Level of Consciousness

Level of Consciousness Forum Index
   Spiritual Discussions
  Truth vs. Falsehood

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users

 Register To Post

 Bottom   Previous Topic   Next Topic
« 1 2 3 (4) 5 6 7 »
  •  Rate Thread
      Rate this Thread
      Excellent
      Good
      Average
      Bad
      Terrible
Poster Thread Rated:  14 Votes
  •  
Re: Truth vs. Falsehood
#31
Guest_
Quote:
In my opinion patriotism some centuries ago or even several decades back could be considered as positive,(if at all) but today, I do not know.


alija, this question is asked in general and relating to the whole world. but it seems to be posed from the viewpoint of one social and cultural backround.

personally, as a german citizen, in this socialisation i had never experienced patriotism in a positive way. i had never learned to see differences between patriotism and nationalism. i assume that a lot of people do not see the worthwhile and meritorious things when they are used to, and especially in germany a lot of those who do, watch out to express their opinions (in a patriotic context) because the german superego is still punishing and demands remorse from them. So that's why the nationalistic forms of expression seemed particularly apparent.

some years ago, when i lived in nepal for a while, i experienced patriotism in a healthy, unifying and forward-looking way. looking at the social and heavy economical problems, and the fact that dozens of different cultures and mother-tongues live together, the sense of oneness was quite powerful. to that time in nepali radio the frequency of usual "lovesongs" where followed by the lovesongs for their country. it was totally unfamiliar to me.
they did not hate other nations/cultures therefor - they honoured the unifying, shared, positive and stable things in their own.

Here in germany i found it quite problematic to take my hat of for the the modern comforts and all the meritorius things i can savor. glenn beck seems to have the same conflicts in the usa, too.
Posted on: 2010/1/7 2:29
Top
  •  
Re: Truth vs. Falsehood
#32
Guest_
Quote:

TimD wrote:
Alija...
:::::::::::::::::::::::::

Nationalism, however, blends in the adoption of negative and often anti views, as seen in nazi Germany and even in some countries of the world today. A sense of nationalism may lead Iranians to swallow government fed hatred and fears of Israelis and woe to the Israeli who stumbles into a rally of staunchly nationalistic Iranians. To be nationalistic often parallels with siding with the chocolate and hating the vanilla rather than seeing either as a choice or preference. In this sense, nationalism is divisive.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Perhaps these thoughts help?


Tim

Hi Tim,
Thanks for your thoughts.
First of all, I have to emphasize my satisfaction after having found your site.
Concerning Patriotism, looks like you need nationalism in order to defend Patriotism. I didn't ask anything about nationalism; my doubts were in the field of patriotism, because in this doublemoraled system/civilisation everything depends on how strong you are. The stronger has always rights to apply his moral on the weaker.
from my point of view, any separation needs hierarchy, system, governments, and with that inevitably we have manipulation, corruption, and all this negative staff, because system is always( in 99,99%) lead by people below 200 on David's MOC.

I know we cannot jump from this very dirty system into something perfect, but from the other side I believe in miracles. I want to believe we have built in such a software which will enable leap of the consciousness, shift of the awareness, eliminating all these intermediary phases which could be cataclysmic. But, sorry, this was not the point of my question.
I believe, I see the highest goal, and that is first step toward the oneness, one government for whole the world, btw. I can agree with you that all systems of organisation are not the same, some are better in this field other in some others.
From the other side, any dialogue judging Afghanistan, Iran, N. Korea, or any other country based on the information received from your, our media is leading to the goals much below 200 MOC.
Talking about world politics based on the domestic media information is confirmation of the goals these media put. As soon as we start using daily news for our spiritual goals we are brainwashed, imo.
I am maybe stupid idealist, but I do not see any advancement on the earth before we accept each other, just as we are. Accepting each other we are showing faith. I am not religious, but I believe in ID, as well as in the evolution, but not Darwinian.
Do not talk about my government, think about yours. Living there where you live, you have a chance to know some real staff from your country. Leave Germany to Germans, Austria to Austrians (I am from Bosnia and live in Vienna, Austria).
Namasthé and Love
alija
Posted on: 2010/1/7 14:26
Top
  •  
Re: Truth vs. Falsehood
#33
Guest_
Quote:

robin wrote:

alija, this question is asked in general and relating to the whole world. but it seems to be posed from the viewpoint of one social and cultural backround.



Hi Robin,

I do not see difference between nationalism and patriotism,neither(except patriots build "patriots" "defence" rockets). Those stronger, more loud, they declare themselves patriots and in the name of patriotism destroy one after the other country. The greatest patriots in the world lead the wars all the times since WWII.

On this earth exist only business, money, and nothing else; and the lies they spread by their media justifying their dirty "business".
I do not want to go into the daily politics; no my intention is to see if we can do something on the other side, spiritual side. I would like to know how can we, using David's discoveries and other spiritual tool, increase the pace of spiritual transformation of the 21th century man.
I know, all I can do is to go inward, try to discover my innate intelligence and hopefully in dialogue with her go a bit faster toward the higher MOC levels.
This kind of forums serve to help each of us to give a hints to the others in an open dialogue, by expressing our point of view.
Love and Namasthé
alija
Posted on: 2010/1/7 16:10
Top
  •  
Re: Truth vs. Falsehood
#34
Guest_
Quote:

alija wrote:

First of all, I have to emphasize my satisfaction after having found your site.


Well, not *my* site. The owner / webmaster is Bryan. I just serve as member-contributor and moderator here.

Quote:

Concerning Patriotism, looks like you need nationalism in order to defend Patriotism.


This is not necessarily the case. I think as you read more and more Hawkins, you might see where I'm coming from (even if you don't adopt the same view). Patriotism does not mean pacifism. You can stand for your country, yet not be nationalistic. Going to war in defense of your country does not necessarily mean war mongering or nationalism. There is a difference in intent and field out of which you stand for your country.

Quote:

I didn't ask anything about nationalism...


True. My comparing the two was just a shot at what might've been confusing you. I had not thought of the difference between patriotism and nationalism until reading those sections in Hawkins' work which discussed them, so thought perhaps you had not gotten there yet.

Quote:
...my doubts were in the field of patriotism, because in this doublemoraled system/civilisation everything depends on how strong you are. The stronger has always rights to apply his moral on the weaker.


As you read Power vs. Force (PvF), I'm sure you grasp the difference between power and force as Hawkins uses the two. As you consider the difference, when you say "everything depends on how strong you are" and speak of the stronger applying its morals on the weaker, is the stronger acting out of power or force?

As I understand, your view seems to speak toward "might makes right," in a sense of force. I'd propose that it's not always the case. It depends on the field out of which the action occurs.

In a context of military occupation, for example, consider the difference between the prevailing (ie. stronger militarily) army of Hitler occupying Europe and the prevailing (ie. stronger militarily) armies occupying Afghanistan today. Whereas Hitler sought to conquer and supress to build an empire, the U.S. and allies sought to stand up against terrorism. Whereas Hitler's army used oppressive tactics during occupation and engaged in the genocide of innocents, the U.S. and allies continue to engage in standing against terrorists WHILE attempting to rebuild Afghanistan and a central Afghan government with an aim to turn Afghanistan back over to its people. While Hitler pilfered national treasures for his own use, allied soldiers build schools and encourage education.

There's a vast difference between the force of Hitler's army and the power of allied forces in Afghanistan.

Put in the context of the MoC... and I think my Hawkins books are boxed and unavailable otherwise I would include calibrations from his material (if someone else could provide the relevant numbers it'd help)...

The sub-200s of the nazi army and Hitler invaded with sub-200 intent and inflicted their sub-200 morals on the occupied countries.

The U.S. (400s) and allies calibrating also in the 300-400s invaded Afghanistan (sub-200) with over-200 intent and are providing assistance to help Afghanistan achieve a higher level (over-200) through helping to build a stable democratic government (democracy over-200 replacing a totalitarian theocratic system sub-200) and more equal opportunity education (over-200).

Quote:

from my point of view, any separation needs hierarchy, system, governments, and with that inevitably we have manipulation, corruption, and all this negative staff, because system is always( in 99,99%) lead by people below 200 on David's MOC.


First, those things do not mean separation. If you were to say that one nation is needed for unity, then it follows that for unity we can not have separate individual people either, so we must all merge into one person. Think of it this way... by your perception, there is a you sitting THERE that is SEPARATE from the me sitting HERE. This individuality is created mentally in our minds, but also physically by the boundaries of our skin and distance between us.

Each nation has a skin... its borders.
Each nation has a brain... its government system.

There are inevitable parallels between us as individual people and us as individual nations. The logic that applies to merging all governments into one nation in the name of unity applies equally to merging all individual people, bodies and brains into one physical person.

However, it's not a physical process... this unity thing... is it? It's an attitude. It's a coexistance. It's a point of view. As such, it's not a physical or geographic thing and need not depend on any specific quantity of governments to exist as an attitude. Just as a husband and wife (or any two or more people) can come together in a union of their spirit to act in sync and unity toward a common goal, so to can two or more countries. There really is no difference when you think about it.

The view that systems inevitably lead to corruption is cynical. I realize it (corruption) is there, but I do not believe it's a product of the system itself, but a product of people in the system. The structure of a government does not cause or coerce a politician into an immoral act, the politician's flaws do. Thus, there's no need to blame the existance of a government for what individuals do of their own volition. You'll find that the assertion that the leaders of governments "always" or even most of the time calibrate below 200 is way off as you read more Hawkins. Fitting presidential candidates, for example, generally calibrate in the mid to upper 400s as do most of the great leaders of the world (per Hawkins). A remarkable few have even risen above the 500 line.

You will probably find that Hawkins' work really doesn't support cynical views of governments and government systems. Quite the contrary.

Quote:

I know we cannot jump from this very dirty system into something perfect...


Many world governments calibrate over 200. The system of these governments is only "very dirty" to cynics and anarchists.

Quote:
From the other side, any dialogue judging Afghanistan, Iran, N. Korea, or any other country based on the information received from your, our media is leading to the goals much below 200 MOC.
Talking about world politics based on the domestic media information is confirmation of the goals these media put. As soon as we start using daily news for our spiritual goals we are brainwashed, imo.


I don't solely base discussion off of media reports. Many of these points run along the lines of Hawkins' work and some of the examples I give come from his examples, which served as a contextualization of what I've seen in the media and elsewhere.

I'm also not sure you fully understand the MoC. Slants in the media certainly do have an effect on the level of truth presented, but it's not a black or white of "if there's a slant, the level of truth is necessarily below 200." This is not the case and it depends on the severity of the slant and how much it effects the truth. However, I would say that I'd consider our press more reliable (even if flawed) than the press of totalitarian regimes or the words of their dictators. Advocating listening to their side of things and considering both equally is moral relativism.

There is a difference also between judgment and discernment.

Quote:

Do not talk about my government, think about yours. Living there where you live, you have a chance to know some real staff from your country. Leave Germany to Germans, Austria to Austrians (I am from Bosnia and live in Vienna, Austria).


I understand the sentiment, however, how are we to better understand how international politics (the interaction of more than one nation) plays out spiritually if we're only limited to looking at one government or one nation (our own)? Likewise, do you propose that a British or American scholar with a PhD in Asian History can not speak about Asia or even learn about it, not being in Asia or Asian? At what point in understanding does it become acceptable for an outsider to speak of another country and how do we learn and grow our understanding, even as lay people, except but to speak about these things?

You are here without much understanding of Hawkins' work, yet I would not tell you not to speak about it until you have read more thoroughly and understand it. As most here would, I'd actually encourage it and present thoughts along the lines of Hawkins' teachings in order to provoke thought or help you understand where Hawkins is coming from.


Tim
Posted on: 2010/1/7 23:32
Top
  •  
Re: Truth vs. Falsehood
#35
Guest_
hi, alija..
i like to join Tim, even though some explanations might seem confrontating you are welcome..

Quote:
On this earth exist only business, money, and nothing else; and the lies they spread by their media justifying their dirty "business".



i do not know what you mean!? i can't see any of those descriptions.



i remember myself expressing my thoughts about "the world" in the same way a few years ago. nowadays tears of thankfulness and happiness run down my cheeks daily, knowing that i couldn't see clearly before, but the eternal beauty and sacredness is visible in everything now.
i just wanted to make clear, that earth is not this or that..
our perceptions and therefor our descriptions of something claim that earth (and anything else) is this or that..
according to this those kind of statements are nothing else than projections at the core.
and projections becloud the realization of truth within everything.

Quote:
I do not want to go into the daily politics; no my intention is to see if we can do something on the other side, spiritual side.


again.. there is no duality between both. someone might see duality when he wishes. but this in turn implies the seperation that has been questioned before.

Quote:
I would like to know how can we, using David's discoveries and other spiritual tool, increase the pace of spiritual transformation of the 21th century man.


by engaging in those discoveries , by integrating them in our daily life and by becoming the truth that has been discovered. you do not have to act therefor, you have to be intent to be this. as you said..

Quote:
I know, all I can do is to go inward, try to discover my innate intelligence and hopefully in dialogue with her go a bit faster toward the higher MOC levels.



at the end i like to share my personal opinion. the first book written by DRH that i read was "the eye of the I" followed by "I: R&S" ... after a few books i came to the one, you are reading now. and to that time i thought to myself, that i probably would have difficulties to catch the discoveries and ideas presented there in a helpful context. even on this level some explanations has been confronting to me. personaly i like to recommend to start with one of the first books by DRH. i think that they can help to develop the context in wich those discoveries, that might be experienced as a provocation to some moral and ethical programs, can be understood and accepted.

greetings,
robin
Posted on: 2010/1/8 2:45
Top
  •  
Re: Truth vs. Falsehood
#36
Guest_
Thanks robin, thanks for the book recommendations. I think I have one or two other DRH books but, this time for winter months in Vienna I took just this one of his.
I am very much looking forward for the results of my work with DRH books.

First your a/m question/comment I would rather not to comment, because it is from the field I do not appreciate, and do not have intention to talk about it. However, robin, if you are in a state of non separation, that is great, I confess I am not yet. My pleasure is enormous if you really live in accordance with

"again.. there is no duality between both. someone might see duality when he wishes. but this in turn implies the separation that has been questioned before."

I am aware of the goal, of my path, but I am not yet enlightened, I admit. I live in this manifested world where, imo, duality is a main notion, fact.
It is my great honour developing dialogue with you robin.
Thanks for your thoughts and for your time.
Namasthé and Love
alija
www.ajna.com
Posted on: 2010/1/8 15:44
Top
  •  
Re: Truth vs. Falsehood
#37
Guest_
Quote:
i like to join Tim, even though some explanations might seem confrontating you are welcome..


For both Robin and Alija, I'd like to take a moment to address this to clarify.

I don't mean to confront in the sense of being confrontational or argumentative in any nasty or negative sense of the word.

Ideas may be used in dialog to present alternate views in a way that may seem to confront and perhaps where I question or address points that don't seem correct or logical given my understanding that is so.

If we don't bounce things back and forth and only agree with others for "harmony's sake," how do we learn and how do we test our own thinking and understanding? If we all agree, it becomes a monolog not a dialog. That said, there is no nastiness intended and where questions are asked (such as at the end of my last post), they're asked to test a point or concept that's been given. In the exchanges above, I also hope nothing comes across as critical of Alija as a person - it's all meant to examine concepts, thoughts and statements.

I don't mean to slam the door in anyone's face, basically. I consider what's been said, rolling it around in my own head and bouncing it off my own understanding, and if I find things that don't seem correct, I toss out my own take.

I guess a way of looking at it is, if you recoil from questions such as those requoted below as being nasty or confrontational (which really isn't the intent) and don't take a moment to at least consider them, then the point is missed - and perhaps the opportunity to examine your own thoughts is lost with that. If we're seeking spiritual growth, pushing away anything that seems to confront details of our beliefs without at least considering it pushes away opportunity at changing how we see things.

When I ask...
Quote:

I understand the sentiment, however, how are we to better understand how international politics (the interaction of more than one nation) plays out spiritually if we're only limited to looking at one government or one nation (our own)? Likewise, do you propose that a British or American scholar with a PhD in Asian History can not speak about Asia or even learn about it, not being in Asia or Asian? At what point in understanding does it become acceptable for an outsider to speak of another country and how do we learn and grow our understanding, even as lay people, except but to speak about these things?


...I don't mean to slam any doors or be nasty. It's an invitation to explore the validity of the stance it addresses. They need not be answered, but if they were to be answered in a way that changes my own view by pointing out something I myself miss, so be it.

I know that anyone who's been around long enough to know me probably knows where I'm coming from, so this is all mostly for those who don't really know me and especially with cultural and language differences that may lead to misunderstanding. To an Asian, for example, this approach may seem very rude (based on what I've read about cultural differences) and is a more culturally Western approach. So, I wanted to clarify...

...get where I'm coming from?



Tim

Edited by TimD on 2010/1/8 16:36:44

Posted on: 2010/1/8 16:19
Top
  •  
Re: Truth vs. Falsehood
#38
Guest_
Quote:

TimD wrote:
:::::::::::::
For both Robin and Alija, I'd like to take a moment to address this to clarify.

I don't mean to confront in the sense of being confrontational or argumentative in any nasty or negative sense of the word.

Ideas may be used in dialog to present alternate views in a way that may seem to confront and perhaps where I question or address points that don't seem correct or logical given my understanding that is so.
::::::::::::::::::

Tim

Hi Tim,
I do not know what happened to my reply to your post, but I am glad it went wrong, it got lost between two universes.
It was a quit detailed, long reply. I wrote in one of my posts here, I have very powerful angel protector.

I can not misunderstand you Tim, I can just understand we have different opinions, maybe quit different. But again, this shouldn't be the reason for any misunderstandings.

Knowing nothing I can only participate in one dialogue expressing my thoughts, reading your presented thoughts and through the process of exchange try to widen my horizons.

Some of your thoughts will possibly give me some hints for my further search, or opposite.

Next time when I finish reading of DRH book, we'll have more common for dialogue.
Namasthé and Love
alija
Posted on: 2010/1/8 19:13
Top
  •  
Re: Truth vs. Falsehood
#39
Guest_
Ah, yes...

With long posts here ALWAYS highlight them and copy the text in case that happens.

For some reason, the system times out and you can lose posts like that.

Another option is, if you're taking time, type them out in a text editor and copy them in to post.

This place is quirky.


Tim
Posted on: 2010/1/8 19:16
Top
  •  
Re: Truth vs. Falsehood
#40
Guest_
i know that it is not necessary to clear up things that are in line already, but in this case i like to..

Tim..

in case that you felt addressed by the usage of the term "even though some explanations might seem confrontating you are welcome", i like to state that this term was used to help alija not to feel attacked or critizised as a person by my explanations.
i do not know where alija "is coming from". and we all know that it is sometimes alluring not to discern the dialectical level from the personal, and not to translate a logical argument into a personal insult. (this in turn does not mean that i do not put the capacity to discern both from each other past you, alija..)
it just seems to me that a lot of people identify themselves with their opinions in discussions.

my intention was to unravel the dialectical from the personal level in advance, and to make clear that the appreciation of her as a human beeing is regardless of the things i wanted to write subsequently.

so from my personal point of view i didn't expect you to see these things in a different way than you have expressed. i'm completely in line with that. and therefor i thank you for explaining this matter more clearly and differntiated then i did.


alija..

i thank you for the honour, alija..
i like to see everybody drawn towards positiv attractor patterns. therefor your feeling of appreciation is not directed to robin solely, but to this forum, to all the other members here, to DRH and god itself most.

thankfully,
robin
Posted on: 2010/1/8 20:35
Top
 Top   Previous Topic   Next Topic
« 1 2 3 (4) 5 6 7 »

 Register To Post


Array

Spiritual Bazaar

Beware, the Path
is straight and narrow.
We do not endorse these ads
They're computer generated

Thanks Top Posters

1 Robcore 1419
2 TimD 1387
3 katalys 817
4 Blindshiva 784
5 greymagus 610
6 estrella 604
7 sagetwooh 581
8 Naptaq 517
9 bruce 517
10 VonBegg 490

New Spiritual Warriors

Letgoanon 07/03/2013
Austin 06/20/2013
TomomiTod 05/15/2013
NardzElez 05/15/2013