04-10-2012, 12:21 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2012, 01:23 PM by Tenet Nosce.)
(04-09-2012, 08:52 PM)Pablísimo Wrote: But I wonder what will happen if I relax a little, or tire? What if I forget to preface an opinion with what I hope everyone takes as a given now -- that I am not judging others. That I have a strong opinion but realize that it is subjective? Will I be assailed by criticism if I should forget?
There's only one way to find out!
Pablísimo Wrote:I sincerely wonder about this. If I respect the rights of others to their own strong convictions and subjective views.... does that not also give me the right to believe that MY VIEWS are correct as well?
In my opinion, respecting the rights of others to disagree with you is what gives you the "green light" so to speak. It means that you believe that your views are correct... for you.
Not that I think it matters to you (nor should it), but I fully support your choice to be vegan. What I wouldn't support is a zealous promotion that veganism is the "one true way" to eat, from either a physical or a spiritual perspective. In my opinion, that is where one steps over the line from a strong conviction and subjective views, to fanaticism and absolutist views. I would see that as a type of spiritual violence, which undermines the foremost need for each entity to connect with their own internal guidance system.
Pablísimo Wrote:In a nutshell....so what if we all think we are right?
I think the difference has to do with how strongly one identifies with their beliefs. In my view- I am not my belief system. Thus- if you were to strongly criticize my beliefs- or my preferred methodology for promoting my beliefs- I wouldn't take that as a personal assault on my being-ness.
Moreover, I am secure enough in my beliefs that I am more than willing to have them directly assaulted, criticized, chopped up and dissected, and put through the wringer. Beyond this, were you able to handily dispatch one of my beliefs, or point out a glaring contradiction in them, rather than become angry and offended by this, I would actually be grateful and impressed!
Pablísimo Wrote:What's wrong with that?
Ultimately, nothing is "wrong" with it. However, there are certain consequences of self-righteousness, or strong identification with one's belief system, that I would advise you to be aware of. For example, here in third density this self-righteousness is at the root of many warlike and divisive behaviors.
In higher densities, I can only speculate from this perspective under the veil. However, I would imagine in fourth density self-righteousness is one of the top deterrents to the formation of a social memory complex, while in fifth density it would be directly depolarizing, as the lessons of wisdom must needs involve detachment from belief systems of all kinds.
Being students of the Law of One, I feel it is our honor/responsibility to incorporate a multi-density understanding of our experience here. Thus, beyond the consideration of "fourth density values", we each bear some responsibility to bring fifth, sixth, and seventh density values to bear upon a discussion, to whatever degree is possible.
Pablísimo Wrote:This is just further evidence to me that any "sides" are in our minds only. It's just Us here.
Yes, indeed. And I am delighted and refreshed to read these words. In my opinion, it is quite unfortunate and counterproductive to begin these types of conversations by drawing lines in the sand and deciding which "side" people are on.
Moreover, I find it mentally immature to automatically assume that there are only "two sides" to every issue... that sounds like 2D thinking to me. Here in 3D, there are at least as many "sides" as there are angles on an issue.
Pablísimo Wrote:Wow, Tenet, you sure can pack in some discussion points in a short space!
Thanks! This is what I would call "pointed questions" which are designed to get more directly to the crux of an issue. Unfortunately, if one strongly self-identifies with their belief system, this can be easily construed as a personal attack. However, I can reassure you, there is no attack on your person.
Pablísimo Wrote:To be honest, there are about 5 different multi-layered topics to go into.
You mean... it's not so simple as "black and white", "right and wrong", etc.?
Pablísimo Wrote:I guess to answer in the most direct general way, I'd say it would depend on the context and the specifics of that unique circumstance. I'd make the best judgement I could in that given moment, trying to take into account all relevant factors and act for the highest good of all, human, plant, and insect alike.
So, it sounds to me like what you are saying is that we cannot really separate our ideals from the context of our experience, and therefore there is really no way to know- for sure- what is really for the highest good of all. Would that be a fair restatement of your opinion?
Pablísimo Wrote:That this is yet another example, like most of the animal kingdom, of beings that are not playing out a polarity evolutionary exercise with choice as a central point upon which it turns.
This is a curious statement to me. If the animal kingdom is not playing out a polarity evolutionary exercise... then why would we humans draw the animals into our own polarity exercise? If 3D is where the polarity game is played, then what sense does it make to take the game to 2D entities? What then, would stop us there? Why not include 1D entities in the game as well?
Pablísimo Wrote:One of the greatest gifts, and responsibilities, of being a 3D human is to make ethical choices rather than be bound by dictates of physiology.
Ah... but if you were to stray too far outside of those physiological boundaries, there would be no more "3D human" to make ethical choices.
Quote:I have no conscious choice in what my immune system does to microbes, so I do not concern myself with this.
But you do. There is a whole field about this called mind/body medicine. For example, if your lungs were infected with microbes which cause pneumonia you could mentally direct your immune system to eradicate the bacteria using various creative visualization methods.
Pablísimo Wrote:It feels constructive.
Indeed.
Bring4th_Monica Wrote:One's subjective experiences can't be incorrect, true, but one's conclusions about another person's intention can indeed be incorrect.
For something to be classified as an attack, there must be the intention to attack.
I had no such intention. Therefore, your perception was simply wrong.
How do I know this? Because I know what my intention was. You do not.
I couldn't agree more.