11-24-2012, 12:06 PM
This is a concept which appears over and over again, in slightly different terms. It is the idea that there is some spiritual quality that, while not inherent to human beings, can be attained by them.
Jesus spoke of the disciple and the multitudes. Gurdjieff wrote of the difference between "Man Number 3" and "Man number 4". Dewey Larson wrote of the "ethical man". Ra speaks of those who are polarizing as compared to those in the "sinkhole of indifference." There are many different ideas around this.
But the basic notion is that human beings are inherently simply an intelligent animal. We must eventuate ourselves into possession of a "soul." I put that in quotes because, of course, there is no clear definition of what that is. But the general idea is that "something" outside of space/time can be acquired by human beings which confers to them a conscience and a sense of ethical behavior. Something which causes them to turn away from a purely survival/reproduction based existence, to something more.
Certainly, if we take a brief look around us, there is no shortage of empirical evidence to support such a claim. There is no doubt a "mass" of people who appear to operate with little regard for ethics and who do not appear to be guided by any sort of sense of conscience.
As I previously mentioned, throughout history this idea has presented itself multiple times. And yet, it would appear that in every case it is either marginalized and ignored, or outright quashed with a swift vehemence. But perhaps there is good reason for this.
We know from the Ra Material that whatever information was given to humanity by 6th density beings was misused in order to foster a sense of eliteness or a "Chosen People". The distortion seems to be that some people are just "born" as spiritual beings, and others have no such potential. In other words, they cannot acquire a "soul" even if they wanted to. Or perhaps, they are so far away from acquiring one that it could not possibly be done in their current incarnation. This has been a recurrent problem throughout history, as it has been used to justify inhumane acts, genocide, slavery, and all-around derisive attitudes toward the masses.
The primary thrust of the distortion seems to be that "ethical beings" need only act ethically toward other "ethical beings." Thus the masses of people can- and SHOULD- be treated like sheep or cattle. Basically enslaved for the "greater good" and even for their own good. To do otherwise would be folly.
I have to admit- there is some decent logic to this. The flip side of history is seeing what happens when certain "rights and liberties" are granted to people that have high levels of intelligence- or cleverness- but basically have no sense of ethics or conscience. The proverbial "Wall Street banker" would be an example of this- although of course there are ethical people in the banking industry too.
But generally speaking, I think a fair case can be made that in modern day America, our hard-won battle for self-determination apart from bondage to the "royal elite" has been largely undermined by virtual enslavement to the "corporatocracy" ruled by highly intelligent, yet ethically stunted, people. In many ways, this is an "out of the frying pan and into the fire" scenario.
Anyway, the question is this. If these people are right in that there are two basic classes of humans- those who have eventuated a conscience and those who have not- what would be the appropriate way to structure a society that actually acknowledges this, while avoiding the "STS" pitfall of elitism and slavery?
If this is the case, then there certainly must be civilizations out there that have come up with a viable solution. I wonder what those solutions might be...
Jesus spoke of the disciple and the multitudes. Gurdjieff wrote of the difference between "Man Number 3" and "Man number 4". Dewey Larson wrote of the "ethical man". Ra speaks of those who are polarizing as compared to those in the "sinkhole of indifference." There are many different ideas around this.
But the basic notion is that human beings are inherently simply an intelligent animal. We must eventuate ourselves into possession of a "soul." I put that in quotes because, of course, there is no clear definition of what that is. But the general idea is that "something" outside of space/time can be acquired by human beings which confers to them a conscience and a sense of ethical behavior. Something which causes them to turn away from a purely survival/reproduction based existence, to something more.
Certainly, if we take a brief look around us, there is no shortage of empirical evidence to support such a claim. There is no doubt a "mass" of people who appear to operate with little regard for ethics and who do not appear to be guided by any sort of sense of conscience.
As I previously mentioned, throughout history this idea has presented itself multiple times. And yet, it would appear that in every case it is either marginalized and ignored, or outright quashed with a swift vehemence. But perhaps there is good reason for this.
We know from the Ra Material that whatever information was given to humanity by 6th density beings was misused in order to foster a sense of eliteness or a "Chosen People". The distortion seems to be that some people are just "born" as spiritual beings, and others have no such potential. In other words, they cannot acquire a "soul" even if they wanted to. Or perhaps, they are so far away from acquiring one that it could not possibly be done in their current incarnation. This has been a recurrent problem throughout history, as it has been used to justify inhumane acts, genocide, slavery, and all-around derisive attitudes toward the masses.
The primary thrust of the distortion seems to be that "ethical beings" need only act ethically toward other "ethical beings." Thus the masses of people can- and SHOULD- be treated like sheep or cattle. Basically enslaved for the "greater good" and even for their own good. To do otherwise would be folly.
I have to admit- there is some decent logic to this. The flip side of history is seeing what happens when certain "rights and liberties" are granted to people that have high levels of intelligence- or cleverness- but basically have no sense of ethics or conscience. The proverbial "Wall Street banker" would be an example of this- although of course there are ethical people in the banking industry too.
But generally speaking, I think a fair case can be made that in modern day America, our hard-won battle for self-determination apart from bondage to the "royal elite" has been largely undermined by virtual enslavement to the "corporatocracy" ruled by highly intelligent, yet ethically stunted, people. In many ways, this is an "out of the frying pan and into the fire" scenario.
Anyway, the question is this. If these people are right in that there are two basic classes of humans- those who have eventuated a conscience and those who have not- what would be the appropriate way to structure a society that actually acknowledges this, while avoiding the "STS" pitfall of elitism and slavery?
If this is the case, then there certainly must be civilizations out there that have come up with a viable solution. I wonder what those solutions might be...
