never introduced me to or even tried to keep from me.

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis

[norman]

As I learned about myself I became more depressed about myself.

I've been such a rediculously naive perfectionist most of my years, and then woke up to my truth. I wanted to scrub myself out and start again. I can only do that by dying and hoping I get to keep my determination to do it better next time. I'm worried that I will not remember that this is my intention in dying with attitude.

Dying with attitude seems to be quite common. Warriors have done it all the time. I'm not currently so sure I'm a warrior, I just fancy the idea, more like an armchair warrior. What a pathetic ME I've come to know.

[TargeT]

Morality is a necessary crutch for many.

Crowley stated "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". Rather than being a licence to cause mayhem at will, this statement applies to the enlightened soul. When we know higher consciousness, and when we live seated in the heartspace, we can do nothing but act for the highest good. It is from this perspective that we can do what we will, because our will is Love. Crowley again: "Love is the law."

Know thy self? Thy self is Love.

I think A.C.'s full quote should be used "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will." - A. Crowley

I can't think of a better way to summise what I am trying to do with my life.. I do WHAT EVER I WANT, with the intent of love, acceptance & improvement in what ever I do.

Seems to be working fabulously & with greatly lessened internal conflict.. I'm also working on not judging myself based on societies imposed standards, which is some hard indoctronation to shake!



As I learned about myself I became more depressed about myself.

I've been such a rediculously naive perfectionist most of my years, and then woke up to my truth. I wanted to scrub myself out and start again. I can only do that by dying and hoping I get to keep my determination to do it better next time. I'm worried that I will not remember that this is my intention in dying with attitude.

Dying with attitude seems to be quite common. Warriors have done it all the time. I'm not currently so sure I'm a warrior, I just fancy the idea, more like an armchair warrior. What a pathetic ME I've come to know.


I think your butting up against exactly the feelings that it is desired by others for you to have. (perhaps even assuming the "victim" archetype/role?)

Your seeing your life as a waste & have all but given up on this time sequence (or so I infer from the tone of those words).

You are not in touch with your own personal power.. you can perform MAGIC!

You can vibrate small strands of muscle in your throat and make things happen in the real world, you can redirect other peoples thoughts through your very actions.. how many people did you just influence by simply wiggling your fingers over a block of petrochemical products?

YOU have free will and CAN CHOOSE to feel that all of your abilities are a joke...

when gods compare themselfs to gods the magical seems mundane... Own your power! you are the captin of you, you guide your life & if you want to be unhappy with it you will be.

Think on it ;)

[Carmen]

Ah, Mr Davis, we are no different. All is spiritual. My lifelong desire to understand all aspects of me brought me to the understanding in some measure, of my Inner Self. Spirituality, to my mind, has to be at a nuts and bolts, day to day level. What use is it other wise? And sure, our ego selves are a very necessary component of our 'wholeness". It's when our ego alters to such an extent that it is completely in charge and separates from any spiritual understanding and contact that it need to be brought into line!

I am not of the understanding that our ego should be done away with. It also is divine. It is only when it is out of a spiritually conscious control that it seems to be less than divine. One sort of has to train it like a good dog!!lol. It is our survival monitor for the body in this realm.

You mention the voice. Seems to me you must be a keen singer. I, also sing and it has been interesting the changes to my voice and my attitude to it as I've changed in consciousness. One thing I've noticed is that I'm not nervous to sing in front of an audience any more. I used to nearly die from nervousness! This is because I stay 'present' and do not project energy 'out' that then reflects back from the audience. This feels like being 'hit' with energy.

What I do now is to honor the composer and the lyricist of the song by singing the best I can by allowing the music to come through me. With this attitude the voice flows very easily, or it feels that way anyway. I can reach high notes clearly I couldn't reach thirty years ago (I'm 62). People are still asking me to sing so I must be still sounding alright!!

So, to get back to your question, spiritual development improves all aspects of earthly, material life. It's not something one dusts off to wear on Sundays.

You, to me, are a beautiful soul. Your respectful, heartfelt posts here are a reflection of a well developed spiritual person, well rounded, practical and kind. All earthly life comes from the One Spirit. There is no separation.

Love to you

Carmen

[norman]

Morality is a necessary crutch for many.

Crowley stated "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". Rather than being a licence to cause mayhem at will, this statement applies to the enlightened soul. When we know higher consciousness, and when we live seated in the heartspace, we can do nothing but act for the highest good. It is from this perspective that we can do what we will, because our will is Love. Crowley again: "Love is the law."

Know thy self? Thy self is Love.

I think A.C.'s full quote should be used "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will." - A. Crowley

I can't think of a better way to summise what I am trying to do with my life.. I do WHAT EVER I WANT, with the intent of love, acceptance & improvement in what ever I do.

Seems to be working fabulously & with greatly lessened internal conflict.. I'm also working on not judging myself based on societies imposed standards, which is some hard indoctronation to shake!



As I learned about myself I became more depressed about myself.

I've been such a rediculously naive perfectionist most of my years, and then woke up to my truth. I wanted to scrub myself out and start again. I can only do that by dying and hoping I get to keep my determination to do it better next time. I'm worried that I will not remember that this is my intention in dying with attitude.

Dying with attitude seems to be quite common. Warriors have done it all the time. I'm not currently so sure I'm a warrior, I just fancy the idea, more like an armchair warrior. What a pathetic ME I've come to know.


I think your butting up against exactly the feelings that it is desired by others for you to have. (perhaps even assuming the "victim" archetype/role?)

Your seeing your life as a waste & have all but given up on this time sequence (or so I infer from the tone of those words).

You are not in touch with your own personal power.. you can perform MAGIC!

You can vibrate small strands of muscle in your throat and make things happen in the real world, you can redirect other peoples thoughts through your very actions.. how many people did you just influence by simply wiggling your fingers over a block of petrochemical products?

YOU have free will and CAN CHOOSE to feel that all of your abilities are a joke...

when gods compare themselfs to gods the magical seems mundane... Own your power! you are the captin of you, you guide your life & if you want to be unhappy with it you will be.

Think on it ;)

Thankyou TargeT, I've read it a few times and I'll read a few times more.

You may not know how scared I am. You may know?....... I'm scared s h i t l e s s. ( probably of myself )

[TargeT]

Fear sucks.

its the most ACCUTE emotion we have, its a very powerful thing & I do not discount what your feeling at all, and I don't presume to be able to understand your particular situation the way you do.

I wish I could offer something more concrete, an action plan.. but I'm still learning myself :)

I will say that self exploring while at the same time viciously analyzing all thoughts and feelings for their root cause is how I have started to come peace with myeslf.

It helps to understand that most of what we feel and most of our actions are simply architypes that we were taught through example & society (& possibly is burned into our DNA memory) we have a LOT of programming to over come, but truely understanding this the first step.

Another thing that helped a lot is learning the 7 liberal arts (Trivium & Quadrivium) these are litteraly the most efficient way to orginize your thoughts & almost a "road map" to critical thinking (I ESPECIALLY enjoyed learning the logical fallacies and how to spot them... so manythings make more sense now).

Read some of 9eagle9's posts, she has amazing insite on this topic :)

but most of all I'll say this:

Your experience here will suck as much as you want it to, or not; it will be as complex as you need it to be, or not.


I've had some of the most fun in my life rucking 20 miles in the rain, my legs burning, my feet in serious pain.. and yet I'm laughing and enjoying what we called "the suck".

experiences like that taught me the POWER of perception & that I am the controller of it (though exersizing that control isn't super easy, it's not very dificult either)....

[blake]

Morality is a necessary crutch for many.

Crowley stated "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". Rather than being a licence to cause mayhem at will, this statement applies to the enlightened soul. When we know higher consciousness, and when we live seated in the heartspace, we can do nothing but act for the highest good. It is from this perspective that we can do what we will, because our will is Love. Crowley again: "Love is the law."



Know thy self? Thy self is Love.


Hello Music,

Thank you for your thoughts. I am a little familiar with Alistair Crowley, but just a little. And from my understanding, which surely is quite limited and could be wrong, I thought he was kind of a wild human who did a lot of unhealthy experimentation in life while running through a rather large inheritance quite quickly. What were his ethics do you think? Or perhaps, he threw away the crutch of ethics as well because he lived the law of love in his very human existence? Did you ever read any of his biographies? Even if only a fraction of what is written about him is true, his life style was far from not hurting anyone, especially himself.

I understand that in the circle of ceremonial magicians he is highly regarded as a brilliant writer for his contribution of quality scholarship in metaphysical matters. However, did he demonstrate a life lived that helped the highest good and none were damaged by the choices he made in his life, and were all his actions, of his will, based on the law of love?

I often hear that phrase, “for the highest good.” But I always seem to ask my self: for the highest good of whom? We live in a complex world, involving many perspectives. What may be good for you in your neck of the woods, and for the circumstances under which you find yourself in, could be not so good for someone else. Is the idea of the highest good not where the idea of sacrifice came from, to appease the gods with one lost, so another group of people can live well; a theme so often repeated in literature? My favorite example of this theme being in the short story, “The Lottery.”

When government takes a three hundred year old farm from a family to build a bridge or develop the land for another reason, through eminent domain, they say it is for the highest good of the community. Whether it be the highest good for the community, or for the highest good for someone’s purse, it was a sacrifice and lost to another person.

When I read “highest good” I wonder if the meaning is geared to win win situations. And that is good with a limited amount of people involved. Is that what Mr. Crowley meant? Because I am pondering how it would be possible if many people were involved in this highest good theory. I am pondering if a win win win win win…….. situation is really a possibility in the world of so many humans with so many different and sometimes conflicting needs ?

I don’t know quite understand when you write “Morality is a necessary crutch for many.” If that is true I would love to purchase this metaphorical crutch, and give to millions of people, starting with every member of Congress! Except Dr. Paul of course, he does have high morals, and his crutch for sure must be out of gold. But on second thought, perhaps I will hand out the crutch of morality to the central bankers before I give them to Congress!!

I am wondering how Mr. Crowley defined the word “love”? Do you think we both have the same definition of love that he writes of?

Your above statements suggest that “ do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” applies to the enlightened soul. Perhaps your circle of associations are more divine than my own, for I have never met a human who was truly enlightened to the point that he or she could step out of their limited human, and often selfish perspective.

When you write that our will is love, and love is the law, Again I would have to ask for a definition of love. Do you know if Aliseter Crowley was enlightened? Or was he just a mere mortal with some talents that he shared with the world, and lived a life far from demonstrating that enlightment in which he writes of?

I believe there is a reason why we have a judge with a jury of twelve while judging our fellow humans. Perhaps it is with hope that the odds are in favor of maybe one human will do the right thing, at the right moment in time, for another human.

It is my perspective that enlightenment in its fullest sense is a mere fantasy that does not exist anywhere in the universe. It is my perspective that yes in deed humans need crutches or leashes to reign in their less desirable side of human nature. That is a good thing for trying to build a peaceful world.

But neither the world nor the universe is innately peaceful. One would think that nature would be enlightened, yet how much destruction is there in nature on earth and within the making or dying of stars. Consciousness is a remarkable energy that can be used for good or evil and everything in between. I do not believe any level of consciousness, no matter how high is enlightenment that can exist without rules. For consciousness, even very high levels can lie as well as any human can.

If you know of any humans who lived their lives in such enlightenment that you describe from your post, as always doing the highest good for everyone, then you indeed do not need the crutch of rules and ethics to live peacefully in this world. And you would be a universal oddity if that were true, for even the universe has its rules. If we can not ablaze Avalon with the Enlightment that Mr. Crowley speaks of, as evidenced by all the bannings over the past year, what group of humans can, or have ever attain that? But that is all just my opinion, and my experience among people who speak of such things. Englightment to the degree you write of to me appears to be pure fantasy.

I am interested in your thoughts about this. Perhaps your experiences are different than mine.

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis

[blake]

As I learned about myself I became more depressed about myself.

I've been such a rediculously naive perfectionist most of my years, and then woke up to my truth. I wanted to scrub myself out and start again. I can only do that by dying and hoping I get to keep my determination to do it better next time. I'm worried that I will not remember that this is my intention in dying with attitude.

Dying with attitude seems to be quite common. Warriors have done it all the time. I'm not currently so sure I'm a warrior, I just fancy the idea, more like an armchair warrior. What a pathetic ME I've come to know.

Hello Norman,

Thank you for posting. I think one of the reason why humans don’t like to look in the mirror is that not only do they not like to take responsibility for the circumstances in which they live, but they see the gap, and sometimes it is a very wide gap, between what they speak of, and what they actually do. This is sometimes called hypocrisy; but it is a merely a human trait that needs a leash to control the emotions, attitudes, thought processes that are unbalanced in ones lives, that creates this hypocrisy.

When you say the more you learn about yourself the more depressed you become. I would say that is how many might describe the process of the first attempts of willing to look at how one has managed their life so far in complete honesty. It is kind of like what one’s body feels like running that first mile run when they have been completely sedentary for many years. It is uncomfortable and usually one does not want to get up a few days latter and do it again. But what rewards are there for the humans who use their will to get up and do it again when every emotion and muscle in their body is screaming “stay in bed” ; rationalizing everything as an excuse to do the run tomorrow, when they know they never will. And those who ride through the pain, and who decide to direct their lives instead of their emotions, and thought processes directing their lives, in the process of running they often discover new and more enjoyable ways to accomplish the same goal. The more one takes control over their lives, the easier and more rewarding it gets. Thought truelly does follow action

Some people are perfectionist and some the opposite. It doesn’t really matter where you are in life, happiness begins, in my opinion, when you start learning about you and become the captain of your fate.

When you write that the more you learn about yourself the more depressed you get, to me that tells me that you haven’t gotten to know yourself yet, you are just working through the layers of mismanagement your life, and your gifts from unknown program conditioning.

And what really clues me in that you don’t appear to have yet gotten through the layers of program conditioning is that you are still rationalizing to put off for another life time,what that you can surley do this life time. But that is only my opinion on the very limited statements that you made on this post.

Many blessings to you that you do discover your core self, and discover that your emotions, and your thought process are, not the core you. Life is meant to be enjoyed while harming none. And in my opinion life can be, and is meant to be enjoyed any age! Plus, I see you that you put down you are only 56 years old. As my adopted grandmother says, that is just a young pup. There is a lot of youth and life fuel left at such an age!

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis

[blake]

Ah, Mr Davis, we are no different. All is spiritual. My lifelong desire to understand all aspects of me brought me to the understanding in some measure, of my Inner Self. Spirituality, to my mind, has to be at a nuts and bolts, day to day level. What use is it other wise? And sure, our ego selves are a very necessary component of our 'wholeness". It's when our ego alters to such an extent that it is completely in charge and separates from any spiritual understanding and contact that it need to be brought into line!

I am not of the understanding that our ego should be done away with. It also is divine. It is only when it is out of a spiritually conscious control that it seems to be less than divine. One sort of has to train it like a good dog!!lol. It is our survival monitor for the body in this realm.

You mention the voice. Seems to me you must be a keen singer. I, also sing and it has been interesting the changes to my voice and my attitude to it as I've changed in consciousness. One thing I've noticed is that I'm not nervous to sing in front of an audience any more. I used to nearly die from nervousness! This is because I stay 'present' and do not project energy 'out' that then reflects back from the audience. This feels like being 'hit' with energy.

What I do now is to honor the composer and the lyricist of the song by singing the best I can by allowing the music to come through me. With this attitude the voice flows very easily, or it feels that way anyway. I can reach high notes clearly I couldn't reach thirty years ago (I'm 62). People are still asking me to sing so I must be still sounding alright!!

So, to get back to your question, spiritual development improves all aspects of earthly, material life. It's not something one dusts off to wear on Sundays.

You, to me, are a beautiful soul. Your respectful, heartfelt posts here are a reflection of a well developed spiritual person, well rounded, practical and kind. All earthly life comes from the One Spirit. There is no separation.

Love to you

Carmen

Hello Carmen,

Yes, I can see now that perthaps we are not so different in the view of the spiritual from your last post.

As far as singing is concerned, it is very relaxing for me. Some people have a drink to relax, I find doing physcial activity, including singing very relaxing. I am told that I have a good speaking voice, which is a good thing since I always seem to be speaking! As far as a singing voice, well lets say I don't have a finely tune ear and can occastionally be quite free with the melody, but it doesn't stop me from singing! My daughter has an excellent ear, and a beautiful voice. I love singing with her. It is just a lot of fun.

It is amazing how our bodies repsond to thoughts and attitude. I read that performing and speaking in public is suppose to be the number one fear of
most humans. Congratulations for overcoming it! I can imagine the more we relax the more our vocal chords can do the work effortlessly that we direct them to do, or perhaps it is even more effective to just think high A and get out of their way and let them do their thing! Sounds like you have been able to relax your voice into creating beautiful sounds. I wonder what marvelous stirrings we set off as humans as we match thoughts along with vocalizing beautiful melodies? It has got to be good!

Thank you for your kind words. They are indeed appreciated.

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis

[Alekahn]

[QUOTE=TargeT;395413]Fear sucks.

its the most ACCUTE emotion we have, its a very powerful thing & I do not discount what your feeling at all, and I don't presume to be able to understand your particular situation the way you do.

I wish I could offer something more concrete, an action plan.. but I'm still learning myself :)

I will say that self exploring while at the same time viciously analyzing all thoughts and feelings for their root cause is how I have started to come peace with myeslf.


Trungpa Rinpoche: Our process of spiritual development, or whatever you want to call it, is an unlearning process rather than one of collecting new experiences.
Student: The unmasking, or unlearning, process seems to be like a series of deaths. Why does that have to be so painful? Why can't it be like a kind of liberation and have a kind of joyous feeling?
TR: Well, it is joyous, and maybe we are complaining too much (!). We are more aware of the intensity of the darkness than of the brilliance of the light.

S: Do you have to give up your fear before you can be without a strategy? Or can you just relate to your fear?
TR: Fear is a very interesting thing, actually. It has insight as well as the panicky blind quality. So it seems that if you give up hope of attaining anything, then tuning into fear is tuning into insight. And skillful means arises spontaneously out of fear itself, because fear seems to be extremely resourceful. It is the opposite of hopelessness, in fact. But fear also has the element of panic and the deaf and dumb quality...But fear without hope seems to be very insightful. When you connect with your fear, you realize you have already leapt, you are already in mid-air. You realize that, and then you become resourceful.

S: You say that fear without hope would be intelligent. Could the same be said about the other intense emotions?
TR: Hope and fear largely constitute the rest of the emotions. Hope and fear represent the kind of pushing and pulling quality of duality, and all the emotions consist of that...pulling and magnetizing or fending off.
When you realize that there is nothing to be desirous of(you know, the desire is the hope aspect of fear), when you realize that, then you and your fear are left nakedly standing alone.

from "Crazy Wisdom" Chogyam Trungpa

[music]

Morality is a necessary crutch for many.

Crowley stated "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". Rather than being a licence to cause mayhem at will, this statement applies to the enlightened soul. When we know higher consciousness, and when we live seated in the heartspace, we can do nothing but act for the highest good. It is from this perspective that we can do what we will, because our will is Love. Crowley again: "Love is the law."



Know thy self? Thy self is Love.


Hello Music,

Thank you for your thoughts. I am a little familiar with Alistair Crowley, but just a little. And from my understanding, which surely is quite limited and could be wrong, I thought he was kind of a wild human who did a lot of unhealthy experimentation in life while running through a rather large inheritance quite quickly. What were his ethics do you think? Or perhaps, he threw away the crutch of ethics as well because he lived the law of love in his very human existence? Did you ever read any of his biographies? Even if only a fraction of what is written about him is true, his life style was far from not hurting anyone, especially himself.

I understand that in the circle of ceremonial magicians he is highly regarded as a brilliant writer for his contribution of quality scholarship in metaphysical matters. However, did he demonstrate a life lived that helped the highest good and none were damaged by the choices he made in his life, and were all his actions, of his will, based on the law of love?

I often hear that phrase, “for the highest good.” But I always seem to ask my self: for the highest good of whom? We live in a complex world, involving many perspectives. What may be good for you in your neck of the woods, and for the circumstances under which you find yourself in, could be not so good for someone else. Is the idea of the highest good not where the idea of sacrifice came from, to appease the gods with one lost, so another group of people can live well; a theme so often repeated in literature? My favorite example of this theme being in the short story, “The Lottery.”

When government takes a three hundred year old farm from a family to build a bridge or develop the land for another reason, through eminent domain, they say it is for the highest good of the community. Whether it be the highest good for the community, or for the highest good for someone’s purse, it was a sacrifice and lost to another person.

When I read “highest good” I wonder if the meaning is geared to win win situations. And that is good with a limited amount of people involved. Is that what Mr. Crowley meant? Because I am pondering how it would be possible if many people were involved in this highest good theory. I am pondering if a win win win win win…….. situation is really a possibility in the world of so many humans with so many different and sometimes conflicting needs ?

I don’t know quite understand when you write “Morality is a necessary crutch for many.” If that is true I would love to purchase this metaphorical crutch, and give to millions of people, starting with every member of Congress! Except Dr. Paul of course, he does have high morals, and his crutch for sure must be out of gold. But on second thought, perhaps I will hand out the crutch of morality to the central bankers before I give them to Congress!!

I am wondering how Mr. Crowley defined the word “love”? Do you think we both have the same definition of love that he writes of?

Your above statements suggest that “ do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” applies to the enlightened soul. Perhaps your circle of associations are more divine than my own, for I have never met a human who was truly enlightened to the point that he or she could step out of their limited human, and often selfish perspective.

When you write that our will is love, and love is the law, Again I would have to ask for a definition of love. Do you know if Aliseter Crowley was enlightened? Or was he just a mere mortal with some talents that he shared with the world, and lived a life far from demonstrating that enlightment in which he writes of?

I believe there is a reason why we have a judge with a jury of twelve while judging our fellow humans. Perhaps it is with hope that the odds are in favor of maybe one human will do the right thing, at the right moment in time, for another human.

It is my perspective that enlightenment in its fullest sense is a mere fantasy that does not exist anywhere in the universe. It is my perspective that yes in deed humans need crutches or leashes to reign in their less desirable side of human nature. That is a good thing for trying to build a peaceful world.

But neither the world nor the universe is innately peaceful. One would think that nature would be enlightened, yet how much destruction is there in nature on earth and within the making or dying of stars. Consciousness is a remarkable energy that can be used for good or evil and everything in between. I do not believe any level of consciousness, no matter how high is enlightenment that can exist without rules. For consciousness, even very high levels can lie as well as any human can.

If you know of any humans who lived their lives in such enlightenment that you describe from your post, as always doing the highest good for everyone, then you indeed do not need the crutch of rules and ethics to live peacefully in this world. And you would be a universal oddity if that were true, for even the universe has its rules. If we can not ablaze Avalon with the Enlightment that Mr. Crowley speaks of, as evidenced by all the bannings over the past year, what group of humans can, or have ever attain that? But that is all just my opinion, and my experience among people who speak of such things. Englightment to the degree you write of to me appears to be pure fantasy.

I am interested in your thoughts about this. Perhaps your experiences are different than mine.

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis

Crowley, like us all, was a flawed vessel for the divine. Merely being a time-bound, physical expression of a timeless/matter-less essence presupposes imperfection, but we are always connected to that perfection. We can live lives whose thoughts, actions, and words draw us closer to perfection, or we can live lives that take us as far away from our true nature as we can. The choice is ours, and as we often find, the spirit may be more willing than the flesh on occasion. The closer we get to the state of perfection, the more we become freed from the laws of humanity because we become more in tune with the source and steady state condition of creation, which is Love. We call attainment of this state by many names - enlightenment, nirvana, grace, ascension, godhead, unity consciousness, etc. - and each is as valid as the rest. In this state, we need no state control, and a line from the reggae band Culture comes to mind: "Oh what a funny thing, to have a human being as a policeman." I suppose we can also add jahlove to our list of synonyms for perfection :)

Love means many things to many people, so for convenience sake, we could differentiate between earthly love, and spiritual Love. These are terms of convenience only, for ideas that are equally well expressed merely by the little "l" for earthly love, and the big "L" of the Love of the All. Earthly love is mediated by ego, and comes complete with a multitude of hooks and holes which complicate our relationships in direct proportion to our perceived needs and lacks. The Love of the All, which we may access through higher consciousness, does not have human baggage. It can, on first encounter, appear cold and distant, but perseverance reveals that this is because the heat of human need is not present. Think of the Buddhist ideas of compassion and non-attachment, as these illustrate some qualities of Love passably well. Experiencing our essential nature of Love frees us from attachment because we then enter the territory of the mystic Julian of Norwich, wherein we realise that "all will be well."

Love is not experienced in the mind, and in fact, over-analysis of Love is counter-productive. We experience Love in the heartspace, mediated through our heart and high heart chakras. The heart is the point where the lower dimensions and principles meet the higher dimensions and principles, and it is the point of physical existence that we regain our true eternal and infinite nature, joined as one within the whole human heart. As we approach this state - as more and more people operate from the heart - then the need for the laws of man diminishes. Physical existence is struggle without morality - we invented morality as a signpost that directs us to the road to perfection. I endeavour to live my life through the heart, and though I might contravene some small societal laws, I never contravene any that cause harm to others. I don't even consider the laws of men in my day to day life, because though I am far from perfect, I have glimpsed it often enough to allow it to guide my steps. Sometimes I stumble, but generally I am on course.

[Kimberley]

***************************

Not sure how many of you are familiar with my new friend Santos Bonacci but here (below) are about 7 hours of "Know Thyself" information.

Here is his web site for many many hours of more info from Santos: http://santos.net.au/

Know Thyself Part 1
b2luC4AHmHE


Know Thyself Part 1 Continued
Ww_9lA_0d6U


Know Thyself Part 2
vBcWQsG8gMQ


Know Thyself Part 2 Continued
dzaafl3M0xM


Much love!!

[blake]

Hello Kimberly,

Thank you for sharing. I do think that sometimes astrology, some religions, self help books and other tools can help one begin to jump start the energy necessary for the personal search of knowing oneself, and therefore break free of the biased opinions and controlled values of others. This allows them to have direct expereince and information on how to live their life as they determine, and not by the programed words of others. I also think that those same tools that can help jumpstart a person' search, can also hamper a human from claiming his or her own power from getting to know themselves. Some people are what can be called seminar junkies. They want to know all the new "buzz" words that someone is promoting, and these seminar junkies stop thinking for themselves while tending to rely too much on what other people think, or interpret their life, then they do for themselves. Relying too much on these tools, and other people's opinions and material could very well be adding to the layers of brainwash that is already surrounding so many people, instead of freeing humans to use their own mind, their own obsevations, and come to their own conclusions. Thinking for one self exercises the muscle of self knowledge. Passive intake of material is a perfect way to encourage the perpetual student that never grows to match or exceed their teachers.
Videos are very hypnotic on so many levels. My advice to people who want to know themselves is to start exercising their minds actively, and not passively by watching too many videos.

I did not watch the video. So this is not a statement in reaction to this seven hour video. This is a general statement of what in my opinion people need to do in order to become free, and learn who they really are instead of accepting someone's elses interpretation of who they are or should be.

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis

[blake]

Morality is a necessary crutch for many.

Crowley stated "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". Rather than being a licence to cause mayhem at will, this statement applies to the enlightened soul. When we know higher consciousness, and when we live seated in the heartspace, we can do nothing but act for the highest good. It is from this perspective that we can do what we will, because our will is Love. Crowley again: "Love is the law."



Know thy self? Thy self is Love.


Hello Music,

Thank you for your thoughts. I am a little familiar with Alistair Crowley, but just a little. And from my understanding, which surely is quite limited and could be wrong, I thought he was kind of a wild human who did a lot of unhealthy experimentation in life while running through a rather large inheritance quite quickly. What were his ethics do you think? Or perhaps, he threw away the crutch of ethics as well because he lived the law of love in his very human existence? Did you ever read any of his biographies? Even if only a fraction of what is written about him is true, his life style was far from not hurting anyone, especially himself.

I understand that in the circle of ceremonial magicians he is highly regarded as a brilliant writer for his contribution of quality scholarship in metaphysical matters. However, did he demonstrate a life lived that helped the highest good and none were damaged by the choices he made in his life, and were all his actions, of his will, based on the law of love?

I often hear that phrase, “for the highest good.” But I always seem to ask my self: for the highest good of whom? We live in a complex world, involving many perspectives. What may be good for you in your neck of the woods, and for the circumstances under which you find yourself in, could be not so good for someone else. Is the idea of the highest good not where the idea of sacrifice came from, to appease the gods with one lost, so another group of people can live well; a theme so often repeated in literature? My favorite example of this theme being in the short story, “The Lottery.”

When government takes a three hundred year old farm from a family to build a bridge or develop the land for another reason, through eminent domain, they say it is for the highest good of the community. Whether it be the highest good for the community, or for the highest good for someone’s purse, it was a sacrifice and lost to another person.

When I read “highest good” I wonder if the meaning is geared to win win situations. And that is good with a limited amount of people involved. Is that what Mr. Crowley meant? Because I am pondering how it would be possible if many people were involved in this highest good theory. I am pondering if a win win win win win…….. situation is really a possibility in the world of so many humans with so many different and sometimes conflicting needs ?

I don’t know quite understand when you write “Morality is a necessary crutch for many.” If that is true I would love to purchase this metaphorical crutch, and give to millions of people, starting with every member of Congress! Except Dr. Paul of course, he does have high morals, and his crutch for sure must be out of gold. But on second thought, perhaps I will hand out the crutch of morality to the central bankers before I give them to Congress!!

I am wondering how Mr. Crowley defined the word “love”? Do you think we both have the same definition of love that he writes of?

Your above statements suggest that “ do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” applies to the enlightened soul. Perhaps your circle of associations are more divine than my own, for I have never met a human who was truly enlightened to the point that he or she could step out of their limited human, and often selfish perspective.

When you write that our will is love, and love is the law, Again I would have to ask for a definition of love. Do you know if Aliseter Crowley was enlightened? Or was he just a mere mortal with some talents that he shared with the world, and lived a life far from demonstrating that enlightment in which he writes of?

I believe there is a reason why we have a judge with a jury of twelve while judging our fellow humans. Perhaps it is with hope that the odds are in favor of maybe one human will do the right thing, at the right moment in time, for another human.

It is my perspective that enlightenment in its fullest sense is a mere fantasy that does not exist anywhere in the universe. It is my perspective that yes in deed humans need crutches or leashes to reign in their less desirable side of human nature. That is a good thing for trying to build a peaceful world.

But neither the world nor the universe is innately peaceful. One would think that nature would be enlightened, yet how much destruction is there in nature on earth and within the making or dying of stars. Consciousness is a remarkable energy that can be used for good or evil and everything in between. I do not believe any level of consciousness, no matter how high is enlightenment that can exist without rules. For consciousness, even very high levels can lie as well as any human can.

If you know of any humans who lived their lives in such enlightenment that you describe from your post, as always doing the highest good for everyone, then you indeed do not need the crutch of rules and ethics to live peacefully in this world. And you would be a universal oddity if that were true, for even the universe has its rules. If we can not ablaze Avalon with the Enlightment that Mr. Crowley speaks of, as evidenced by all the bannings over the past year, what group of humans can, or have ever attain that? But that is all just my opinion, and my experience among people who speak of such things. Englightment to the degree you write of to me appears to be pure fantasy.

I am interested in your thoughts about this. Perhaps your experiences are different than mine.

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis

Crowley, like us all, was a flawed vessel for the divine. Merely being a time-bound, physical expression of a timeless/matter-less essence presupposes imperfection, but we are always connected to that perfection. We can live lives whose thoughts, actions, and words draw us closer to perfection, or we can live lives that take us as far away from our true nature as we can. The choice is ours, and as we often find, the spirit may be more willing than the flesh on occasion. The closer we get to the state of perfection, the more we become freed from the laws of humanity because we become more in tune with the source and steady state condition of creation, which is Love. We call attainment of this state by many names - enlightenment, nirvana, grace, ascension, godhead, unity consciousness, etc. - and each is as valid as the rest. In this state, we need no state control, and a line from the reggae band Culture comes to mind: "Oh what a funny thing, to have a human being as a policeman." I suppose we can also add jahlove to our list of synonyms for perfection :)

Love means many things to many people, so for convenience sake, we could differentiate between earthly love, and spiritual Love. These are terms of convenience only, for ideas that are equally well expressed merely by the little "l" for earthly love, and the big "L" of the Love of the All. Earthly love is mediated by ego, and comes complete with a multitude of hooks and holes which complicate our relationships in direct proportion to our perceived needs and lacks. The Love of the All, which we may access through higher consciousness, does not have human baggage. It can, on first encounter, appear cold and distant, but perseverance reveals that this is because the heat of human need is not present. Think of the Buddhist ideas of compassion and non-attachment, as these illustrate some qualities of Love passably well. Experiencing our essential nature of Love frees us from attachment because we then enter the territory of the mystic Julian of Norwich, wherein we realise that "all will be well."

Love is not experienced in the mind, and in fact, over-analysis of Love is counter-productive. We experience Love in the heartspace, mediated through our heart and high heart chakras. The heart is the point where the lower dimensions and principles meet the higher dimensions and principles, and it is the point of physical existence that we regain our true eternal and infinite nature, joined as one within the whole human heart. As we approach this state - as more and more people operate from the heart - then the need for the laws of man diminishes. Physical existence is struggle without morality - we invented morality as a signpost that directs us to the road to perfection. I endeavour to live my life through the heart, and though I might contravene some small societal laws, I never contravene any that cause harm to others. I don't even consider the laws of men in my day to day life, because though I am far from perfect, I have glimpsed it often enough to allow it to guide my steps. Sometimes I stumble, but generally I am on course.

Hello Music,

I appreciated your response. Thank you for taking the time to write it. It helped me understand more of where you are in the perspective of life. And indeed it seems to be working very nicely for you.

A poster brought up an excellent question. I am not quoting exactly, but essentially the poster asked: “how do we stop being derisive among ourselves?” This poster questioned the integrity of calling those who are not awake “ sheeple”. Does calling people who are not awake, "sheeple", improve the harmony of the world, or add to derisiveness?

Calling people names, or unkind labels may be put a red flag in their face, but even if one never uses unkind terms or labels in front of them, what does using that negative term do to our own attitude and energy? Are we better off individually, or collectively when calling someone ‘sheeple”? Isn’t that part of the bully recipe to call someone a name or an unkind label? Yet many of us do it. I am guilty of it as well. And now since that poster brought that point up, I am going to try not to use that term again, even among those who I consider awake to this information that we all discuss on Avalon. But of course that is my personal choice, and I am in no way implying that anyone else should do as I do. But isn’t it an interesting point to ponder;, why would people who write about love and peace, label people unkindly?

There are many reasons why I appreciated your post, but one of them is in the same theme as what I just spoke of calling people “sheeple”.

Sometimes when I give a lecture, to get people’s attention, I will use a relatively shocking phrase as grist to get the audience involved with thought provoking questions. When I read that you thought “morality was a crutch”, that got my attention. Because I thought, what residence on Mt Olympus must this poster reside to make such a statement? But alas, when I read your response, it became clearer that you were giving the perspective of the gods or perfection, and not of this 3d world. Yet still, I am wondering why you chose that particular phrase.

I think you are probably a kind and good person, such as I am, as probably most Avalonians are. Yet, in our small world that speaks of peace, harmony and understanding, how successful have we been? ....And again, I make reference to all the bannings over the past year.

I am wondering how much energy we spend seeing how much the same we all are even though we use different words? Unfortunately words can be derisive even when people are essentially talking about the same thing. By using different words, and not understanding the definition in which one uses a familiar word, we can often cause derisiveness.

In my writing, I often use the term tools to describe available assets to make life, or a situation, better. Humans have lots of tools to help us be better people if we choose. Perhaps that is insulting to some, and I don’t even know it? But when I write that morality is a good and an able tool, much like a stone mason might use a chisel; and then when I read that you think morality is a crutch, I think, wow, this poster is in a different world than I am. Does he also expect the stone mason to throw away his chisel to carve out the rock, and simply use his mind to do so instead? Which is possible, I grant, but highly unlikely that he has that talent yet. And perhaps he is not meant to have that talent in this 3d world of humans? But your statement, that morality is a crutch, had me ponder if this poster thinks that all human tools, emotional, and physical, to improve the quality of human life are crutches? But now with your response I see clearer that you chose that word from the perspective of describing the perfection for which you strive in this very human existence. It was a perspective of the gods, and not of this human world we all reside in.

Still because of what I called a tool, and what you called a crutch, is that not a small example of why there is so much derisiveness among humans, even a Avalon. Is it just small things, like using the wrong word, an inflammatory phrase, or a thoughtless word or label such as “sheeple” that keeps us all apart, instead of living more with peace and harmony?

One more point, before I end an already too long post. I don’t seem to understand your definition of spiritual love. But I would like to share what it sound like to me, and maybe you can help me understand it better. With human love, there seems to be, what I consider a healthy energy circuit: I love my children, my spouse, my close friends, and they chose to love me back. And there is work and responsibility in that love. Your definition of spiritual love seems to be a one way street with no work or responsibiliy involved on the humans part. The human appears to idealize spiritual love because there is no work is involved. It is almost like the easy love of a dog or a cat. They require so little in order to love you. The dog and cat gives so much love, and requires almost nothing in return from their human partners in life. A lot of humans find it so easy to love an animal, perhas as easy as it is to bask in spiritual love, because spiritual love makes no demands, it doesn't talk back to you in English. It appears to be like the ultimate therapist, always seeing things from your perspective, in my opinion. Perhaps spiritual love is like the unconditional love of a parent. But a lot easier because there are no demands, spirit gives all. How easy!

Those are my thoughts. I would be interest in hearing how other people think.

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis

[music]

Hello Mr Davis

A crutch is a tool, and saying that morality is a crutch is not the same as calling people "sheeple". Morality is a crutch because it is needed to walk in a way that mimics perfection, and bear in mind that much of our morality has no basis in first principles, but is merely an expression of current social values. Is it immoral to smoke pot? No, in fact, it is more morally defensible than drinking alcohol, yet there are those who insist on criminalising pot, and incarcerating its users. Many pot users are known to smoke and sit on sofas grinning, not doing much at all (except internally), while many drinkers are known for kicking some poor sod's head in, then jumping in their gas-guzzlers to inflict Russian roulette on unwary pedestrians and motorists on their drunken drive home. We have an over-dependence on law and morality to guide our behaviour, and when one uses a crutch for longer than is needed, one develops a deformity of posture that is difficult to correct

When we cry at the death of a loved one, for whom do we cry? When we love in 3D, who do we love? Generally, I would answer "ourselves" to both questions.

When someone dies, they are beyond the pain and turmoil of physical existence, and death is but birth viewed from a different plane, so why do we cry? We cry because of the things this death has removed from our world, we are bereft, we have lost someone dear to us, and we cry at the pain of this.

When we love someone, we perceive an inventory of admirable qualities, or perhaps we are aware of these qualities unconsciously, and often these admirable qualities are expressions of some kind of perceived lack or imperfection within ourselves. Love in the human sphere also offers an evolutionary advantage in that given our long time to maturity, the more stable an attachment between all units within a family, the greater the likelihood of offspring survival. Why do baby animals look cute? They have evolved that way to increase survivability by further endearing themselves to their parents.

I would say that the uncomplicated love of an animal more closely approaches the divine than many human loves that are forged in the heat of human need. As a gauge of human relationships, perhaps "like" is a better barometer than "love". If we have ever done any kind of internal work, we quickly appreciate the ubiquitous nature of love. It really is all around, so much so that it is all, so if we want to indicate our especial favour, we would say we "like" someone (because by default our nature is to Love all).

There is an energy circuit in love, as in all physical existence because duality is based on the energy of polarity. My take on this is, that while science tells us that matter is held by the interplay between negative and positive charges, all is in fact held by the desire/dilemma of the return to Love.

[blake]

Hello Mr Davis

A crutch is a tool, and saying that morality is a crutch is not the same as calling people "sheeple". Morality is a crutch because it is needed to walk in a way that mimics perfection, and bear in mind that much of our morality has no basis in first principles, but is merely an expression of current social values. Is it immoral to smoke pot? No, in fact, it is more morally defensible than drinking alcohol, yet there are those who insist on criminalising pot, and incarcerating its users. Many pot users are known to smoke and sit on sofas grinning, not doing much at all (except internally), while many drinkers are known for kicking some poor sod's head in, then jumping in their gas-guzzlers to inflict Russian roulette on unwary pedestrians and motorists on their drunken drive home. We have an over-dependence on law and morality to guide our behaviour, and when one uses a crutch for longer than is needed, one develops a deformity of posture that is difficult to correct

When we cry at the death of a loved one, for whom do we cry? When we love in 3D, who do we love? Generally, I would answer "ourselves" to both questions.

When someone dies, they are beyond the pain and turmoil of physical existence, and death is but birth viewed from a different plane, so why do we cry? We cry because of the things this death has removed from our world, we are bereft, we have lost someone dear to us, and we cry at the pain of this.

When we love someone, we perceive an inventory of admirable qualities, or perhaps we are aware of these qualities unconsciously, and often these admirable qualities are expressions of some kind of perceived lack or imperfection within ourselves. Love in the human sphere also offers an evolutionary advantage in that given our long time to maturity, the more stable an attachment between all units within a family, the greater the likelihood of offspring survival. Why do baby animals look cute? They have evolved that way to increase survivability by further endearing themselves to their parents.

I would say that the uncomplicated love of an animal more closely approaches the divine than many human loves that are forged in the heat of human need. As a gauge of human relationships, perhaps "like" is a better barometer than "love". If we have ever done any kind of internal work, we quickly appreciate the ubiquitous nature of love. It really is all around, so much so that it is all, so if we want to indicate our especial favour, we would say we "like" someone (because by default our nature is to Love all).

There is an energy circuit in love, as in all physical existence because duality is based on the energy of polarity. My take on this is, that while science tells us that matter is held by the interplay between negative and positive charges, all is in fact held by the desire/dilemma of the return to Love.

Hello Music,

Thank you for responding. You are correct, a crutch is a tool. A crutch is often used to help a person with a broken leg or perhaps someone who is lame. It is something one leans on when they are not capable of standing on their on two feet, as an able body person is. So in that respect a crutch is a tool, which is used to help a person who has difficulty walking. Without the crutch, the person, in human standards, can not walk and do what the physical body was meant to do for the human’s existence in this 3d world. But a crutch, in an emotional sense, often is not a tool that helps, but a tool that destroys one’s ability to act emotionally whole in the 3d world.

An alcoholic uses the crutch of alcohol to help get them through the day. A tool is usually an object, but can be a psychological factor that allows one to build, and do things beyond what the average able human body, or mind can do. A tool enhances one’s ability beyond one’s natural ability. A crutch holds a person up with what they normally, as an able body, healthy human, would normally be able to do for themselves. So perhaps all crutches may be tools, but not all tools are crutches.

To me the word crutch automatically has a meaning that something is amiss. However, when I hear the word, tool, I automatically sense something that is going to help me do what I normally can’t do. To me, tools enhances one’s natural abilities, and a tool used as crutch holds up what is broken physically, emotionally, or spiritually. So it would appear that we may have different definitions of the word, “crutch”. But do contemplate that if a therapist, when working with a basically healthy client, asks the client if they would prefer a crutch, or a tool to help them with their issue; I am wondering which they would prefer? My point is that the word, crutch, is often thought as being derogatory, while the word, tool, is more often thought as helpful.

Morals are quite different from rules and regulations. Sometimes laws and regulations are based on morals, but mostly they are not. Morals often differ from culture to culture. Morals simply mean knowing what is right, and what is wrong. And people do have different morals. People will often ask themselves, when shocked at someone’s behavior, “what types of morals does that person have?” They are essentially asking how that person differentiates between what is right, and what is wrong. They are not usually commenting about any rules, regulations or laws that the person has broken.

Morals are not set in stone; and humans do judge other people’s morals. But there is human behavior that most emotionally healthy individuals will say is morally wrong, and one that the laws in most lands will agree with. They may be few but I think most people morally believe that it is wrong to kill an other human, unless in self defense. Of course, we have wars, and our government’s actions, and corporate manslaughter but all that is another topic. But basically killing your friend, or the stranger down the street is wrong unless it is done in self defense. Most people have the morality not to kill. They know it is wrong, whether there is a law against it or not.

Often we need to question the morals of our own laws, but that is up to the people of that nation. In America, and probably in England, since its concept is thousands of years old, we have what is called jury nullification. It is the last non violent stronghold that the people have against bad law. Simply put, the jury judges both the action of the person on trial as well as the law being used against the person on trial. If members of a jury decide that laws, for example, on pot are wrong, then when people are prosecuted under those laws, the jury will simply find them all innocent. But few people in America have even heard of the phrase,“ jury nullification”, although for decades good organizations have been trying to educate Americans on this very powerful tool, to bring justice to people being hurt under unjust, and immoral laws. And Jury Nullification is actually written in to many of the state Constitutions, but of course it is ignored and played down because it gives all the power to the people over any legislation.

But to get back to the topic at hand, morals can be different for different populations. Plus morals are not carved in stone. It is morally wrong to steal from another, in my principles of life. But remember, morals are not laws, they are only principles that people choose to live their lives to help them decide what is right, and what is wrong under varying circumstances. But what is right, and what is wrong can sometimes change according to the conditions one finds themselves in. For example my morals mold the thought pattern that stealing is wrong. I will not steal from people. Yet, if I was in a position where I had starving children, and I did all I could do to procure food, and still I could not get any, I would steal to feed my children. Let say there was a baker down the street who had plenty of food. I would first ask for a gift, of food, to feed my children. I would also offer to work it off, or trade it. But if the baker wouldn’t gift me the food under any circumstance that I offered, while noting that he or she had a surplus of food, then I would come back, in a non violent way, and like a thief in the night, help myself to the food needed, and not feel one bit guilty about it. Because under those circumstances, in deciding what is right and what is wrong, the right thing to do was to feed my children. Of course, the principles under which I live would have me choosing to repay, anonymously, the price of the food that I took as soon as I was able to do so.

But in my opinion, a healthy human has healthy principles or morals that they live their lives by, and are smart enough to take each circumstance they encounter and always ask, what is the right thing to? Many people don’t do that. They act out of emotion to do what either pleases themselves, or to hurt another for whatever long list of reasons they may have.

When getting married or forming any type of partnership, it is my opinion that hanging out with humans who have similar values and morals makes life much happier. So it again appears that, we don’t actually disagree in the broader picture as much as we have a different definition of what morals are. And having similar definitions is important for conveying and gaining understanding of each other’s perspectives and ideas. Have you ever seen people fight over an idea when they actually saying the same thing?

I think the right thing to do is to be as respectful as possible to everyone, because I think that adds to the harmony of life. Humans don’t have to like each other, but without respecting each other, and that begins with not calling others names or labeling each other in a derogatory way, there will never be peace, or harmony in families, let a lone in communities or between nations. But to get back to the laws of pot and alcohol, I believe in unalienable rights. The government needs to support an individual person’s right to live life as they wish as long as they harm none. Any one who drinks and drives is not being responsible, and is often setting themselves up to being a murder, But if some one wants to drink themselves into an early grave in their own living room, they have the right to do so. People are free to succeed or fail on their own accord. They are not free, in my opinion, and by the moral standard I have set for myself, to be irresponsible to their family, or community where they could harm another by their actions. So people’s morals may be very different from the laws of a community or a nation. Most laws are to control people and to steal from them; most laws are immoral. So what do moral people do about immoral laws? Hopefully are awake enough to apply jury nullification while they are in the jury box, and educate others to do the same. But that takes work. Anything of value takes work.

I think our experiences in love might explain our differences in how we define love. The purist love that I know is the love I have for my children. My pure love for my children is not a perceived inventory of admirable qualities, or because they are, “cute”. Love is created in my heart for these creatures because they simply exist, and I was entrusted to care for them until they could care for themselves. And as they grew, experimenting with the not so much admirable qualities that teenagers often display, my deep love of them did not wane. Perhaps my liking for them did at times, as they tested my patience, but never my love or commitment to them. And when they left home, and traveled the far corners of the earth, I am happy for them even though they are far away, because they are happy. To me loving someone deeply is when you love the essence of a person beyond measure, regardless of how that love was created. Once love is sparked, it cannot die, unless the love was not love to begin with, and only the inventory of the admirable qualities that you write of. When I speak of love, I speak of a deep commitment one has to another human. I personally find it demeaning to the value of love, when people so easily say they love somebody when they haven’t invested the deep energy required to connect to the essence of another’s soul to truly love an individual. What meaning does that love have, when using the word love so indiscriminately?...... Not much in my opinion. So many people use the word love so often that it has a superficial meaning, much like your inventory of admirable qualities which can change as quickly as the direction of the wind.

Is it in nature to love all? No, it is not. Nature can be as cruel as humans. But humans unlike nature can choose to love someone, they can choose to be kind, they can choose to be compassionate, they can choose to give aid, they can choose to morally do the right thing. Nature is programmed to just be and if it is a tornado raging straight at you, you had better get out of her way. The human is given choice for right or wrong action.Will loving a tornado veer it path to save you? I don’t think so! The tornado and all of nature doesn’t have a choice, it just is good, or it is bad, or anything inbetween, but it doesn’t have choice in what it does. Maybe that is the magic of humans in that we do have the choice?

I was always taught that humans were not separate from nature. We are part of nature.
The tornado will not love you are hate you. It is just doing its thing. But humans are given the choice to love or hate and everything in between, so I am curious as to why some people seek deep, pure love in the realm of nature that is not programmed to love or hate but to just be. I don’t understand humans who look into empty space and expect to be loved. Love is created right here on earth, along with every other emotion. But like every thing else there are standards for love. Being kind is easy, being respectful is easy, but in my opinion, loving, truly creating love and committed love is hard work that few humans like to invest in. Humans like it easy, and isn’t it easy to bask in the love that you have no commitment to and which has no commitment to you. But that is all my opinion; obviously we view love very differently. I wish you all to have much committed love in your life on earth. For do any of us really knows what happens in the world of spirit?

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis

[9eagle9]

Morality is such an undependable function. We see over the last 100 years --morality and social mores shift every decade. In 1912 it was still a moral outrage to see woman's ankle. Ten years later women were smoking and wearing flapper beads and showing their knees. Every decade mortality shifts on us, in very appreciable ways...not very dependable at all. If people are using it as a crutch its going to collapse and be replaced with a new one every few years or so. Even those moral standards, shifting all the time, are going to come full circle and turn on each other creating conflict.



Morality is a necessary crutch for many.

Crowley stated "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". Rather than being a licence to cause mayhem at will, this statement applies to the enlightened soul. When we know higher consciousness, and when we live seated in the heartspace, we can do nothing but act for the highest good. It is from this perspective that we can do what we will, because our will is Love. Crowley again: "Love is the law."

Know thy self? Thy self is Love.

[blake]

Morality is such an undependable function. We see over the last 100 years --morality and social mores shift every decade. In 1912 it was still a moral outrage to see woman's ankle. Ten years later women were smoking and wearing flapper beads and showing their knees. Every decade mortality shifts on us, in very appreciable ways...not very dependable at all. If people are using it as a crutch its going to collapse and be replaced with a new one every few years or so. Even those moral standards, shifting all the time, are going to come full circle and turn on each other creating conflict.




Morality is a necessary crutch for many.

Crowley stated "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". Rather than being a licence to cause mayhem at will, this statement applies to the enlightened soul. When we know higher consciousness, and when we live seated in the heartspace, we can do nothing but act for the highest good. It is from this perspective that we can do what we will, because our will is Love. Crowley again: "Love is the law."

Know thy self? Thy self is Love.


Hello 9eagle9,

The morality of socitey as a whole may change with time. But there is a huge difference between what I would called superfical biased morality of what is accepted and not accepted from society as a whole in trying to control how others live their lives, as opposed to the core values and morals that are the foundation of doing what is right. Of course, doing what is right is often a judgement call, depending on the circumstances involved. Good people mostly will have good morals. A person with sound morals will not kill another. That is my opinion. How can we have a civil society if people actually thought it was alright to kill another? How many Avalonians would kill a human if they knew for sure no one would ever know what they did?

There is an interesting movie, called " The Box". Essentially an overtly very nice American family, having a financial squeeze, is approached by a strange man. He leaves a box with them for twentyfour hours, and they have a choice to make. They can return the box in twentyfour hours without opening it; or they can open it and push the botton inside. If they choose to push the botton inside someone in the world will die, someone who they don't know. But if they choose to push the button, they will also get a million dollars in cash. At first they are shocked. Then they start rationalizing well maybe it will be an old person who is going to die anyway etc etc etc. So the movie continues with the consequnces of the choice that they make.
I think the movie did a good job showcasing human nature. A person with strong morals would not press the button obviously, but what is not obvious is how many people who appear to have strong morals still would push the button. And then take it a step forward to see how easily humans are bought when the price and circumstances are right. There are a lot of implications in the movie, for those who are introspected and like to look at the reality of human nature.

In my opinion, the morals that are important are the morals that we control our own human nature with, not the changing morals of society that determine how short or long a woman's hem is; or who should or shouldn't be use marijuana.

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis

[TargeT]

[In my opinion, the morals that are important are the morals that we control our own human nature with, not the changing morals of society that determine how short or long a woman's hem is; or who should or shouldn't be use marijuana.

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis

which "morals" control human nature?

what is in human nature that needs to be controlled?

you need to draw some lines somewhere outside of ambiguity.

[music]

I think our experiences in love might explain our differences in how we define love.


I don’t understand humans who look into empty space and expect to be loved. Love is created right here on earth, along with every other emotion.

Hi Mr Davis, it is unwise to assume that because someone has a different view on the nature of love than you do, that they somehow experience love in a lesser way. I also have children and an amazing partner, all of whom I love with all my being, both in the earthly and spiritual sense, and I also like them too :)

If we declare that love has no existence beyond earth, and in fact is created here, then we relegate love to being merely a conjuration of the processes of natural selection. Laying down your life for your child makes sense in an evolutionary sense, but laying down your life for a stranger implies a higher principle of Love that is counter to the physical imperatives of this 3D existence as mediated by ego.

These are my opinions, and obviously we differ on how we perceive things, but be assurred that me expressing my opinion in no way implies disrespect for yours.

[9eagle9]

Yes there's imposed morals and the morals one chooses, sorta like their internal compass.

Imposed morals come by family, socieyty,religion etc, they are imposed on us. The expression of that sort mortality is based in judgement, so that is why we impose them on others.

The sort internal morality system is based on choice.And accessment. Not judgement but accessing a situation and deciding how supported one feels in it. I choose not to do whatver because ..I don't feel supported doing it. But it is expressrf in our actions, we either refrain or do something based on our internal compass. But it id internal; its not imposed elsewhere, one is not compelled to judge others over the choices they have made because they are aware that that itheir internal compass is by by choice and not imposition.

One is based in self governing and the other self policing--policing others. Internal management and...external management.

I find the Box paradigm intriguing. I look at things from all angles without putting any emotional content on the perspectives. Accessing it.

The first thing I look at is ....the language that is used to make an agreement. There are agreements being offered here. Push the button and this will happen. Don't push the button and this will not happen.

"If they choose to push the botton inside someone in the world will die, someone who they don't know. But if they choose to push the button, they will also get a million dollars in cash. "

But... if they don't push the button, someone inside the world will die regardless-- some one they don't know...someone they do know. Someone dies every second of the day.

If you push the button someone will die.Of course. Someone HAS to die because people die every second. It doesn't say "the act of pushing this button will murder someone, you will be killing someone. Nor does it suggest the button has anything to do with BEING the cause of death. Push the button or push the Box away someone is going to die regardless.

That word choice. Is it the choice , by choosing to push the button, or is it the act of pushing the button that causes the death. Because that is how that agreement is really stated. So if you choose to push the button, that would cause death? But choosing doesn't always mean acting on. You could be killing someone simply by making the choice before your finger pushed the button (evil laff) . Then you may change your choice at the last moment but...would it change the death?

It's very Twilight Zone-esque. I like it . It challenges morality . Looking it from that perspective I'm sure I'd be juged morally corrupt for pushing that button, even its just from 'entertaining' that perspective.




[QUOTE=9eagle9;397247]Morality is such an undependable function. We see over the last 100 years --morality and social mores shift every decade. In 1912 it was still a moral outrage to see woman's ankle. Ten years later women were smoking and wearing flapper beads and showing their knees. Every decade mortality shifts on us, in very appreciable ways...not very dependable at all. If people are using it as a crutch its going to collapse and be replaced with a new one every few years or so. Even those moral standards, shifting all the time, are going to come full circle and turn on each other creating conflict.



Hello 9eagle9,

The morality of socitey as a whole may change with time. But there is a huge difference between what I would called superfical biased morality of what is accepted and not accepted from society as a whole in trying to control how others live their lives, as opposed to the core values and morals that are the foundation of doing what is right. Of course, doing what is right is often a judgement call, depending on the circumstances involved. Good people mostly will have good morals. A person with sound morals will not kill another. That is my opinion. How can we have a civil society if people actually thought it was alright to kill another? How many Avalonians would kill a human if they knew for sure no one would ever know what they did?

There is an interesting movie, called " The Box". Essentially an overtly very nice American family, having a financial squeeze, is approached by a strange man. He leaves a box with them for twentyfour hours, and they have a choice to make. They can return the box in twentyfour hours without opening it; or they can open it and push the botton inside. If they choose to push the botton inside someone in the world will die, someone who they don't know. But if they choose to push the button, they will also get a million dollars in cash. At first they are shocked. Then they start rationalizing well maybe it will be an old person who is going to die anyway etc etc etc. So the movie continues with the consequnces of the choice that they make.
I think the movie did a good job showcasing human nature. A person with strong morals would not press the button obviously, but what is not obvious is how many people who appear to have strong morals still would push the button. And then take it a step forward to see how easily humans are bought when the price and circumstances are right. There are a lot of implications in the movie, for those who are introspected and like to look at the reality of human nature.

In my opinion, the morals that are important are the morals that we control our own human nature with, not the changing morals of society that determine how short or long a woman's hem is; or who should or shouldn't be use marijuana.

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis

[blake]

[In my opinion, the morals that are important are the morals that we control our own human nature with, not the changing morals of society that determine how short or long a woman's hem is; or who should or shouldn't be use marijuana.

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis

which "morals" control human nature?

what is in human nature that needs to be controlled?

you need to draw some lines somewhere outside of ambiguity.

Hello TargeT,

To answer those questions you need to look at your own actions and how you relate and communicate with others objectively as far as which morals you need to live by to make this world a better place. Or perhaps you have no morals at all, and choose to be a bully, or have more of a negative influence on society than a more positive influence on societ? Or perhaps you are naturally a saint and always do the right thing, and would never dream of being greedy. Those are questions that only you can answer. In my opinion there appears to be a lot about human nature that needs discipline and needs to be controlled, othrwise we wouldn't be having perpetual war, unjust financial sytsems, people in debt, people in rehab, family feuds, high divorce rate, bullies on the playground, in the workplace, in church and in the neighborhood, etc etc etc etc.
As far as your last statement,I have no idea what you mean by it.

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis

[blake]

I think our experiences in love might explain our differences in how we define love.


I don’t understand humans who look into empty space and expect to be loved. Love is created right here on earth, along with every other emotion.

Hi Mr Davis, it is unwise to assume that because someone has a different view on the nature of love than you do, that they somehow experience love in a lesser way. I also have children and an amazing partner, all of whom I love with all my being, both in the earthly and spiritual sense, and I also like them too :)

If we declare that love has no existence beyond earth, and in fact is created here, then we relegate love to being merely a conjuration of the processes of natural selection. Laying down your life for your child makes sense in an evolutionary sense, but laying down your life for a stranger implies a higher principle of Love that is counter to the physical imperatives of this 3D existence as mediated by ego.

These are my opinions, and obviously we differ on how we perceive things, but be assurred that me expressing my opinion in no way implies disrespect for yours.




I think our experiences in love might explain our differences in how we define love.


I don’t understand humans who look into empty space and expect to be loved. Love is created right here on earth, along with every other emotion.

Hi Mr Davis, it is unwise to assume that because someone has a different view on the nature of love than you do, that they somehow experience love in a lesser way. I also have children and an amazing partner, all of whom I love with all my being, both in the earthly and spiritual sense, and I also like them too :)

If we declare that love has no existence beyond earth, and in fact is created here, then we relegate love to being merely a conjuration of the processes of natural selection. Laying down your life for your child makes sense in an evolutionary sense, but laying down your life for a stranger implies a higher principle of Love that is counter to the physical imperatives of this 3D existence as mediated by ego.

These are my opinions, and obviously we differ on how we perceive things, but be assurred that me expressing my opinion in no way implies disrespect for yours.

Hello Music,

Thanks for responding,

You write:

"it is unwise to assume that because someone has a different view on the nature of love than you do, that they somehow experience love in a lesser way. I also have children and an amazing partner, all of whom I love with all my being, both in the earthly and spiritual sense, and I also like them too :)"

I am sorry you interpreted my words to mean that I assumed you expereinced love in a lesser way. I reread teh post and am at a lost as how you came to that conclusion. I wrote that "I think our expereinces in love might( I did not say does) explain our differences in how we define love." I agree that we appear to have a different view on what love is. I never wrote that you , Music, experienced love in a lesser way. I did state my opinon about observations in general, but I never directed any at it at you personally. I don't even know you, or anything about your life. You seem to be in awe of spiritual love, and I am trying to understand why compared to my own expereinces in life. I again apologize for the misnderstanding, but alas that is the nature of words so much can be read into them that is not always there.

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis

[blake]

Hello 9eagle9,

It is interesting how certain words trigger reactions in some people. But then again with all the mind games that society and the government plays, I suppose healthy minds would question how words are being used. It appears that the words, moral and morality, may not be words that too many humans feel comfortable with. Of course, there can be many levels of meaning in a word, and that alone can be a cause of the discomfort or a perceived reason to put their guard up. Then again, some people like to talk without saying what they actually mean, and word play can certainly be on their side when one chooses to say something, apparently boldly, without another understanding their meaning or, even leading another to believe that something else was meant indeed. Some humans seem to do that often in their everyday conversations; the government does it to control people on a daily basis. They make the “red door appear black”, such as the naming of the “Patriot Act” when most Americans understand it not patriotic at all in content. Many Americans have experienced that when the government calls something seemingly positive for all, Americans usually understand it will mean just the opposite of what it named. And that is what I refer to as calling the red door black.

Language is very rich, and it is interesting what words people choose to use when communicating with others. Some people can use many impressive words to say nothing at all; while others can say volumes in a few short words. Yes, language is interesting and not just for lawyers, politicians, marketers, manipulators, and therapists, all humans play with words. But in these past few posts in this thread, the words morality and morals seem to be triggering quite a few complicated emotions.

I agree with you that there are different types of morals, and those imposed by the biases of society and governments, can be cruel. That is when a human’s innate gift of thinking becomes essential if a person wants to remain free to live their life as they want and not as others dictate. But when I speak of morals and morality, it would be more in line of what you called the internal compass. But alas, the magnetic field, I am told, is rapidly declining. And I am wondering what this may be doing to everyone’s internal compass who do not use their thinking capability to logically figure out the direction they need to take without getting lost in the maze of manipulation.

I do believe that like unalienable rights, there are fundamental morals that are true and correct to living a good life while adding to harmony and peace. There are some behaviors that are right, and good, and other behavior that is wrong and destructive across the board for all humans. Some humans may like living on a mountain, others living in cave, or by the sea. But all humans need clean air to live. All humans need food and shelter. Take air, food, and shelter away from a human and you are murdering them, quickly or slowly it doesn’t, matter but they will die.

Perhaps there are humans on this forum who will respond there is nothing wrong with death. And I will not argue that. But there is something wrong on imposing the death of another for one’s own necessity or greed. All humans have a right to life. No human has a right to take another’s life. That is a moral that all our internal compasses needs to point to. But obviously with the state of the world it does not. There are other fundamental morals that affect all humans that are not based on the control and biases of society and government. And I believe if those fundamental morals were uphelded by a good amount of humans, then we would not have the plagues of humankind curse this beautiful planet, while throwing dirt and grime over so many innocent lives. Humans need to think and humans need to have basic fundamental morals. But it is apparent, with the status of the world today, yesterday or a century ago, that humans neither think very well, nor do they have the internal compass necessary to lead them to these fundamental basics of living the good life.

The part of the world that humans have touched has brought about some amazing wonder and beauty. But all that amazing wonder and beauty is pale compared to the greed, cruelty, ugliness, and destruction that humans have allowed to happen under their watch. But of course that is all just my opinion. Yet, when I think of perpetual wars, and corrupt financial systems, I think, does not the average human ever think! Then I wonder, is this where spirituality comes from? An escape to some hope for the good life from failing to live well on earth?

As far as the movie, “The Box”, is concerned, it has been a few years since I watched the movie so perhaps the details are a bit vague. But the basis for the box was a study on the human race. The human race was being tested by a nonhuman entity not living on earth. This entity was compiling data to determine if more humans had the “internal compass” not to push the button, than to push the bottom. If the data revealed that more humans pushed the button, than refrained from pushing it, then the human race would be destroyed. At the end of the movie it was apparent that the entity was quite discouraged, as the data collected showed that indeed humans were always pushing the button. The movie in a way is paralleling the claimed results of the ancient Greek philosopher, Diogenes, who told of a story of a search for an honest human. I think that in that story an honest human was ever found; much like the results of the entity in the movie, “The Box”, he couldn’t find a human with a working “internal compass”.

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis








Yes there's imposed morals and the morals one chooses, sorta like their internal compass.

Imposed morals come by family, socieyty,religion etc, they are imposed on us. The expression of that sort mortality is based in judgement, so that is why we impose them on others.

The sort internal morality system is based on choice.And accessment. Not judgement but accessing a situation and deciding how supported one feels in it. I choose not to do whatver because ..I don't feel supported doing it. But it is expressrf in our actions, we either refrain or do something based on our internal compass. But it id internal; its not imposed elsewhere, one is not compelled to judge others over the choices they have made because they are aware that that itheir internal compass is by by choice and not imposition.

One is based in self governing and the other self policing--policing others. Internal management and...external management.

I find the Box paradigm intriguing. I look at things from all angles without putting any emotional content on the perspectives. Accessing it.

The first thing I look at is ....the language that is used to make an agreement. There are agreements being offered here. Push the button and this will happen. Don't push the button and this will not happen.

"If they choose to push the botton inside someone in the world will die, someone who they don't know. But if they choose to push the button, they will also get a million dollars in cash. "

But... if they don't push the button, someone inside the world will die regardless-- some one they don't know...someone they do know. Someone dies every second of the day.

If you push the button someone will die.Of course. Someone HAS to die because people die every second. It doesn't say "the act of pushing this button will murder someone, you will be killing someone. Nor does it suggest the button has anything to do with BEING the cause of death. Push the button or push the Box away someone is going to die regardless.

That word choice. Is it the choice , by choosing to push the button, or is it the act of pushing the button that causes the death. Because that is how that agreement is really stated. So if you choose to push the button, that would cause death? But choosing doesn't always mean acting on. You could be killing someone simply by making the choice before your finger pushed the button (evil laff) . Then you may change your choice at the last moment but...would it change the death?

It's very Twilight Zone-esque. I like it . It challenges morality . Looking it from that perspective I'm sure I'd be juged morally corrupt for pushing that button, even its just from 'entertaining' that perspective.




[QUOTE=9eagle9;397247]Morality is such an undependable function. We see over the last 100 years --morality and social mores shift every decade. In 1912 it was still a moral outrage to see woman's ankle. Ten years later women were smoking and wearing flapper beads and showing their knees. Every decade mortality shifts on us, in very appreciable ways...not very dependable at all. If people are using it as a crutch its going to collapse and be replaced with a new one every few years or so. Even those moral standards, shifting all the time, are going to come full circle and turn on each other creating conflict.



Hello 9eagle9,

The morality of socitey as a whole may change with time. But there is a huge difference between what I would called superfical biased morality of what is accepted and not accepted from society as a whole in trying to control how others live their lives, as opposed to the core values and morals that are the foundation of doing what is right. Of course, doing what is right is often a judgement call, depending on the circumstances involved. Good people mostly will have good morals. A person with sound morals will not kill another. That is my opinion. How can we have a civil society if people actually thought it was alright to kill another? How many Avalonians would kill a human if they knew for sure no one would ever know what they did?

There is an interesting movie, called " The Box". Essentially an overtly very nice American family, having a financial squeeze, is approached by a strange man. He leaves a box with them for twentyfour hours, and they have a choice to make. They can return the box in twentyfour hours without opening it; or they can open it and push the botton inside. If they choose to push the botton inside someone in the world will die, someone who they don't know. But if they choose to push the button, they will also get a million dollars in cash. At first they are shocked. Then they start rationalizing well maybe it will be an old person who is going to die anyway etc etc etc. So the movie continues with the consequnces of the choice that they make.
I think the movie did a good job showcasing human nature. A person with strong morals would not press the button obviously, but what is not obvious is how many people who appear to have strong morals still would push the button. And then take it a step forward to see how easily humans are bought when the price and circumstances are right. There are a lot of implications in the movie, for those who are introspected and like to look at the reality of human nature.

In my opinion, the morals that are important are the morals that we control our own human nature with, not the changing morals of society that determine how short or long a woman's hem is; or who should or shouldn't be use marijuana.

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis