Bring4th

Conscience is one of those words that seems to have fallen out of favor, much like honor, chivalry, and obedience.

I mean, when was the last time you used the word 'conscience' in a conversation, a post, or in your thoughts? I know that it's not part of my active vocabulary in any way (today being a grand exception).

so does 'conscience' have any applicability in the mind? as a thing of independence? or was it just a construct used to encourage some sort of societal compliance, in a quasi religious sense, along with the constructs of 'guilt' and 'shame'.

or does conscience have its effects, and we don't register it by its name anymore; sort of like intuitive biases that present themselves when we might consider making an act of separation, but biases (intuitive) from former experiences (ie past lives) register strongly that this would be an inappropriate act given our past choices and leanings in the other direction.

what do you think the conscience is?

I know conscience does not always lead us to do good stuff. It's been said let your conscience be your guide, but you have to use common sense sometimes.

(05-05-2014, 03:45 PM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: [ -> ]what do you think the conscience is?

An opportunity to be honest, when honesty is not forthcoming.

I'd say conscience is a barometer that notifies one when they stray off their chosen polarity path. Not to be confused with impulses, programmed guilt due to indoctrination, or even higher guidance. Only by clearing indoctrination programming can the conscience be liberated.

Perhaps it's the voice of the spirit

Jiminy Cricket

Those last two images are right. Sometimes I feel we have a bad conscience.
But sometimes it seems right at the time.
I don't know if negative entities can pose as our conscience at times.

Good conscience I liken to intuition.

Sometimes the choice between good and bad is not that clear cut.

(05-06-2014, 12:15 AM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]Only by clearing indoctrination programming can the conscience be liberated.

That's easier said than done. I still have mental battles between whether to follow Jesus or the Ra Material. And the Ra Material tends to win out. It just a more fantastic story. I don't think that God is angry with us. He loves the experience we bring him.

It is an idea of an inner guide. Ideally is our Higher Self, which is our own actual intelligence without distortion translated as a dynamic, living thought-form. However, it is possible that we may mistake other influence within ourselves as the conscience if we are strictly defining the conscience as something which is attempting to positively inform oneself, whether simply you informing yourself or some other guide. I guess it could be considered a branch of intuition.

---

(05-06-2014, 12:41 PM)Gemini Wolf Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-06-2014, 12:15 AM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]Only by clearing indoctrination programming can the conscience be liberated.

That's easier said than done. I still have mental battles between whether to follow Jesus or the Ra Material. And the Ra Material tends to win out. It just a more fantastic story. I don't think that God is angry with us. He loves the experience we bring him.

Why not both?

Also do you mean Jesus, or the Bible?

I think the entire complex - m/b/s - is utilized. From our prefrontal cortex which physically helps us to weight options and make decisions, our thinking function of mind, social mind which we probably tap into to make decision, and so forth. Conscience is about utilizing life experience and knowing what is valuable when engaging in some action. So to me it's about morality - what is right and wrong, which is basically what we value and what we believe and think about things. During our lifespan we do develop our capacity to make decisions (e.g., Kohlberg's moral development theory) but it's about experience and socialization or norms, mores, values, (i.e., different distortions).

(05-07-2014, 02:53 AM)Tanner Wrote: [ -> ]Also do you mean Jesus, or the Bible?

I meant the Bible. Jesus was a great example of love. I thought that God would judge me for the things I did, both good and bad.

But I understand that we judge ourselves.

(05-07-2014, 02:09 PM)Gemini Wolf Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-07-2014, 02:53 AM)Tanner Wrote: [ -> ]Also do you mean Jesus, or the Bible?

I meant the Bible. Jesus was a great example of love. I thought that God would judge me for the things I did, both good and bad.

But I understand that we judge ourselves.

:idea: If you just follow Jesus, and forget about both the Ra Material and the Bible, you should be fine.

(By 'Jesus' I mean love/peace/compassion/forgiveness, NOT the bible stuff.)

(05-07-2014, 03:11 AM)reeay Wrote: [ -> ]I think the entire complex - m/b/s - is utilized. From our prefrontal cortex which physically helps us to weight options and make decisions, our thinking function of mind, social mind which we probably tap into to make decision, and so forth. Conscience is about utilizing life experience and knowing what is valuable when engaging in some action. So to me it's about morality - what is right and wrong, which is basically what we value and what we believe and think about things. During our lifespan we do develop our capacity to make decisions (e.g., Kohlberg's moral development theory) but it's about experience and socialization or norms, mores, values, (i.e., different distortions).

Our relationship to our experience changes as we begin to accept what is offered by the lower centers. When honesty is forthcoming, there is no "conscience" because the decision offered by circumstance is apparent and instantaneous, there is no opportunity for "regret" at that level of congruency of mind. When there is a suggestion to consider something, like a dilemma or confusion, then you know that something is not yet integrated and there's a lesson to learn.

(05-07-2014, 03:11 AM)reeay Wrote: [ -> ].... (e.g., Kohlberg's moral development theory)...

Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)

1. Obedience and punishment orientation

(How can I avoid punishment?)

2. Self-interest orientation

(What's in it for me?)
(Paying for a benefit)

Level 2 (Conventional)

3. Interpersonal accord and conformity

(Social norms)
(The good boy/girl attitude)

4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation

(Law and order morality)

Level 3 (Post-Conventional)

5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles

(Principled conscience)

Adonai: What point do you want to convey w/ your bolded phrases?

I think punitive and conditional measures (aka justice) as a moral system is pretty archaic, especially with an absolute premise of general social contract theory.

And "universal" ethical principles? Ha, it seems analytic philosophy is still stuck in its academic bubble.

We clear those restrictive stages as we gain life experience and able to know what to do, to make decisions or to make choices. Eventually we mature to the point wher we can question, to have our own unique perspective. We can work with those 'grey areas' and not act upon fear of being punished or what society or rules say is right (post-conventional). What is archaic about that? It means we have the capacity to think for ourselves and incorporate our experience to inform our choices. What do you think those last 2 stages in post conventional means?

I do not believe the restrictions to the level we have now are necessary nor form an ethical system. They teach people to fear "doing wrong" and get away with actual harm when the system is not looking. Everyone in your chart goes though the fear. The victors just become people in denial who believe they are ethical, cite laws and when they are not suitable, honor as a concept goes out the window like with most politicians and high level government workers who form the laws themselves.

A social contract theory and "universal ethics" depend on the same system in practice.

A conviction and absolute attachment to any code or desire will cause suffering.

---

The Level 2 and Level 3 are a farce that is Level 1 in disguise. It is just the self-denial is complete in the later phases and then spreads to newborn children in a complete circle.

Why does fear not work from the onset? Because it teaches to make others comply through fear and support existing fear. Unconditional love should be the very first foundation, in my opinion. To let go of this, we need to let go of conditional structures in the first place gradually.

There are really great ways to bring up kids without using fear tactics or even punishment (e.g., giving children consequences). What you are thinking is some oppressive and 'authoritarian' tendencies which is not what this theory is about. You can have 'authoritative' parents who guide their children with love and rules. When the kids are able to increasingly think for themselves, parents begin to back off and let them make their choices. They can then grow up to make decisions based on their internal compass rather than what society or what their religion or new age channeled entity or whoever told them is the 'right way' to think. I think perhaps you might benefit from reading more closely on the topic of post-conventional stages.

I was wondering what you guys were going on about with your understanding of "Conscience". Until I realized that I was reading that word in my primary language (French) where it means consciousness.

(05-08-2014, 05:39 PM)reeay Wrote: [ -> ]You can have 'authoritative'

What happened to authoritah

(05-08-2014, 06:47 PM)sunnysideup Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-08-2014, 05:39 PM)reeay Wrote: [ -> ]You can have 'authoritative'

What happened to authoritah

Authoritah=authoritarian lol thanks for bringing that up!

(05-08-2014, 05:39 PM)reeay Wrote: [ -> ]I think perhaps you might benefit from reading more closely on the topic of post-conventional stages.

I'm going to second that. Reading a little developmental psychology would do a lot to clear up confusion regarding "authority" and "knowledge" as well. Provides some context for the valuing systems used by different stages (Ra's "subdensities").

---

You'd think with all the interest in transpersonal states, "intelligent infinity", and what not, people would find the available work in the area created by people here. For some reason many people would rather choose to put their special "knowing" on a pedestal, basking in numinosity of infinitely vague and convenient apprehension. And not bother to learn about what these states are through transpersonal psychology - which does get into Ra's "adept" level vibratory thought - both in cognition and mysticism.

(05-08-2014, 05:39 PM)reeay Wrote: [ -> ]There are really great ways to bring up kids without using fear tactics or even punishment (e.g., giving children consequences). What you are thinking is some oppressive and 'authoritarian' tendencies which is not what this theory is about. You can have 'authoritative' parents who guide their children with love and rules. When the kids are able to increasingly think for themselves, parents begin to back off and let them make their choices. They can then grow up to make decisions based on their internal compass rather than what society or what their religion or new age channeled entity or whoever told them is the 'right way' to think. I think perhaps you might benefit from reading more closely on the topic of post-conventional stages.

A negation of one behavior leads to the negation of another. When does the chain end? When does it change from benevolence to authoritarian and vice-versa? When does the moderation of the authority begin and end? By what authority, by what decree? When is perfection attained? When will academia have an answer?

The answer is: Never. It hasn't ended for quite awhile and I have no hope in this system of thought. I await the day academia realizes that it is incapable of finding truth through this method of thought.

Every rule is a negation of something. An allowance of a thing is decreeing something is not allowed. It is all negations. Negation begets negation. This is not a way I will seek.

I know what social contract theory is, I know what moral absolutism is. It has no place in my life.

When moral knowingness is attained will we have the wisdom to know it or will we have an empty shell of a person whose every desire and belief has been denied by universal ethics backed by the social contract of the United States of Earth and the Academic Ministry of Psychology?

(05-08-2014, 09:29 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-08-2014, 05:39 PM)reeay Wrote: [ -> ]There are really great ways to bring up kids without using fear tactics or even punishment (e.g., giving children consequences). What you are thinking is some oppressive and 'authoritarian' tendencies which is not what this theory is about. You can have 'authoritative' parents who guide their children with love and rules. When the kids are able to increasingly think for themselves, parents begin to back off and let them make their choices. They can then grow up to make decisions based on their internal compass rather than what society or what their religion or new age channeled entity or whoever told them is the 'right way' to think. I think perhaps you might benefit from reading more closely on the topic of post-conventional stages.

A negation of one behavior leads to the negation of another. When does the chain end? When does it change from benevolence to authoritarian and vice-versa? When does the moderation of the authority begin and end? By what authority, by what decree? When is perfection attained? When will academia have an answer?

The answer is: Never. It hasn't ended for quite awhile and I have no hope in this system of thought. I await the day academia realizes that it is incapable of finding truth through this method of thought.

Every rule is a negation of something. An allowance of a thing is decreeing something is not allowed. It is all negations. Negation begets negation. This is not a way I will seek.

I know what social contract theory is, I know what moral absolutism is. It has no place in my life.

When moral knowingness is attained will we have the wisdom to know it or will we have an empty shell of a person whose every desire and belief has been denied by universal ethics backed by the social contract of the United States of Earth and the Academic Ministry of Psychology?

That sounds like a negation.

---

You are still creating rules for yourself.

Being aware of the rules allows you to simply become who you are in the present, ever-continuing moment.

Denying the rules and creating rules from said denials, tells you that you have to become who you are and that there is something to attain and negate further -- with no attainment in sight. What an illusion that is -- attainment.

One negation will always beget another. How larger do you want the latter to be? How much of this cycle can you bear? This is a question all polarities must answer.

The will negates. It exists by negation. Do you we accept the negation by seeing it for what it is? Or do we negate it and continue a greater mass of negation?

Laws create laws. Theories create theories. Rules create rules. How big do we want our rulebooks to be and do they serve us?

(05-08-2014, 09:44 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Being aware of the rules allows you to simply become who you are in the present, ever-continuing moment.

Denying the rules and creating rules from said denials, tells you that you have to become who you are and that there is something to attain and negate further -- with no attainment in sight. What an illusion that is -- attainment.

One negation will always beget another. How larger do you want the latter to be? How much of this cycle can you bear? This is a question all polarities must answer.

The will negates. It exists by negation. Do you we accept the negation by seeing it for what it is? Or do we negate it and continue a greater mass of negation?

Laws create laws. Theories create theories. Rules create rules. How big do we want our rulebooks to be and do they serve us?

I thought there are no rules except the ones we create ourselves?

Greatest good for greatest number of people has no place in your life? And so, if there is an understanding that we'd want to perpetuate harmony by agreeing that killing and harming someone is a violation of their human rights, that concept is not acceptable to you? Should we then have no human rights law bc it's moral absolutism - human rights like the right to access education, information, health care, fair and humane treatment of other selves?

I really like this quote from a buddhist text:
“Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.”

Go experience things for yourself and find out... This is kind of how post-conventional stage in moral & cognitive development works. Experience and figure it out for yourself without being so attached to conventions and what you've been taught is right/wrong or good/bad.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Buddhist_Philosophy/Sutra