Jeremy
03-21-2006, 08:12 PM
thanks for your critique, zee. i appreciate somebody regarding my
response and disagreement in the cordial manner it was intended. :-)
> the range of acceptable choices are limited. they are limited by the
> effects they have on anyone and everyone else. that is the essence
> of what being moral means.
from a unified standpoint, though, the effects of one's actions don't
really matter - those effects are just experiences from which one can
learn. they may be negative or positive, but they're not "wrong".
learning opportunities exist in any given situation. ra articulates
this idea thusly:
"all things are acceptable in the proper time for each entity, and in
experiencing, in understanding, in accepting, in then sharing with
other-selves, the appropriate distortion shall be moving away from
distortions of one kind to distortions of another which may be more
consonant with the law of one." (18.5 - incidentally, it's times like
these i really wish we had the rich linking features of a full fledged
bulletin board)
now, insofar as we have to experience the consequences of our actions,
i totally agree. that's part of the understanding: recognizing that
our creations have consequences. but that's not a limitation in my
view - that's part and parcel of the freedom. it's the task of
figuring out what kinds of consequences we want to manifest - the full
scope of conscious co-creation.
i'll be honest: i don't like when morality per se is brought up in the
context of the law of one. i have an understanding of morality that i
find consonant with it, but it takes a lot of explanation to get from
the conventional idea of "right or wrong" to the idea of polarity and
distillation of experience. so i apologize if i seem to be belaboring
a petty point.
i have no problem with a morality that is thoughtfully articulated by
an individual as an answer to his or her own experiences. but
morality as a social code... is not quite as consonant with the law of
one as the former, imho. hence, my embrace of individualism as the
primary experience.
> even so, there are duties.
just so we're clear: is this an argument from the law of one? i mean
no disrespect to your beliefs, and i'm fine talking outside of the
context of the material. i just don't want to browbeat you with
quotes if they're not relevant to your thesis. ra clearly says that
we have no duties to the creator, and that we are perfectly free. we
can accept duties, but we always have a choice.
> i do not belong to myself.
we will disagree, i fear. i am of the belief that we do belong to
ourselves, and that there is no other - god, state, man - who has a
claim on us. if they did have a claim on us, we would not have free
will: period.
> i was created and i have been guided and inspired with a hope. i am
> guided by principles. there are so many possibilities that i find
> that when i even compose a piece of music, with the choice of the
> first note, i constrain the subsequent possibilities.
i am not arguing against guidance or the limitation of possibilities.
clearly, if the creator wanted to experience unlimited possibilities
it would not manifest as a human. what i am saying is that this is
not a mechanism of moral duty. we don't owe anybody anything. there
is no command. there is only the creation, and how we choose to
manifest a sufficient polarity within that.
> we can close off a territory and we can furnish that territory. it
> is our own reality. we can create it and make it any way we want.
> that is the basis of our possible choices. however, when i have
> found those, out of the body that have made that choice, they are
> lonely. they have created in their own behalf, only or mostly. they
> have not openly heeded the greater oneness, with creating what was
> and is needed by all who share in that oneness.
not to romanticize that nor indeed to concede the point, since i still
bristle at the idea of there being a wrong way to create; but still,
*loneliness is a valid experience*. it is catalytic. it is worthy of
the creator. it is appropriate in its time.
this idea that we have a duty to create for the oneness... what i
don't get is how is it possible for us *not* to create for that
oneness? every single thing we do, think, or manifest is a creation
offered to the creator. i agree with the natural consequence idea - i
disagree with the idea of a "commandment", which seems implicit in the
word "duty". perhaps i'm oversimplifying your point.
thanks,
jeremy
response and disagreement in the cordial manner it was intended. :-)
> the range of acceptable choices are limited. they are limited by the
> effects they have on anyone and everyone else. that is the essence
> of what being moral means.
from a unified standpoint, though, the effects of one's actions don't
really matter - those effects are just experiences from which one can
learn. they may be negative or positive, but they're not "wrong".
learning opportunities exist in any given situation. ra articulates
this idea thusly:
"all things are acceptable in the proper time for each entity, and in
experiencing, in understanding, in accepting, in then sharing with
other-selves, the appropriate distortion shall be moving away from
distortions of one kind to distortions of another which may be more
consonant with the law of one." (18.5 - incidentally, it's times like
these i really wish we had the rich linking features of a full fledged
bulletin board)
now, insofar as we have to experience the consequences of our actions,
i totally agree. that's part of the understanding: recognizing that
our creations have consequences. but that's not a limitation in my
view - that's part and parcel of the freedom. it's the task of
figuring out what kinds of consequences we want to manifest - the full
scope of conscious co-creation.
i'll be honest: i don't like when morality per se is brought up in the
context of the law of one. i have an understanding of morality that i
find consonant with it, but it takes a lot of explanation to get from
the conventional idea of "right or wrong" to the idea of polarity and
distillation of experience. so i apologize if i seem to be belaboring
a petty point.
i have no problem with a morality that is thoughtfully articulated by
an individual as an answer to his or her own experiences. but
morality as a social code... is not quite as consonant with the law of
one as the former, imho. hence, my embrace of individualism as the
primary experience.
> even so, there are duties.
just so we're clear: is this an argument from the law of one? i mean
no disrespect to your beliefs, and i'm fine talking outside of the
context of the material. i just don't want to browbeat you with
quotes if they're not relevant to your thesis. ra clearly says that
we have no duties to the creator, and that we are perfectly free. we
can accept duties, but we always have a choice.
> i do not belong to myself.
we will disagree, i fear. i am of the belief that we do belong to
ourselves, and that there is no other - god, state, man - who has a
claim on us. if they did have a claim on us, we would not have free
will: period.
> i was created and i have been guided and inspired with a hope. i am
> guided by principles. there are so many possibilities that i find
> that when i even compose a piece of music, with the choice of the
> first note, i constrain the subsequent possibilities.
i am not arguing against guidance or the limitation of possibilities.
clearly, if the creator wanted to experience unlimited possibilities
it would not manifest as a human. what i am saying is that this is
not a mechanism of moral duty. we don't owe anybody anything. there
is no command. there is only the creation, and how we choose to
manifest a sufficient polarity within that.
> we can close off a territory and we can furnish that territory. it
> is our own reality. we can create it and make it any way we want.
> that is the basis of our possible choices. however, when i have
> found those, out of the body that have made that choice, they are
> lonely. they have created in their own behalf, only or mostly. they
> have not openly heeded the greater oneness, with creating what was
> and is needed by all who share in that oneness.
not to romanticize that nor indeed to concede the point, since i still
bristle at the idea of there being a wrong way to create; but still,
*loneliness is a valid experience*. it is catalytic. it is worthy of
the creator. it is appropriate in its time.
this idea that we have a duty to create for the oneness... what i
don't get is how is it possible for us *not* to create for that
oneness? every single thing we do, think, or manifest is a creation
offered to the creator. i agree with the natural consequence idea - i
disagree with the idea of a "commandment", which seems implicit in the
word "duty". perhaps i'm oversimplifying your point.
thanks,
jeremy