Morality and Confidence

A place for anything that doesn't fit into the existing forums

Morality and Confidence

Postby sloth » Sun Dec 06, 2015 2:07 am

I was reading an article recently by Mark Manson (a dating guru) debunking the so-called 'confidence conundrum' in which people who have not achieved anything are doomed to be unconfident because their lack of confidence prevents them from achieving while their lack of achievement stunts their confidence. This is a self-perpetuating cycle and the other side of the coin is that confident people will always be confident because they have their material ambitions to prop their spirits. In the same article, Manson explains that this is false for two major reasons (both fairly obvious):

1. People that have achieved are not always confident in what they have achieved - maybe because they want to achieve more, or maybe because they dislike themselves for other reasons.

2. People that have not achieved can still be confident in themselves: not achieving does not make you a bad person, and there is always the opportunity to improve upon your progress, even if the journey has been bumpy so far.

http://markmanson.net/confidence

I will explain this the best I can, using the language of spirituality. In such terms, these reasons can be explained as follows:

1. Material prowess can be a hurdle to enlightenment if the individual becomes attached to their achievements and defines themselves by what they have in the external world. This false-identification feeds ego.

2. What we do not possess cannot change who we are: consciousness does not change, and it is still possible to realise self even when ambition has not been obtained.

I find it quite believable that a person's achievements and materiality have very little to do with confidence. But reading this article got me thinking about something else:

- Morality

We are socially conditioned to adhere to a set of pre-defined rules and principles. Sometimes we do not agree with these principles and sometimes they do not make any sense. But on the whole, it is a good thing that they exist. If they did not, men would do despicable things to one another. Most humans have empathy for one another, it is a survival instinct. If we act in a way that compromises or violates our values then we feel bad about ourself - it is perfectly natural. Sometimes, therefore, when we do do a bad thing, we rationalise it to ourselves, trivialise the event, make it seem like it was not such a big deal. This is ego. And this is how we lose touch with the truth of reality - consciousness.

So, if in the process of self-realisation - moving away from the social construct that is 'ego' and moving towards consciousness, could morality provide a far greater obstacle than material possession in realising the truth of who we actually are? If we get to a stage in which we unearth truths about ourselves that are too great to stomach, violations of ethical codes that make us feel nauseous, actions performed that are unredeemable - is it true that our history could destroy the individual psychologically, spiritually and morally before he has a chance to uncover the still and calm beneath the quagmire of false beliefs and ego-identification that is his past?
User avatar
sloth
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:12 pm

Re: Morality and Confidence

Postby the key master » Sun Dec 06, 2015 11:49 pm

sloth wrote:So, if in the process of self-realisation - moving away from the social construct that is 'ego' and moving towards consciousness, could morality provide a far greater obstacle than material possession in realising the truth of who we actually are? If we get to a stage in which we unearth truths about ourselves that are too great to stomach, violations of ethical codes that make us feel nauseous, actions performed that are unredeemable - is it true that our history could destroy the individual psychologically, spiritually and morally before he has a chance to uncover the still and calm beneath the quagmire of false beliefs and ego-identification that is his past?


I'm not sure what you mean by moving towards consciousness. Movement happens in space and time. The spatial framework makes consciousness seem localized, but it is an idea generated from outside the framework of space. You don't create the idea of space from within space, which means you literally are not in time and space, and you literally can't move toward or away from consciousness.
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Morality and Confidence

Postby sloth » Mon Dec 07, 2015 2:29 am

the key master wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by moving towards consciousness. Movement happens in space and time.


Well, I do not have much experience with it so that could be why it does not make much sense. Perhaps the following is a better way of phrasing it:

'if in the process of self-realisation - moving away from the social construct that is 'ego' which obfuscate and prevent us from realising our true nature (consciousness).'

(rather than what I had put down initially which was: if in the process of self-realisation - moving away from the social construct that is 'ego' and moving towards consciousness).

The spatial framework makes consciousness seem localized, but it is an idea generated from outside the framework of space.


Another poster on here once told me that consciousness is not an idea or, more specifically, that it is not a concept (which is the same, or similar to an idea).
User avatar
sloth
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:12 pm

Re: Morality and Confidence

Postby the key master » Mon Dec 07, 2015 3:57 am

sloth wrote:
the key master wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by moving towards consciousness. Movement happens in space and time.


Well, I do not have much experience with it so that could be why it does not make much sense. Perhaps the following is a better way of phrasing it:

'if in the process of self-realisation - moving away from the social construct that is 'ego' which obfuscate and prevent us from realising our true nature (consciousness).'

(rather than what I had put down initially which was: if in the process of self-realisation - moving away from the social construct that is 'ego' and moving towards consciousness).

The spatial framework makes consciousness seem localized, but it is an idea generated from outside the framework of space.


Another poster on here once told me that consciousness is not an idea or, more specifically, that it is not a concept (which is the same, or similar to an idea).


Ideas are generated by consciousness of a person with an apparent ability to think of itself as a separate volitional being. Seeing that there is no separate volitional being is what realization is, and this has nothing to do with moving away from or towards ego. Talking about the effects of realization on the personal experience is something I nonetheless do, and I don't mind speaking about that as a conscious person or a more conscious mind or whatever. I was just making sure we were on the same page with regard to what consciousness is.

From the perspective of greater consciousness what we imagine as good and bad are components to how we function, think, and interact. We can differentiate between moral beliefs and the human ability for empathy without the need for code of conduct. Questioning beliefs held together by compartmentalized energy (see my other post in other thread) can lead to the expression of energy which is holding those beliefs together, which can be experienced as the absence of the constriction which takes place when folks need to defend their beliefs. And yes, morality and why folks believe what they do and how they project shame and guilt to create an artificial sense of superiority to compensate for the fact that the ego ship is taking on water and sinking fast is what that's all about.
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Morality and Confidence

Postby sloth » Mon Dec 07, 2015 6:08 am

the key master wrote:Ideas are generated by consciousness of a person with an apparent ability to think of itself as a separate volitional being. Seeing that there is no separate volitional being is what realization is, and this has nothing to do with moving away from or towards ego.


How about, 'understanding and resolving the inner-contradictions the ego has generated or that consciousness has generated in creating the ego - the illusion of separateness'.

Talking about the effects of realization on the personal experience is something I nonetheless do, and I don't mind speaking about that as a conscious person or a more conscious mind or whatever.


Yes, this is the best way to describe how I see it coming from the perspective of the limited mind - enhancing personal experience by becoming closer to one's true nature. Talking about space and time seems to complicate things, I suppose that is why there is so much emphasis on the present moment, because this is the only thing that is real.

In the OP, I am going as far as to infer that staying in tune with consciousness seems to be the most correct or moral thing to do. Another perspective would be that actually it is more of a subjective thing that if you have an inner contradiction of values you might deviate from consciousness (then when you try to realign there might be some cognitive dissonance, the severity depending on the magnitude of the contradiction). A psychopath might have no inner contradiction of values simply because . Some people might be adept enough at rationalising to be ok with a breach of ethics while most people will go about their daily lives looking for excuses and justifications. I read in a book called Shantaram that the people with the most power are the people with zero regrets in life and personal experience has taught me that this is very true.

I was just making sure we were on the same page with regard to what consciousness is.


Well, in my life time, I have never been immersed in full-consciousness, so my definitions are likely to be inaccurate ... or verbally / technically correct perhaps but devoid of actual (personal) experience.

From the perspective of greater consciousness what we imagine as good and bad are components to how we function, think, and interact. We can differentiate between moral beliefs and the human ability for empathy without the need for code of conduct.


True, although code of conduct is important just because people tend to fear the consequences that come with a breach of societal norms. For me, accepting subjective morality was difficult because of the way I had attached emotional significance to the idea that some things were objectively wrong. It wasn't rule based so much as a matter of the heart. Most people dislike the idea because they like the idea of rules and are more comfortable with allegiance to a common goal. I believed that training my mind to accept subjective morality would free it from the constraints of the societal rules governing my actions but it did not. In fact, I have come to realise that rules are necessary for consciousness to take place because freedom of expression requires structure. Otherwise, you have anarchy and unless you have a very powerful imagination, there is no meaning in the chaos that ensues. Few people can stomach this level of cognitive dissonance (something I do have personal experience with but it is very hard for me to explain). I have wondered if you need to be a quintessential psychopath to function at such a level where all social constructs, norms and beliefs about morality are thrown out of the window.

Questioning beliefs held together by compartmentalized energy (see my other post in other thread) can lead to the expression of energy which is holding those beliefs together, which can be experienced as the absence of the constriction which takes place when folks need to defend their beliefs.


I think it is easy to see why people feel the need to defend a set of beliefs when they have lived by them most of their life. When you tell them everything they have believed in is wrong, they are left with a dilemma: either they rationalise in their minds everything you have told them and return to the way things were OR they must take a long, hard look at themselves and completely change their way of life. Neither choice is easy.
User avatar
sloth
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:12 pm

Re: Morality and Confidence

Postby the key master » Mon Dec 07, 2015 6:20 pm

In re realization, sloth said,

How about, 'understanding and resolving the inner-contradictions the ego has generated or that consciousness has generated in creating the ego - the illusion of separateness'.


That's fine and all, but I'm saying the inner conflicts are resolved through being conscious they are present, and then noticing resistance and self denial. Understanding stuff is mind turf. Realization is that consciousness is what you are, although I am aware that some folks use it in different contexts. You aren't a mind identified person unconscious of its limitless potential. You are consciousness from the get go, and there isn't anything you need to understand about being consciousness.

Yes, this is the best way to describe how I see it coming from the perspective of the limited mind - enhancing personal experience by becoming closer to one's true nature. Talking about space and time seems to complicate things, I suppose that is why there is so much emphasis on the present moment, because this is the only thing that is real.


Are you saying realizing you are not a person enhances the personal experience? If you're talking in terms of absences, I don't mind it. But if you're talking about blinged out mind states brought about through meditation or mind controlled silences, then we're talking about different things.

In the OP, I am going as far as to infer that staying in tune with consciousness seems to be the most correct or moral thing to do.


Ok, but consciousness cannot be out of tune with itself. You can be conscious that you are unconsciously identified as a mind, which may feel like being out of tune. Doing the correct or moral thing to get back in tune isn't necessary. Noticing is enough.

Another perspective would be that actually it is more of a subjective thing that if you have an inner contradiction of values you might deviate from consciousness (then when you try to realign there might be some cognitive dissonance, the severity depending on the magnitude of the contradiction).


I'm saying the idea that there is a deviation from consciousness is already evidence of a mind split against itself, which you seem to be calling an inner contradiction of value. You likewise seem to be implying that consciousness has one set of conscious or moral value and the mind can have another set that may run contrary to that. I'm saying what you value is based on your personal conditioning (mind turf), and that those values may well change as you become more conscious.

I read in a book called Shantaram that the people with the most power are the people with zero regrets in life and personal experience has taught me that this is very true.


Well if you have zero regrets, guilt and shame manipulation cannot be used against you. At the same time, I'm sure there are lots of so called powerful politicians, athletes, and world leaders with heaps of regrets that they are totally blind to. These folks don't have power, they just make really good hand puppets for the banks and corporations.

Well, in my life time, I have never been immersed in full-consciousness, so my definitions are likely to be inaccurate ... or verbally / technically correct perhaps but devoid of actual (personal) experience.


Full consciousness is totally aware of a person saying it has never been immersed in full consciousness. You don't need a personal experience of that. You are that full consciousness.

True, although code of conduct is important just because people tend to fear the consequences that come with a breach of societal norms. For me, accepting subjective morality was difficult because of the way I had attached emotional significance to the idea that some things were objectively wrong. It wasn't rule based so much as a matter of the heart. Most people dislike the idea because they like the idea of rules and are more comfortable with allegiance to a common goal.


Most people think things that make them feel bad are objectively wrong, and they denounce others who do these things because they don't like to feel bad. That can be as much a matter of heart as much as a desire to remain unconscious.

In fact, I have come to realise that rules are necessary for consciousness to take place because freedom of expression requires structure.


Consciousness doesn't take place. Experience takes place in consciousness. There are rules and laws we can make up to describe how that experience unfolds. The rules aren't necessary for the unfolding though.

I think it is easy to see why people feel the need to defend a set of beliefs when they have lived by them most of their life. When you tell them everything they have believed in is wrong, they are left with a dilemma: either they rationalise in their minds everything you have told them and return to the way things were OR they must take a long, hard look at themselves and completely change their way of life. Neither choice is easy.


Well, I agree that questioning and seeing through beliefs can lead to radical changes to your way of life. This change isn't a co-requisite of seeing through the beliefs, however.
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Morality and Confidence

Postby sloth » Mon Dec 07, 2015 10:32 pm

the key master wrote:That's fine and all, but I'm saying the inner conflicts are resolved through being conscious they are present, and then noticing resistance and self denial.


Ok, so enhanced consciousness leads to the resolution of mental rationalisation / ego rather than the other way round (solving inner conflicts leading to consciousness). this would make sense. the issue then is resistance as you have rightfully pointed out, because embracing consciousness sometimes means making difficult decisions that one does not want to make, or accepting painful truths about oneself that one does not want to know about. I think I am at this stage because there are decisions that I want to postpone until I am more ready to make them but at the same time, I want to be more conscious, or as conscious as possible without being plunged into the deep end.

You are consciousness from the get go, and there isn't anything you need to understand about being consciousness.


I realise that many people say this but then it makes me wonder why they mention consciousness in the first place - why we pay to go to meditation classes and why we buy books about spirituality and buddhism, if we already have what they are talking about. It is like paying to breath air or drink water. From my perspective of having a limited mind, I think that the reason is because of the benefits that consciousness can bring. I realise you will have issues with my choice of vocabulary: 'having a limited mind', 'reason', 'benefits' - but I have a purpose in saying this. The purpose is to elucidate the fact that we talk about 'consciousness' and 'meditation' because we want to enhance the human experience of life, to get everything that this world has to offer. This brings up a separate question as to whether there are 'levels' of consciousness or whether you simply are or are not conscious. I guess you might say, 'well we breathe, so why talk about breathing if everyone already knows how to do it' and I suppose the answer would always be focussed on technicals, e.g. 'address physiological issues regarding the aerobic or cardiovascular system / increase lung capacity / explore the therapeutic benefits of deeper breathing'. The problem with this answer is that practitioners of buddhism and spirituality always preach that there is no point in meditation: it is not about the benefits of meditation but the point is in meditation itself. People who do not analyse things have no problem accepting this but my mind is too stubborn in its ways: 'if there is no point, then why do it' is all I can hear. I don't know, like I say, I come from a limited perspective knowing how to walk but not knowing how to run, so I could see why none of this makes sense.

Yes, this is the best way to describe how I see it coming from the perspective of the limited mind - enhancing personal experience by becoming closer to one's true nature. Talking about space and time seems to complicate things, I suppose that is why there is so much emphasis on the present moment, because this is the only thing that is real.


Are you saying realizing you are not a person enhances the personal experience? If you're talking in terms of absences, I don't mind it. But if you're talking about blinged out mind states brought about through meditation or mind controlled silences, then we're talking about different things.

Doing the correct or moral thing to get back in tune isn't necessary. Noticing is enough.


But could an inner conflict of values lead to cognitive dissonance - the severity depending upon the magnitude of the conflict? For example, if you were to make Hitler fully conscious of what he had done, would it destroy him psychologically (assuming Hitler had a normal facility for human empathy although this is quite probably not the case). When Hitler knew he was losing the war this drove him to suicide, perhaps out of fear for what the ally would do to him, or perhaps he had a spiritual epiphany when he was forced into the deep abyss of human consciousness telling him that he was an evil soul and destined to an eternity of the worst suffering imaginable.

Another perspective would be that actually it is more of a subjective thing that if you have an inner contradiction of values you might deviate from consciousness (then when you try to realign there might be some cognitive dissonance, the severity depending on the magnitude of the contradiction).


I'm saying the idea that there is a deviation from consciousness is already evidence of a mind split against itself, which you seem to be calling an inner contradiction of value. You likewise seem to be implying that consciousness has one set of conscious or moral value and the mind can have another set that may run contrary to that. I'm saying what you value is based on your personal conditioning (mind turf), and that those values may well change as you become more conscious.

Well if you have zero regrets, guilt and shame manipulation cannot be used against you. At the same time, I'm sure there are lots of so called powerful politicians, athletes, and world leaders with heaps of regrets that they are totally blind to. These folks don't have power, they just make really good hand puppets for the banks and corporations.


Of course, being unaware of the problem does not mean the problem does not exist, in fact it makes you more easy to manipulate. I am aware of at least some of my issues, for me it is a question of time and patience to resolve them. I envy the people with no regrets whatsoever. Once I have resolved the past, in the future I could potentially be like that but it is not the present.

Full consciousness is totally aware of a person saying it has never been immersed in full consciousness. You don't need a personal experience of that. You are that full consciousness.


Ok, so why would full consciousness say such a thing unless it has been immersed in rationalisations and the false illusion that it is not full consciousness?

Most people think things that make them feel bad are objectively wrong, and they denounce others who do these things because they don't like to feel bad. That can be as much a matter of heart as much as a desire to remain unconscious.


Yes and we have a dilemma because people need to believe such things and agree upon such things in order for there to be an allegiance towards a common goal. But objectively, they are not correct that their morals are objective and suppressing the moral beliefs of the minority can victimise the free flow of expression and in itself be considered 'wrong'. But yet, it is necessary to do this for there to be an agreed upon social order.

Consciousness doesn't take place. Experience takes place in consciousness. There are rules and laws we can make up to describe how that experience unfolds. The rules aren't necessary for the unfolding though.


If experience takes place in consciousness and we are all a part of this same consciousness, how come we are only aware of our own personal experiences and not aware of the sum-total of all experiences taking place within consciousness (aka the universe). All I can see as of now is the laptop in front of me.

Also, the rules and laws seem to be effective in manipulating how experience unfolds if not controlling it. For example, the law that it is illegal to stab somebody is influences my personal experience of going about my daily routine without being stabbed, even though it is theoretically possible for somebody to stab me in spite of that law (e.g. if they thought they could get away with it, or if they just didn't care what happened to themselves as a result of stabbing me). But for the most part, rules, customs and traditions seem to have a strong impact on the collective societal unfolding of experience - they just do not directly control it (which is good because we can never trust the oligarchs to control the societal unfolding of experience selflessly). Some might say that God controls the collective universal of experience but then, one would wonder why there is so much evil and chaos in the world. I tried to conceive of a situation in which evil is totally eradicated, but I believe evil would spontaneously arise because of the naivety and curiosity of pure goodness - an opening of Pandora's box. And then, the naively good will of the universe would not know how to control the sporadic outburst of evil and so it would become consumed totally by hatred and bitter. This is why, the only way for the universe to deal with evil is to allow it's existence but keep it contained. If there was a God, I wonder if it would be theoretically possible to prevent it's return completely.

All of this sounds very naive, childish and unscientific - many stories of good, evil, God and the universe. But perhaps it could make one wonder about the human condition in general and whether it is possible that this is how the human mind deals with evil, by containing it.

Well, I agree that questioning and seeing through beliefs can lead to radical changes to your way of life. This change isn't a co-requisite of seeing through the beliefs, however.


I am wondering if the questioning forces you to see the need for radical changes but you do not have the courage, strength or wisdom to enact these changes if this could cause an extreme cognitive dissonance.
User avatar
sloth
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:12 pm

Re: Morality and Confidence

Postby the key master » Tue Dec 08, 2015 3:38 am

sloth,
Ok, so enhanced consciousness leads to the resolution of mental rationalisation / ego rather than the other way round (solving inner conflicts leading to consciousness). this would make sense. the issue then is resistance as you have rightfully pointed out, because embracing consciousness sometimes means making difficult decisions that one does not want to make, or accepting painful truths about oneself that one does not want to know about. I think I am at this stage because there are decisions that I want to postpone until I am more ready to make them but at the same time, I want to be more conscious, or as conscious as possible without being plunged into the deep end.


A bit of a conundrum. Regardless, I appreciate the focus and intent, wanting to be more conscious, but the dynamics of compartmentalization can cause your mind to unconsciously want to be more conscious, meaning greater consciousness isn't what's wanted (how could one want what one is?), but a mind state where the mind isn't bothering itself. Take a look at why you want to postpone these decisions. Do you notice any fear?

I realise that many people say this but then it makes me wonder why they mention consciousness in the first place -


To point away from identification with the mind.

why we pay to go to meditation classes and why we buy books about spirituality and buddhism, if we already have what they are talking about. It is like paying to breath air or drink water. From my perspective of having a limited mind, I think that the reason is because of the benefits that consciousness can bring. I realise you will have issues with my choice of vocabulary: 'having a limited mind', 'reason', 'benefits' - but I have a purpose in saying this. The purpose is to elucidate the fact that we talk about 'consciousness' and 'meditation' because we want to enhance the human experience of life, to get everything that this world has to offer. This brings up a separate question as to whether there are 'levels' of consciousness or whether you simply are or are not conscious.


From the perspective of a person having a limited mind, you have to worry about all the personal baggage that comes with being separate. From the perspective of consciousness taking the form of a mind that cannot limit consciousness in any way, you are free to explore creation as a unique expression of yourself. The question is how do you move from one perspective into the other? The answer is to see through the boundaries of the personal perspective, which just so happens to be the person itself.

Consciousness enters creation by touching your mind, and your mind functions in a logical fashion according to your personal experience. What thinking appears to is prior to the appearance of thinking, such that you cannot be a mind which is thinking but must be what is conscious of those thoughts.

As far as levels of consciousness go, I don't use it. People function according to various levels of consciousness, and what level they are at depends on what degree of self denial they are in. Seeing through that self is not a level of consciousness. The self is the levels, and it's also the problem when it comes to the suffering associated with identification.

The problem with this answer is that practitioners of buddhism and spirituality always preach that there is no point in meditation: it is not about the benefits of meditation but the point is in meditation itself. People who do not analyse things have no problem accepting this but my mind is too stubborn in its ways: 'if there is no point, then why do it' is all I can hear. I don't know, like I say, I come from a limited perspective knowing how to walk but not knowing how to run, so I could see why none of this makes sense.


I wouldn't say there is no point to meditation. I spent two years in unity consciousness brought about through a split mind practice where I completely disassociated from the idea of being a person. Then I saw the entire practice was grounded in self denial and energetic avoidance, which eventually caused an inability to reconnect with the world in a meaningful way. It was Jung who said that man cannot stand a meaningless life. That's when I went compartment hunting, which reconnected my emotional body with the break caused not by the split mind practice, but the split mind thinking and feeling I'd already been doing for practically my entire life.

But could an inner conflict of values lead to cognitive dissonance - the severity depending upon the magnitude of the conflict? For example, if you were to make Hitler fully conscious of what he had done, would it destroy him psychologically (assuming Hitler had a normal facility for human empathy although this is quite probably not the case). When Hitler knew he was losing the war this drove him to suicide, perhaps out of fear for what the ally would do to him, or perhaps he had a spiritual epiphany when he was forced into the deep abyss of human consciousness telling him that he was an evil soul and destined to an eternity of the worst suffering imaginable.


I don't think the inner conflict of values leads to cognitive dissonance, but is experienced as cognitive dissonance. Split mind desires with moral under tones embody this beautifully. Take a look at any addiction, for example.

As far as Hitler goes, obviously his capacity for normal human empathy was not all there. I'm sure Hitler was conscious of what he'd done to a certain extent. I think he was completely unconscious as to why he did what he did, which likely played into his decision to commit suicide as the genocide he was responsible for.

If experience takes place in consciousness and we are all a part of this same consciousness, how come we are only aware of our own personal experiences and not aware of the sum-total of all experiences taking place within consciousness (aka the universe). All I can see as of now is the laptop in front of me.


All the person sees is the laptop. Consciousness sees the person seeing the laptop.

Also, the rules and laws seem to be effective in manipulating how experience unfolds if not controlling it. For example, the law that it is illegal to stab somebody is influences my personal experience of going about my daily routine without being stabbed, even though it is theoretically possible for somebody to stab me in spite of that law (e.g. if they thought they could get away with it, or if they just didn't care what happened to themselves as a result of stabbing me). But for the most part, rules, customs and traditions seem to have a strong impact on the collective societal unfolding of experience - they just do not directly control it (which is good because we can never trust the oligarchs to control the societal unfolding of experience selflessly). Some might say that God controls the collective universal of experience but then, one would wonder why there is so much evil and chaos in the world. I tried to conceive of a situation in which evil is totally eradicated, but I believe evil would spontaneously arise because of the naivety and curiosity of pure goodness - an opening of Pandora's box. And then, the naively good will of the universe would not know how to control the sporadic outburst of evil and so it would become consumed totally by hatred and bitter. This is why, the only way for the universe to deal with evil is to allow it's existence but keep it contained. If there was a God, I wonder if it would be theoretically possible to prevent it's return completely.


Hitler did what he did because he thought it was a good idea. Understanding why he thought it was a good idea would require a level of consciousness that isn't common. How often have things in life which you thought were bad turned out to be good? Does time heal all wounds? Is anything only good from every possible perspective? Becoming more conscious is not separate from a movement toward a more empathic world. It just isn't a morality equation.

I am wondering if the questioning forces you to see the need for radical changes but you do not have the courage, strength or wisdom to enact these changes if this could cause an extreme cognitive dissonance.


I think the need for radical change can be a projection of the unconscious desire to disassociate from the person. Being conscious of that can lead to resolution of the dissonance, which might involve some spiritual work for the person.
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest