01-26-2010, 12:30 AM
Chett, the service-to-others path is about respecting each entity's right to choose their own path, inviting them to participate, and respecting if they choose something different. The service-to-self path involves using others as disposable resources, whether or not they would prefer something else.
In the case you described, this is violence that the victim explicitly says they don't want to be subjected to. They didn't ask for the violence, didn't initiate it, it is not any kind of self-defense.
In this scenario, the perpetrator is following a negative STS path of using the victim as a disposable resource for the perp's increase of self-power, at the expense of the victim.
For you to interfere and, if you can, interrupt that violence, is an STO action. It's respecting the right of the victim to prefer to not be victimized.
It does reduce the opportunity of the perp to accumulate more power. But it does this by respecting that the perp's desire to wield power and cause harm is no more important than the victim's desire to have their own power of their own life and to not be harmed. The implicit claim is that nobody's right of self-determination is important enough to override another's right of self-determination. The moral issue you mention is that self-determination does not include the right to determine for others that they have to give up their own self-determination.
If you leave without interfering (assuming you could have done something), then you are tacitly endorsing the perp's premise that their own desire to be violently powerful is more important than the victim's desire for peaceful self-determination. This is not just controlling yourself, it's accepting the perp's decision that the victim does not have the right to their own decisions.
Does this clarify?
By the way I'm going to ask the mods for this to be moved to the "Life on planet earth" forum, since we aren't exploring particular channeled passages from the L/L Research material.
In the case you described, this is violence that the victim explicitly says they don't want to be subjected to. They didn't ask for the violence, didn't initiate it, it is not any kind of self-defense.
In this scenario, the perpetrator is following a negative STS path of using the victim as a disposable resource for the perp's increase of self-power, at the expense of the victim.
For you to interfere and, if you can, interrupt that violence, is an STO action. It's respecting the right of the victim to prefer to not be victimized.
It does reduce the opportunity of the perp to accumulate more power. But it does this by respecting that the perp's desire to wield power and cause harm is no more important than the victim's desire to have their own power of their own life and to not be harmed. The implicit claim is that nobody's right of self-determination is important enough to override another's right of self-determination. The moral issue you mention is that self-determination does not include the right to determine for others that they have to give up their own self-determination.
If you leave without interfering (assuming you could have done something), then you are tacitly endorsing the perp's premise that their own desire to be violently powerful is more important than the victim's desire for peaceful self-determination. This is not just controlling yourself, it's accepting the perp's decision that the victim does not have the right to their own decisions.
Does this clarify?
By the way I'm going to ask the mods for this to be moved to the "Life on planet earth" forum, since we aren't exploring particular channeled passages from the L/L Research material.