"Unity" is Not "Entitlement"

[Jeremy Weiland]

> plagiarize- to take ideas or writings from someone
> else and present them as one's own.
>
> imho that sounds like unity consciousness where
> evertything is viewed as self or as ra so elegantly
> put it "you are everything, every being, every
> emotion, every event, every situation. you are
> unity. you are infinity. you are love/light,
> light/love. you are. this is the law of one."

so if i enslave you, that's ok because we're one,
right? we're one, so i'm really doing it myself, is
that the rationale here? how is somebody getting
credit for another's work any different, fundamentally
speaking? they are both issues of free will and
control. controlling the creator as otherself instead
of accepting the creator as otherself.

unity consciousness does not mean you are everything
because then you get to be and receive whatever you
want. it means you are one with all because you
accept everything as it is and you accept yourself as
you are. you don't use unity as an excuse to
re-engineer reality to your advantage.

i don't have a right to your wallet just because we're
actually one. at the level where we're one, money
doesn't matter, and neither do rights. at the level
where we're on this 3d planet, local custom combined
with free will clearly provides a mandate for
respecting the sanctity of another's work. *to the
extent i try to dictate terms for our oneness, we
enter into a negative, service to self relationship,
wouldn't you say?* but if you do believe i have a
right to your wallet, i'd be happy to give you a bank
account into which you can start donating money to me,
ahem, i mean, yourself. <lol>

if that doesn't convince you, look at it this way: it
is david's free will decision to oppose such
plagiarism. even if you believe it is respectful of
free will and consistent with the law of one to
plagiarize, how come you criticize him for exercising
free will, but not the plagiarizer? it's quite a
double-standard, isn't it?

forgive the shouting, but: unity does not equal
entitlement. being one with everything means
accepting everything as it is, not expected everything
to be what you or anybody else wants.

am i being unclear? does anybody else understand, or
not understand, where i'm coming from?

flabbergasted,

jeremy

__________________________________
do you yahoo!?
sbc yahoo! dsl - now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

[Lesley Schultz]

dear flabbergasted jeremy,

--- jeremy weiland <greenlantern113@...> wrote:
> snip>> > forgive the shouting, but: unity does not
equal > entitlement. being one with everything means
> accepting everything as it is, not expected
> everything > to be what you or anybody else wants.
> am i being unclear? does anybody else understand,
> or not understand, where i'm coming from?
>
> ls: of course i read you loud and clear [and got it
the first time] but i'm wondering if perhaps the
residual fuzziness that keeps cropping up is the
result of apparent selective oneness.

certain compromises with absolute unity are accepted
as manifestations of 3d life, because of living where,
and as what, we are now. certain things are
discouraged. it's okay to maintain the free will
choice, the hallmark of 3d, and support copyright and
intellectual property rights, because this is
important for accountability and traceability reasons
as well as monetary and integrity-of-information
reasons. but it's not okay to flame someone on this
list because it's disrespectful and disharmonious.
the issue could be considered as one of degree, on the
face of it.

plagerism in the case of dw's work has cast a shadow
over its quality and credibility, because of the way
the plagerised material was used. this has an overall
effect of making it harder to get through to more
people because of a perception problem. this makes it
harder for dw to serve as he would wish to, because
persons have associated his name and his work with
something that turned out to be a hoax. untruths and
distortions, once widely publisized, are very
difficult to correct later on. they take on a life of
their own, if they are at all plausible.

[i hasten to point out, this is different from
untruths and distortions put about deliberately as a
smokescreen, e.g. "i did not have sexual relations
with that woman" and "i am not a crook." also, "iraq
has weapons of mass destruction hidden and therefore
it is dangerous to the american homeland" [i forgot
who said that...;-)]

both actions are a harm to the promotion of unity and
harmony among entities in 3d.

flaming someone is at best a poor method of stating a
disagreement with another person, and at worst a harm
to the promotion of unity and harmony among people in
3d on this list. and yet, if someone makes a move to
hit you, and you put up your arms and shove the person
away from you, are you promoting disharmony and
disunity? you could say that you are simply choosing
not to let yourself get hit. you could also say that
you are seeing the love in the moment in which it is
offered, and refusing it in the form it is offered.
both are correct interpretations of what's happening.


if you accept the love as offered, and the person hits
you, there is no guarantee that the proferred love the
person who hit you gave, is having the effect he
intended. the person may be responding to a perceived
threat, which violence probably will not avert. the
perceived threat may still exist in his mind. he hits
you again. does this help? probably not. etc. etc.
eventually he will stop hitting you, because violence
ultimately solves nothing. the person must then return
to the root cause of the problem and use free will to
determine another course of action.

flaming a person on this list is ineffective because
it solves nothing. flaming is forbidden on this list
because we already know that it will not solve
anything, and forbidding it is supposed to force the
person with the problem to reconsider his options to
solve his problem/offer his love more effectively.

plagerism, and indeed theft and murder, are also
ineffective methods of offering love and unity. in the
case of plagerism, a portion of an ediface of learning
and understanding is offered without the entire
support structure underlying the ediface. another
structure is attached to it, which may or may not fit
very well [if it works well, it's often called
research ;-)] when the structure and the ediface
attached to it collapse, it is a habit among humans
not to examine the cause of the collapse but to
conclude that the entire system was faulty. if, in
the case of dw's work, one were inclined to examine
why the system collapsed, it would be difficult to do
because the sources of material for the ediface have
been removed. the collapse of the system becomes much
more difficult to trace. theft removes the benefits
of the system without preserving the structure.
murder collapses the system prematurely.

the collapse of a system is disharmonious and
represents disunity. if it is difficult for some to
perceive that unity can be broken, reflect that a
china cup still smashes when dropped from a great
enough height. at this point in 3d, it is not
possible to repair the china cup completely, using
thought and love/light to communicate with the cup
directly on a molecular level. acknowledging this
fact is not a violation of unity. and in the end, all
the broken china cups will be recoalesced in the
oneness from which they came.

does this help? [with my luck, it confused more...]

~lesley





__________________________________
do you yahoo!?
sbc yahoo! dsl - now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

[Jason Wharton]

> forgive the shouting, but: unity does not equal
> entitlement. being one with everything means
> accepting everything as it is, not expected everything
> to be what you or anybody else wants.
>
> am i being unclear? does anybody else understand, or
> not understand, where i'm coming from?

i know exactly where you are coming from.
i sensed the law of one could be taken as entitlement.
this is the source of my skepticisms of it.

what i wonder now is the sts simply those who chose to entitle themselves
and take that route?

service to others being the golden rule based kind consideration of others.

of course i have to admit most religious systems have been corrupted and
taken as entitlement as well.

fwiw,
jason wharton