I was deeply impressed with Power vs Force and so was looking forward to Truth vs Falsehood. I have to admit to having been shattered by some of the conclusions Dr. Hawkins comes to in that book. While the calibrations "make sense" to me on some levels, the commentary (interpretation of the calibrations) does not. He does mention that both Hitler and Napoleon calibrated highly at the beginning of their respective careers because of their intention. That is one clue I have to make sense of it all. Another is that while patriotism calibrates relatively highly, nationalism does not. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like Dr. Hawkins is giving America carte blanche to continue down the road to world domination. While there's no doubt that the US political system calibrates highly as compared to most of the rest of the world, doesn't using the methods of despotism bring it down to their level?

I'm not going to ramble on, but would be interested in others' opinions.

I haven't finished TvsF yet, but from what I gather, it seems to effectively draw positionalities out into the open.
We look at the individual failings of the US gov't and society(content) and neglect to embrace the whole as a result(context). Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

You might ask yourself: "In enlightenment can One harbor any hate/dislike for Hitler? for Bush? for anybody?"
These concerns are more important to address than the potential American world domination.

In terms of patriotism vs. nationalism...you might use a family as an example...to be loving and devoted to one's family would calibrate very high...to assert that your family is best, and that it should rule all other families as well as act as a model for all other family structures....that most certainly would calibrate low.

Patriotism is marked by great love for one's country. As a patriotic person, one is most concerned with what's best for one's country...as a nationalist, one is more concerned with a force response against any who oppose the country.

Now, it would seem that you aren't in disagreement with what Hawkins has said, as your concern with keeping the country's ego in check(so it doesn't go into 'world domination mode') is patriotic. It's a sign that you care about your country and the way it's percieved.
Now all that's necessary is to acknowledge the positive.
You can dwell on the poor response to Hurricane Katrina, or you can embrace the amazing outcry of the people.....the overwhelming charity response.
We don't know all the details about why things have gone wrong. We aren't in a position to be judgemental about it all. All we can do is rally for what we believe to be in the highest good. We gain nothing by simply rallying against what we think is bad(Force response).
When it comes to the good, the causes don't matter.
It's so amazing to see that the primary concern is integrity...you see it all over the news...people trying to get to the root of things to determine who's accountable.
Sure, there's bias...but nevertheless, it's integrity that's at the forefront of our concerns.

When it comes to war, trade, power supply, economics....it's all the same...there are ups and downs...but the critical factor that keeps the wheels turning is integrous pursuit. Is war desireable? of course not. Is it necessary? not likely. Has any good come from military operations? yes. Have innocents died? yes. Have innocents been saved? yes.
The good and bad always cancel eachother out...and in many ways, they are the same thing depending how you look at it.

God, grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change,
grant us the courage to change the things we can,
and grant us the insight to know the difference.

all we can do is work on ourselves, and at encouraging the beauty. A light does not fight the darkness, it merely shines brighter and the darkness is gone.
To thwart your concerns, all you have to do is love your country. With love, it will find it's way down the right path.

-Rob

Thank you for that very balanced reply. It cleared alot of things up. I had stunning results from therapy based on Dr. Hawkins Map of Consciousness and kinesiology after reading Power vs Force.

Then Truth vs Falsehood (and audio tapes on Beyond the Ordinary) pushed all my political buttons and threw me into a tailspin. It's been interesting, to say the least. Fortunately, PvsF preceded TvsF, so I have been unable to write Dr. Hawkins off as a "right wing crazy" and have had to grapple with my own very carefully constructed and nurtured prejudices. Much more productive, I think.

I can understand that. I think many people attracted to the work of Dr. Hawkins run into a roadblock because of his calibrations of Bush and various politcal figures. Being from New York(liberal capital of the U.S.) I had to grapple with this a bit. On line many people call him a right winger and ascribe all kinds of political positionalities to him.

I don't think he really cares what number he comes up with when he pushes someone's arm down while asking a question. People get mad at him because of the number he gets for the present administration. However, I think Clinton also calibrates pretty well, and we know FDR(a democrat) was 499. Also in T vs F Far Right Conservatives calibrate at 135-145. Far Left Liberals calibrate at 185. It would seem that it is the extremeness of the positionality that drags down the calibration.

Also in Highest Level of Enlightenment when he speaks of the Great Books of the Western World, and their collective calibration of 450(465 without Marx) he says that that is the extent of the capacity of the intellect and that truth won't be found through the mind.

The two political parties are each in the lower 300's. Both positive, but certainly not the way to truth. If it were instead of a few pages of one book dedicated to the subject he would write volumes about it. Instead he writes volumes about the way to truth through unconditional love and devotion for God and surrender of all positionalities to God. I simply hate to see people, as you say, throw out the baby with the bath water and miss the joy that comes with increasing one's level of consciousness (which the doc has some wonderful tools for)over a couple of political calibrations.
Peace

Hi, nice site!
<a href="http://myleader.freewebsites.com/epit ... >epitan</a><a href="http://buy-cheap-diet-phentermine-pil ... edications</a><a href="http://myleader.freewebsites.com/vima ... ;>vimax</a><a href="http://myleader.freewebsites.com/vieg ... quot;>viegra</a>
[URL="http://25760.rapidforum.com/"]online phentermine[/URL][URL="http://25760.rapidforum.com/"]cheap phentermine[/URL]

Funny this TvsF thread found its way back up to the top of the list. All this time later the most logical conclusion I can come up with is that Dr. Hawkins' may simply be mistaken about some of the conclusions he draws regarding his own calibrations. I know that's a bold statement and it may be that I have misunderstood him.

One problem I have is that his calibrations are static. I know that my motives and my behaviour are subject to change, depending partly on circumstances. If I'm in a safe, uplifting environment I'm sure I calibrate higher than if I feel threatened. I think that's pretty universally true.

Another problem has to do with the idea that a person is coming from only one LoC. A psychopath, for instance, has a very cool head and can make very logical and rational decisions, but for decidedly low LoC reasons (around 30 I'd guess). That's an extreme example. And it seems to me that we're always being given a choice about whether to go with God (above, say, 500) or our own fears, anger, desire, etc.

In short, it seems to me that life is much more dynamic than TvsF seems to me to present it to be.

I think a person's LoC has to do with their overall spiritual intention.
In some situations where you react with fear or anger, it doesn't necessarily mean that you calibrate differently....it's more like an opportunity to transcend a positionality has arisen.

In the case of the cool-headed psychopath, it's still his intention which determines his LoC. His actions might be reasonable in the context of his intention, but his intention is not reasonable, so his LoC won't reflect the 400s at all.

-Rob

That has occurred to me. Nonetheless, a psychopath still has access to the logic and clarity of the 400's, maybe even higher (it's hard for me, thankfully, to imagine what it's like to be one). Psychopaths can be masterful manipulators and inspiring leaders.

Maybe I've got a fixed idea that the higher LoC's are supposed to be a "closed book" to the lower LoC's.

Then there's inspiration or "peak experience" - flashes of insight or illumination that seem to become diffused afterwards.

I guess what you're saying, putting it simplistically is that an LoC is a kind of average - 75 + 300 + 200 + 225= 800/4=200.

well, perhaps a compartmentalized psychopath might be like that...in which case he'd have 2 LoCs.
In terms of manipulation and such, it's not entirely difficult to do, and it doesn't require anything from the 400s to pull it off successfully. Being a manipulator is a symptom in cases of alcoholism and other addictions and mental disorders as well...and it isn't necessarily premeditated or volitional...it's a survival mechanism...the ego resisting change.
It's effective when dealing with other low LoCs, but put a master manipulator up against someone like Socrates, who was very dedicated to high Truths, and the manipulative efforts fall flat...because true thinking doesn't really begin until the 400s.
So it's not that the psychopath has access to the reason and clarity of the 400s, it's that his victims simply aren't expecting that they're dealing with a psychopath who doesn't value Truth(because they themselves don't have any idea what it means to be a Truth seeker).

What traits do manipulators play on anyway? all the sub 200 ones...pride, anger, fear, etc.


Hitler wasn't always a psychopath...he was in the 400s, but dropped from there when he turned away from integrity.
Pretty much none of what he did after that was what one might call reasonable or logical....it was simply aggressive and hateful.

The LoC isn't just an average...it's one's spiritual intention, which reflects in one's life view, one's God view, one's process, etc.

The actions of the psychopath only 'appear' logical in the context of being a psychopath. In the context of being a schoolteacher, it would seem very random and out of character.
Anyone else's actions might be explainable/reasonable/logical in the context of their respective LoC too. The actions of someone in the 300s appear very reasonable in the context of how someone should act in the 300s.
That consistency within the system is what makes it work I think...I mean...if it wasn't so, we could all go around impersonating other LoCs...

...it's just how I see it anyhow...

-Rob

That was very helpful. Thanks. Another problem I've had, now you mention Hitler, is the concept of someone like that ever calibrating in the 400's as I've had this notion that Hitler must've been "right" if he ever calibrated that highly. He wrote Mein Kampf before he rose to power and the ideas behind it must've been percolating in his mind long before that.

This is hard to get my head around, but for that calibration to be accurate, Hitler's intent must've been fairly idealistic, if misguided, in the beginning. Then when things didn't go his way, he became unravelled. I've always pictured him as having been wilfully and systematically evil.

The LoC's are maybe not steps towards relative truth as I perceive it (Democracy vs Communism for instance) but rather steps towards the bigger truth. "Integrous" is not altogether synonymous with "right" - it just reflects a higher "intentionality"??