Religion as character development

Bob Price made an interesting comment during his interview on Behind the Headlines (http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,38937.0.html). He said something along the lines of the idea that for him, as he learns more and gets older, the most important thing for him is the development of his own character.

I think there's a big truth there, but I'm wondering if it's the whole story. For example, I've been reading a book lately called "The Practice of the Body of Christ: Human Agency in Pauline Theology after MacIntyre". The main idea of the book is that Paul actually wrote and operated with a classical account of human agency in mind. In other words, humans can work and act to develop new and better habits of behavior: to become virtuous and overcome vices. The mainstream view of Paul has been that he denies human agency: we have no free will, we can't do anything to improve ourselves, we are and always will be sinners. Therefore Jesus died FOR us in order to wipe the slate clean for us; we're still sinners but because Jesus paid the price, now God can fudge the numbers and pretend we're actually righteous, and presto, we can go to heaven. It's actually God who does everything. Yeah, it's nonsense, but that's pretty much what a lot of Christians and theologians and academics think Paul said (not to mention think it's actually true in principle).

Anyways, the author, Colin Miller, argues that Paul actually thought it was possible, and very important, to strive to be virtuous. In other words, to develop our character: to become prudent, courageous, just, loving. This is what it meant to "die to the flesh" and become part of the "body of Christ", i.e. a community striving towards the same goal through their individual and collective actions.

But the question for me is this: is developing one's character all there is to 'religion', or is there more? Paul seemingly thought there was more to it. It wasn't just that humans are slave to vices, but to sins. I.e., our behaviors actually reflect our relationship with the Divine. Our lives are either in harmony with and energized by the ultimate, the divine 'direction' (leading to 'life'), or they are not (leading to 'death'). Being virtuous is being right with God/the Cosmos/the Ultimate.

I've got my own thoughts on the subject, but I'm wondering what you all think. Is it just important to develop one's character?

Approaching Infinity said:

But the question for me is this: is developing one's character all there is to 'religion', or is there more? Paul seemingly thought there was more to it. It wasn't just that humans are slave to vices, but to sins. I.e., our behaviors actually reflect our relationship with the Divine. Our lives are either in harmony with and energized by the ultimate, the divine 'direction' (leading to 'life'), or they are not (leading to 'death'). Being virtuous is being right with God/the Cosmos/the Ultimate.

I've got my own thoughts on the subject, but I'm wondering what you all think. Is it just important to develop one's character?

Click to expand...

Are you asking if there is a "spiritual" dimension or aspect to being virtuous, as opposed to virtue as simply a person doing his best to good in the physical here and now?

Perceval said:

Approaching Infinity said:

But the question for me is this: is developing one's character all there is to 'religion', or is there more? Paul seemingly thought there was more to it. It wasn't just that humans are slave to vices, but to sins. I.e., our behaviors actually reflect our relationship with the Divine. Our lives are either in harmony with and energized by the ultimate, the divine 'direction' (leading to 'life'), or they are not (leading to 'death'). Being virtuous is being right with God/the Cosmos/the Ultimate.

I've got my own thoughts on the subject, but I'm wondering what you all think. Is it just important to develop one's character?

Click to expand...

Are you asking if there is a "spiritual" dimension or aspect to being virtuous, as opposed to virtue as simply a person doing his best to good in the physical here and now?

Click to expand...

That's one part of it, yeah. Is virtue just being a good person here and now, or is there a spiritual dimension. And if there is, does it matter on way or the other, as long as one is being 'virtuous' here and now?

[quote author=AI]
But the question for me is this: is developing one's character all there is to 'religion', or is there more?
[/quote]

Per my understanding, any authentic religion should have as its final goal a certain transformation in its followers. Does this transformation refer to "character" only? To answer that, we need to understand what exactly we mean by character. It is deeper than externally observable behavior though behavior does provide indications towards one's character.

In 4th Way terms, character pertains to essence and its development more than personality per my understanding. Most religions end up conditioning the personality rather than developing essence at least in the modern context.

Regarding the transformation of "man", JG Bennett (a student of Gurdjieff, but a seeker in his own right) identified 4 components which I find to be accurate based on what I have read and the experiences I have had. These 4 components are present in most religions but usually with unbalanced relative emphases along with the expected distractions and disinformation. These 4 components are

- Knowledge
- Struggle
- Sacrifice
- Grace

Acquiring knowledge and struggling between virtues and vices , yes and no, are the foundations for "building" character. These are active efforts.

Sacrifice is different from struggle and is essential to make progress after a certain stage. It is more passive in the sense it involves a letting go. It creates space so that something of a different quality can enter and continue the process of transformation.

Grace is outside of man's active agency but no authentic transformation is possible without it. I believe it is personal in nature - in the sense that how grace works differs in individuals who have reached a relatively high stage of development. This is the truly spiritual aspect of transformation of man per my understanding.

obyvatel said:

Per my understanding, any authentic religion should have as its final goal a certain transformation in its followers. Does this transformation refer to "character" only? To answer that, we need to understand what exactly we mean by character. It is deeper than externally observable behavior though behavior does provide indications towards one's character.

In 4th Way terms, character pertains to essence and its development more than personality per my understanding. Most religions end up conditioning the personality rather than developing essence at least in the modern context.

Click to expand...

Yep, and I think that's why prudence is often listed as one of the most important virtues, because virtue is not just the ability to follow external rules, but to determine the best course of action in any particular situation. This implies an awareness of as much of reality as possible, intellectually, emotionally, and practically, which isn't possible on the level of what G labelled 'personality'. So rule-based systems, if they're called religions at all, are simply low-level religions.

Acquiring knowledge and struggling between virtues and vices , yes and no, are the foundations for "building" character. These are active efforts.

Click to expand...

While it may follow from the 4 components mentioned, I think some aspect of community is missing here. Actually, I think community may actually encompass these things. Knowledge and struggle need community in order to work. If virtue is a way of life, it needs role models and teachers (experts from whom we learn), as well as sources of conflict to spark the inner struggles.

Sacrifice is different from struggle and is essential to make progress after a certain stage. It is more passive in the sense it involves a letting go. It creates space so that something of a different quality can enter and continue the process of transformation.

Grace is outside of man's active agency but no authentic transformation is possible without it. I believe it is personal in nature - in the sense that how grace works differs in individuals who have reached a relatively high stage of development. This is the truly spiritual aspect of transformation of man per my understanding.

Click to expand...

I think that's the important bit: the nature of grace and its role in personal transformation. In other words, a spiritual dimension to what is usually referred to without any reference to the spiritual. For example, I often hear atheists say something along the lines of what Price said: that 'religion' doesn't matter (and they usually include any kind of 'spirituality' under that category), just 'being a good person'. But I wonder if that isn't just a sign that they themselves haven't developed their own characters very much. Dabrowski suggests that a spiritual aspect is probably a necessary part of character development (or personality-shaping, as he called it). So as a person develops to a certain level, the process of development is seen in a new light, in a much wider context, because they experience a wider portion of reality.

Maybe it can be prompted in part by questions such as: What is the source of the values I seek to embody and make real? Where does the power come from by which I am transformed?

Approaching Infinity said:

But I wonder if that isn't just a sign that they themselves haven't developed their own characters very much. Dabrowski suggests that a spiritual aspect is probably a necessary part of character development (or personality-shaping, as he called it). So as a person develops to a certain level, the process of development is seen in a new light, in a much wider context, because they experience a wider portion of reality.

Maybe it can be prompted in part by questions such as: What is the source of the values I seek to embody and make real? Where does the power come from by which I am transformed?

Click to expand...

When I thought about a wider context of personal development, the saying (quote by Gandhi?) came to mind: be the change you want to see in the world. And that it has to do with development not being only personal but also social. But not only that, but that the "quality" or maybe the "proof" of the effectiveness of personal development should have tangible results in an outside world. Like concepts of response-ability that we talk about on the forum. Or similar to what G said about a person not being able to DO, while real DOING involves being able to utilize this inner-outer development and lead to a change on a broader/social level.

So maybe that's the source of the "sin", that as long as the person hasn't reached the level of adequate response-ability and real DOING, there is still a debt to be paid, similar to the concepts described in Parable of the Talents?

[quote author=AI]

Yep, and I think that's why prudence is often listed as one of the most important virtues, because virtue is not just the ability to follow external rules, but to determine the best course of action in any particular situation. This implies an awareness of as much of reality as possible, intellectually, emotionally, and practically, which isn't possible on the level of what G labelled 'personality'.
[/quote]

I think that this bolded part is an important facet of the topic of development of character along with the spiritual component.

The personality in the sense G used the term should not be underestimated imo. Personal development is often started by the personality, with essence being indifferent. Personality can lead the struggle between values vs bodily impulses or desires and thus build character. The struggle to maintain a diet or take cold showers for example will in most cases involve the personality rather than the essence. Such work is immensely valuable for physical health as well as strengthening (for the lack of a better word) willpower, but the essence may be indifferent to it. G said that for progress in the Work, a certain development in personality is necessary and desirable.

The important aspect, per my understanding, is that at some stage in the process essence should get involved and come into a struggle with personality. I have not found universally valid descriptions in any account for recognizing this state. Personality intercepts everything that we learn from others or books. The personality can become quite prudent through study of a wide variety of situations and topics increasing it's pattern matching capacities. So it is possible for a person to have a praiseworthy character manifesting virtues in a wide variety of situations which is centered in the personality - osit. There is nothing bad about this and such a person can do good and help others. But unless essence is engaged actively in the process, there is a certain flavor to the execution of virtues and internal development cannot proceed further.


Regarding the spiritual aspect
[quote author=AI]
Maybe it can be prompted in part by questions such as: What is the source of the values I seek to embody and make real? Where does the power come from by which I am transformed?
[/quote]
such questions are valuable as long as we realize the limitations of the instruments with which we conduct these inquiries and formulate answers. These kind of questions are studied in philosophy. With increasing refinement of logical reasoning, we can gain more understanding on these questions. However, my personal opinion is following the philosophical line can tell us more about where such values or powers do not come from rather than their true origins.

Insight can enter through the essence regarding such questions through efforts of a different quality and grace - but it is difficult if not impossible to describe the content in written language which no matter how developed is still limited to the domain of personality. They may even appear nonsensical or quite the opposite of what is intended or expected. This is the limitation of present human condition - osit.

obyvatel said:

Grace is outside of man's active agency but no authentic transformation is possible without it. I believe it is personal in nature - in the sense that how grace works differs in individuals who have reached a relatively high stage of development. This is the truly spiritual aspect of transformation of man per my understanding.

Click to expand...

What's your understanding of the meaning of grace?

Keit said:

When I thought about a wider context of personal development, the saying (quote by Gandhi?) came to mind: be the change you want to see in the world. And that it has to do with development not being only personal but also social. But not only that, but that the "quality" or maybe the "proof" of the effectiveness of personal development should have tangible results in an outside world. Like concepts of response-ability that we talk about on the forum. Or similar to what G said about a person not being able to DO, while real DOING involves being able to utilize this inner-outer development and lead to a change on a broader/social level.

So maybe that's the source of the "sin", that as long as the person hasn't reached the level of adequate response-ability and real DOING, there is still a debt to be paid, similar to the concepts described in Parable of the Talents?

Click to expand...

Yep. But in addition to the personal and social, I'd add the cosmic, too, as in 'debugging the universe'. DOing in the world has cosmic significance. Becoming truly virtuous changes our fundamental orientation towards, and relationship with the cosmos. Our present reality (STS, 'in the flesh', vice) is eclipsed by a new reality (STO, 'in spirit', virtue).

obyvatel said:

The important aspect, per my understanding, is that at some stage in the process essence should get involved and come into a struggle with personality. I have not found universally valid descriptions in any account for recognizing this state. Personality intercepts everything that we learn from others or books. The personality can become quite prudent through study of a wide variety of situations and topics increasing it's pattern matching capacities. So it is possible for a person to have a praiseworthy character manifesting virtues in a wide variety of situations which is centered in the personality - osit. There is nothing bad about this and such a person can do good and help others. But unless essence is engaged actively in the process, there is a certain flavor to the execution of virtues and internal development cannot proceed further.

Click to expand...

I think this is all pretty spot on.

Miller writes:

First, the child learns that pleasing its parents rather than crying is to be chosen in order to get food or praise. From this intermediate stage the parents will have to teach the child not to act so to please them but to act for what is truly better. Once the child has become sufficiently detached from both its own desires [first factor] and the influence of others [second factor] it becomes slowly and for the first time a mature practical reasoner. The qualities that are cultivated in this transformation of desire, motivation, and action, are called virtues, and so a lack of virtue names the reason that one fails to attain what is good and best.

Click to expand...

I think most people remain on the level of the child who hasn't learned to be a practical reasoner. Take Cicero, who wrote treatise after treatise on virtue and yet was an odious little freak of a man who was totally ruled by his overinflated view of himself, his boundless selfishness, and the opinion of others - he even developed a philosophical system of deification in order so that he would be remembered as a god. (But he was hoisted by his own petard, and Caesar was deified instead!) Such individuals can even have pretty good pattern-reading abilities and thus appear to make some good choices. But I don't think that can really be called prudence - more pseudo-prudence.

I think the development of the emotional center, through positive disintegration, is what helps to effect the transformation of desire, motivation, and action. In other words, practical reason REQUIRES emotional development. Our old pseudo-values (pretty much entirely self-centered) break down and are replaced by a real conscience - the way we feel and respond to things fundamentally changes, our goals change, and thus our actions. And what is a real conscience? Probably part intellect (pattern-recognition), part feeling (value-recognition), i.e. the ability to actually apprehend or feel what is good and best, not just for oneself but for the whole. And that's where grace comes into it.

A computer database of all the situations in the past won't necessarily be able to tell us what the best course of action will be in a new situation. But access to future possibilities might. In other words, cosmic information, the divine cosmic mind. So when we 'receive grace', we are grasping, more or less unfiltered by our own selfishness or the influence of others around us, the possibility that is truly best in an objective evaluation given present conditions and future possibilities.

The best account of grace I've read is from Whitehead and David Ray Griffin: the 'initial aims' or best possibilities made available to our consciousness from the divine cosmic mind. That is how "God" acts in the world, by presenting us with the best possibilities for action, weighted based on how they align with the divine 'trajectory', which we then make real through our own actions. We experience or perceive this kind of influence as value, which motivates us to choose certain options over others, and transforms our desires and actions to those which lead to objectively better results. DCM doesn't possess and control people, but presents them with possibilities, and it's up to us to make them real or not.

E.g., "Grace" is just a translation of "gift". Paul spoke of 'spiritual gifts', Greek: charismata, which can be translated as something like "gifted practices", or abilities that are put into practice for the greater good. He gave examples: 'prophecy', leadership, teaching, healing, speaking truth, 'spreading the word', etc. And of course there's his description of love, as the greatest of all 'gifts'.

such questions are valuable as long as we realize the limitations of the instruments with which we conduct these inquiries and formulate answers. These kind of questions are studied in philosophy. With increasing refinement of logical reasoning, we can gain more understanding on these questions. However, my personal opinion is following the philosophical line can tell us more about where such values or powers do not come from rather than their true origins.

Insight can enter through the essence regarding such questions through efforts of a different quality and grace - but it is difficult if not impossible to describe the content in written language which no matter how developed is still limited to the domain of personality. They may even appear nonsensical or quite the opposite of what is intended or expected. This is the limitation of present human condition - osit.

Click to expand...

But that doesn't stop people from trying! :P I think that's what Paul did (not to mention countless others, Ibn Arabi, Gurdjieff, Dabrowski, etc.). But it's not something that can be communicated in words to a person who doesn't have the same level of being. In other words, a person like Cicero could read such things, but wouldn't really grok it (even though he'd probably write a book or 12 on it). But I do think that even taking this into account, the shape of the experience and ideas can be recognized by those on a similar level, or approaching it, so it's not necessarily a futile effort. Plus I think it's helpful to at least attempt to come up with a bigger worldview that makes sense. To gain a better, if not perfect, understand of the structure of the cosmos, how it all fits together, and our place within it. The more objective, IMO, the more motivation it can give people to actually start fulfilling a bigger purpose, and to realize how important it is and WHY it's important.

Perceval said:

obyvatel said:

Grace is outside of man's active agency but no authentic transformation is possible without it. I believe it is personal in nature - in the sense that how grace works differs in individuals who have reached a relatively high stage of development. This is the truly spiritual aspect of transformation of man per my understanding.

Click to expand...

What's your understanding of the meaning of grace?

Click to expand...

I do not know what grace is - if by meaning that is what you meant. I can describe my understanding of how grace manifests at the human level.

I think the role of grace can be compared to that of catalysts in chemical reactions. It makes possible a certain process which would otherwise not proceed at all or work too slowly and thus run down without producing desired results.

One common example is a flash of brilliant scientific insight - like that described by Poincare, Kekule and numerous other scientists. The conditions have to be right and this relates to "receivership capability". We can say this is creativity but I think some qualities of manifestation of grace in this context are the sudden timeless/instantaneous character of its appearance and the unbroken wholeness of the image it projects. It is different from a solution arrived at through an intelligent elimination of various possibilities through rational means or a synthetic solution of a puzzle obtained by putting together various pieces. Efforts made along these lines can facilitate the entry of grace but does not guarantee it.

But grace is not just flashy brilliance. It could work in other subtle ways - like making the right knowledge/lesson/opportunities available at the right time for personal/group development process to progress. This is more in line with AI wrote about grace following Whitehead and Griffin and per my understanding, this dynamic becomes more pronounced as certain developmental stages are crossed.

One could argue that all that is written above can be "faked" to lead people astray through higher density manipulations. How can one know for sure that one is not being duped by 4D STS? I do not think there are any guarantees. Gurdjieff had a comment about "making vacuum so something can come in". How much role the attention-seeking, power-loving ego plays in making this vacuum, or intercepting the results of what comes in once the vacuum is created would be a big factor imo. Non-anticipation, non-attachment, constant observation and struggle with machinations of the ego and relevant sacrifices would help in preparing the path for grace to manifest its effects. And therein lies the practical importance of understanding the difference between Work results feeding personality vs Work results feeding essence - osit.

I might be nitpicking, but is there a real difference between vice and sin? I mean, I consider them both to be doing things that keep you off of your Aim's path. Or things that generally hurt yourself esoterically. Just want to clarify and make sure we're using the same definition for those two terms.

obyvatel said:

Insight can enter through the essence regarding such questions through efforts of a different quality and grace - but it is difficult if not impossible to describe the content in written language which no matter how developed is still limited to the domain of personality. They may even appear nonsensical or quite the opposite of what is intended or expected. This is the limitation of present human condition - osit.

Click to expand...

So it's hard to grow essence because we have this constant lens of the personality we see and do things through? But..

Approaching Infinity said:

I think the development of the emotional center, through positive disintegration, is what helps to effect the transformation of desire, motivation, and action. In other words, practical reason REQUIRES emotional development. Our old pseudo-values (pretty much entirely self-centered) break down and are replaced by a real conscience - the way we feel and respond to things fundamentally changes, our goals change, and thus our actions. And what is a real conscience? Probably part intellect (pattern-recognition), part feeling (value-recognition), i.e. the ability to actually apprehend or feel what is good and best, not just for oneself but for the whole. And that's where grace comes into it.

Click to expand...

..but positive disintegration may help to grow essence? And..

obyvatel said:

Non-anticipation, non-attachment, constant observation and struggle with machinations of the ego and relevant sacrifices would help in preparing the path for grace to manifest its effects. And therein lies the practical importance of understanding the difference between Work results feeding personality vs Work results feeding essence - osit.

Click to expand...

.. in trying to understand the essence growing and receiving of grace, I wonder if they go hand in hand? I wonder if growing an essence isn't a wholly invididual thing, and it requieres a bit of outside input, or grace from higher sources? But you have to be open and a receptor of these things. It's like dancing with the Universe.

Approaching Infinity said:

A computer database of all the situations in the past won't necessarily be able to tell us what the best course of action will be in a new situation. But access to future possibilities might. In other words, cosmic information, the divine cosmic mind. So when we 'receive grace', we are grasping, more or less unfiltered by our own selfishness or the influence of others around us, the possibility that is truly best in an objective evaluation given present conditions and future possibilities.

Click to expand...

Yeah, surely this kind of thing would not be limited to linear time. Of course DCM would send out these "data bits" in non-linear ways. And here we are trying to do what we can with our limited abilities and time perception at this level. I had something more profound to say when I first read that, but you know how it goes when trying to put profound topics and seeming epiphanies into writing.

On the topic of ephiphanies, I seem to learn more in these kinds of threads moreso than books. These thought experiments that seem to be a connecting of dots from different perspectives. We are part of the total DCM mind. Maybe we make up an invididual cell?

Approaching Infinity said:

We experience or perceive this kind of influence as value, which motivates us to choose certain options over others, and transforms our desires and actions to those which lead to objectively better results. DCM doesn't possess and control people, but presents them with possibilities, and it's up to us to make them real or not.

Click to expand...

Or in other words, grace is like Morpheus saying: I can only show you the door, you have to walk through it. With supposed 'gifts' like teaching and healing, it sounds like receivership capability. Being able to answer the call in certain ways.

3D Student said:

I might be nitpicking, but is there a real difference between vice and sin? I mean, I consider them both to be doing things that keep you off of your Aim's path. Or things that generally hurt yourself esoterically. Just want to clarify and make sure we're using the same definition for those two terms.

Click to expand...

I think the difference is simply with the connotations of the words. Vice is more secular and 'anthropological'. Sin implies elements of theology, thus our relation with the ultimate/divine.

So it's hard to grow essence because we have this constant lens of the personality we see and do things through? But..

..but positive disintegration may help to grow essence? And..

.. in trying to understand the essence growing and receiving of grace, I wonder if they go hand in hand? I wonder if growing an essence isn't a wholly invididual thing, and it requieres a bit of outside input, or grace from higher sources? But you have to be open and a receptor of these things. It's like dancing with the Universe.

Click to expand...

I'd say so. It's kind of like cognition. We cannot 'see' all the operations that go into our thinking. It just happens and we are conscious of the result. Just like we can't 'see' how the nerves from our eyes to our brains work, we just see the outside world. All those things go on behind the surface, outside of our control. There are many things about our bodies, and the cosmos, that are 'programmed' as possibilities to be manifested - operations that 'work' because of principles outside our control, and of which we're really unaware, at all levels (e.g., something as simple as molecular bonding is pretty amazing when you think about it). I think that's an aspect of grace: the very possibility of transformation, and the conditions that must obtain in the universe for it to actually happen. It's just as easy to imagine a world where such a thing were impossible. But no matter how bad things get, the possibility is always there, waiting to be grasped and made real. Kind of like the possibilities for DNA were always there, before the first DNA molecule.

Yeah, surely this kind of thing would not be limited to linear time. Of course DCM would send out these "data bits" in non-linear ways. And here we are trying to do what we can with our limited abilities and time perception at this level. I had something more profound to say when I first read that, but you know how it goes when trying to put profound topics and seeming epiphanies into writing.

Click to expand...

I think it can be relatively simple, or at least the experience is relatively simple, e.g., having a dream that solves a problem, having a flash of insight, having a strong gut feeling. Maybe the explanation for what's actually happening is complex, but it all comes down to reality here and now, and our everyday experiences.

On the topic of ephiphanies, I seem to learn more in these kinds of threads moreso than books. These thought experiments that seem to be a connecting of dots from different perspectives. We are part of the total DCM mind. Maybe we make up an invididual cell?

Click to expand...

That's pretty much what Paul and the Stoics, not to mention several other classical sources, thought. A community IS a body. Each member has a function. And each member can do their 'job' well or poorly, and all gradients in between. And in the big picture, the cosmos itself is a body, and 'God' is the cosmic body's cosmic mind, which unifies it, connects the parts, makes something that applies in one part apply in another part, etc. If we started seeing the cosmos as one body, we'd have totally different ways of seeing things: ecology, culture, nation states. And of course, a body can become infected. Body parts can 'misbehave'. And measures are taken to either heal or eliminate the problem. If it gets bad enough, the body can even die. And just look what we are doing to our collective body here on earth...

Or in other words, grace is like Morpheus saying: I can only show you the door, you have to walk through it. With supposed 'gifts' like teaching and healing, it sounds like receivership capability. Being able to answer the call in certain ways.

Click to expand...

Yep! So many Christians and followers of other religions don't see this. Or if they do, they totally twist it. Many Christians think humans can't do anything, or that God will do everything, or both, and so nothing changes. Because it really is up to us! We have a responsibility, a function to fulfill.

That's how I interpret these quotes from some recent Cs sessions:

A: For all forum members: Do not lose heart. Just remember that if you do all you can, yourselves in the future will bridge the gap. You are all potential transducers of information into chaos. Let that information be love/truth. Goodbye.

Click to expand...

A: Divine will manifests through humanity. Giving rise to many manifestations of your reality.

Q: (L) What is divine will?

A: Energy of information configurations of infinite permutations.

Click to expand...

So which 'information configurations' do we want to conform with and manifest?

Seems to me that grace is synonymous with insight or awareness that comes usually after a period of intense suffering where a person has some or all of their 'sacred cows' destroyed or the foundations of their belief systems (which can be religious or not) removed and find themselves in a state of despair at being cast adrift in this way. And yet, it is this state of emptyness or openness, that in a way turns them into a living question mark, that allows for the input of information that is always there but never 'asked for' in this way. And that's the 'grace' aspect - it feels like a gift being bestowed on someone in desperate need of help, but in another sense it is really just a natural function of the 'laws' at our level of development or interaction with reality as a system of information with human beings, and all living things, as receivers of information of one quality or another.

3D Student said:

I might be nitpicking, but is there a real difference between vice and sin?

Click to expand...

I don't think there is. If you ask a religious person what sin is, they're likely to describe what someone else would call a vice of some sort.