Session 18 May 2019

[hlat]

More brainstorming. Reality is held together by consciousness observing objective reality. The consensus among the observers is their total knowledge binding them together as gravity.

 

[Courageous Inmate Sort]

In some places, Paul is even more antagonistic towards the law, presenting the law not only as a lower principle relative to love but as an impediment on the way towards love:

msante posted this today and it seems pertinent to the theme of law vs love:

Among the most prominent topics, Solzhenitsyn talks about:
...
Western society has placed its faith and trust in a System of Laws disconnected from human consciousness. While listening to him I could not help but connect his words to the passage from Guyénot (From Yahweh to Zion) when he writes about how for the Jewish people, a Law emanating from a "superior" entity that cannot be questioned frees man from the obligation to evaluate and judge his own acts as long as they are done according to the Law.

 

[Yozilla]

Ah, here it is Mr goyacobol Sir - thou not exactly Dinaridic people - but Adriatic ones, session 19 Feb 2000:

Q: What was the connection between the Hyperboreans, including the Celts of Britain, I believe, and the people of Delos?

A: Northern peoples were responsible for civilising the Meditteranean/Adriatic peoples with the encoded secrets contained within their superior extra-terrestrially based genetic arrangement. Practice of which you speak was multi-trans-generational habit.

Hmm, now i realize that i've probably inferred that Adriatic-Dinaridic peple were bestowed with ET based genetic arrangement instead Nordics as implied by C's... Although some sources say that Dinarics are of Nordic kin too

 

[Bluegazer]

a Law emanating from a "superior" entity that cannot be questioned frees man from the obligation to evaluate and judge his own acts as long as they are done according to the Law.

That means that practically man does not use his free will.

At least that is what I understand, if we consider that our current experience impels us to make a decision (judge). Subtract from making a decision, someone will do it for us ...

 

[stellar]

Q: (L) I was just spiraling down into poor health for the past few years because I was giving all my energy to shore up people I cared about. And then I realized I can’t do this anymore; I just can’t. I knew that if I continued, I would die before my work was finished. But it’s so hard to do that; it’s like tearing your heart out to just say “No more”. Only afterward did I realize that I was giving all this energy because I was being manipulated by the pity trips.

Grateful for the supportive messages of this session. I'm going through the thick of just such a situation and it is literally heart wrenching, to the point that my cardiologist installed a heart monitor which takes readings 24/7. He could not find any physical/medical reasons for the spikes in pressure and palpitations.
I don't think he'll be any the wiser as he follows the readings but I'm sure once my issues are resolved it will be back to normal.

Really amazing about the caps but not so surprising considering how much other high strangeness you have experienced.

 

[Meg]

Grateful for the supportive messages of this session. I'm going through the thick of just such a situation and it is literally heart wrenching, to the point that my cardiologist installed a heart monitor which takes readings 24/7. He could not find any physical/medical reasons for the spikes in pressure and palpitations.
I don't think he'll be any the wiser as he follows the readings but I'm sure once my issues are resolved it will be back to normal.

Really amazing about the caps but not so surprising considering how much other high strangeness you have experienced.

I hope it's not too serious, stellar and your heart issues resolve soon.

 

[Nienna]

I hope it's not too serious, stellar and your heart issues resolve soon.

Wishing for you to recover your health quickly and to for you to get through the difficult situation you are dealing with soon stellar!

 

[stellar]

I hope it's not too serious, stellar and your heart issues resolve soon.

Thank you Meg, I'm working on it.

 

[stellar]

Wishing for you to recover your health quickly and to for you to get through the difficult situation you are dealing with soon stellar!

Appreciate your kindness and warmth Nienna. There is much wisdom and advice in the forum which has given me the strength to keep going. Even when I don't directly ask, my questions are answered by reading and reflecting. I truly appreciate you all.

 

[Sol Logos]

That means that practically man does not use his free will.

At least that is what I understand, if we consider that our current experience impels us to make a decision (judge). Subtract from making a decision, someone will do it for us ...

Freewill seems to be the crux of it. Say we can broadly understand a law as a rule that permits or obstructs any action. Who then permits or obstructs our actions and who decides? If its not us, then we're not using our freewill.

For us to use our freewill, first we need to know what choices we have to decide anything. How can we choose an option we're not aware about? Then we need to know something about the results of each choice too. How else could be weigh up options to make any informed decisions? So we need that baseline knowledge for freewill to mean anything.

But there's likely a reason we don't have that knowledge. For example, why didn't we decide to pursue that knowledge if we always had the means to? If knowledge protects, why not pick it up as early as possible? Did we abdecate that job for someone or something else? For example, the system, the government etc.? And why are we often led to believe someone else is responsible and why follow that? I doubt that love for ourselves, anyone or anything is the motivation.

So for me, knowledge, freewill and love too seem to be inextricably linked. Law seems to be needed in the absence of all those.

Anyway, found this from the Bible, searching for those terms.

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple."

 

[Breo]

There is much wisdom and advice in the forum which has given me the strength to keep going. Even when I don't directly ask, my questions are answered by reading and reflecting. I truly appreciate you all.

Stellar, you expressed this beautifully and it is an inspiration for all of us. All the best for your recovery ☺.

 

[Bluegazer]

Freewill seems to be the crux of it. Say we can broadly understand a law as a rule that permits or obstructs any action. Who then permits or obstructs our actions and who decides? If its not us, then we're not using our freewill.

For us to use our freewill, first we need to know what choices we have to decide anything. How can we choose an option we're not aware about? Then we need to know something about the results of each choice too. How else could be weigh up options to make any informed decisions? So we need that baseline knowledge for freewill to mean anything.

But there's likely a reason we don't have that knowledge. For example, why didn't we decide to pursue that knowledge if we always had the means to? If knowledge protects, why not pick it up as early as possible? Did we abdecate that job for someone or something else? For example, the system, the government etc.? And why are we often led to believe someone else is responsible and why follow that? I doubt that love for ourselves, anyone or anything is the motivation.

So for me, knowledge, freewill and love too seem to be inextricably linked. Law seems to be needed in the absence of all those.

Anyway, found this from the Bible, searching for those terms.

Yes. I think in that direction the question takes.

I will transcribe something that I elaborated days ago, reading this thread and that of aleksandr solzhenitsyn, adding some comments from other users to be able to make it and make it understandable as much as possible.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn on June 8, 1978 gave a small presentation at Hardvard University. He said: The defense of "human rights" and / and "freedom of expression" has become a kind of "freedom to do what I want" that must be guaranteed to each individual.

This absurd conception has become one of the main vehicles for evil to spread in the world. He (Aleksandr) proposes that "it is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations."

Now i think, for the present times such declaration in the perception that has the present generation this would be equivalent to a "hate discrimination or hate crime" or that he would simply deny such rights. This is clear given the current character of postmodernist thought that has been installed in the academy and the world in general.

Now what does not know or seems not to understand the present generation is the following. Born from the reflection of the exposed by Aleksandr: "human rights", "freedom of expression" and "freedom to do what I want" are good concepts, if they can improve individual conscience and become a help for the disadvantaged. Unfortunately, they became individualistic, materialistic, blind, inflexible, driven by the ego and became a tool of a larger agenda.

Today these concepts have been groped to the point of becoming something that accompanies the fashion of the ideological posture, and where the Candid (the naive, but also narcissistic and his ego) has believed that the world exists only for him and that Only an injustice could deprive them of enjoying it completely. The world exists only for him, and in him the candid can be whatever he wishes, without any limit, moved by a voluntarism that functions as a criterion of truth. Who will dare to deny a young man who is a cat if he expresses his feeling that he is?

That said here comes the revelation in something Aleksandr pointed out in his speech: Western society has placed its faith and trust in a System of Laws disconnected from human consciousness. [...] His words (coincide) with the passage from Guyénot (From Yahweh to Zion) when he writes about how for the Jewish people, A Law that emanates from a "superior" entity that cannot be questioned frees man from the obligation to evaluate and judge his own acts as long as they are performed in accordance with the Law.

In our present time, "human rights" and "the freedom to do what I want" are part of the codex of laws both nationally and internationally. The obligation that man has to evaluate and judge his own acts is nothing other than the true exercise of free will. When a man has to make a decision between the good and the bad, the beautiful and the ugly, that decision is the same act of judging and weighing on the balance of consciousness what path will follow.

When man is "freed" from that obligation, he renounces his most precious asset. Our true freedom to choose. His free will. And when this happens, paradoxically by his own choice (but choice based on ignorance of these facts) is then when man sells the same essence of his soul so that another can do with it what he pleases.

This is the root of absolute slavery.

 

[Sol Logos]

"... A Law that emanates from a "superior" entity that cannot be questioned frees man from the obligation to evaluate and judge his own acts as long as they are performed in accordance with the Law..."

How do we evaluate our actions without any feedback? If we can't evaluate our options, do we even have much freewill?

If we run into a brick wall there are physical and physiological laws that govern the feedback we could expect. Feedback is information that we can use to permit and obstruct our own actions. We can also broadly define law as what permits and obstructs any action.

Those physical and physiological laws might feel like they supercede our freewill, but do they? If we know the consequences of running at a brick wall and love ourselves enough not to inflict on ourselves unnecessary pain, we'd choose not to run at that brick wall. At least I would.

The point might be that we can make our own decisions with consideration to those physical and physiological laws. We can do that because we have feedback that gives us information we can use to evaluate our actions. From that foundation, we can make better use of our freewill.

 

[Bluegazer]

@alkhemst

I just want to join some dots.

Let's not go far with the issue of free will I think it deserves another topic.

To begin with, that feedback you mention is what we understand by objective reality and exists even when we are not aware of it.

That said, let's focus on what was said in other comments.

This change in alignment from the law to love implies that one's behavior ceases to be guided by outside factors but becomes part of the responsible individual who can now act in freedom without the external obligations of the law.

It is like growing from externally assisted childhood to free response-able adulthood.

In Paul's cosmogony, "life" also equates "faith" (in love in Christ). With that in mind, it seems that, for Paul, it is the law that creates sin and kills the faith.

Although it appears counter-intuitive (law is supposed to encourage virtue and prevent sin). Upon further inspection, it might makes sense. A believer who applies moral laws might conclude about is own goodness, although, he merely applies arbitrary laws that restrict his morality to the material sphere (hygiene, cleanliness).

Furthermore, he applies those arbitrary moral laws not for the sake of goodness but for his own interest, i.e. to prevent the punishments from the angry god.

This self-satisfaction in the application of arbitrary laws focusing on materiality might indeed be an impediment on the way to faith (in love).

After all, why the one who is righteous in the application of materialistic laws would even consider remote spiritual things like faith (in love)? Why would the one convinced that he is chosen and protected by the righteous god even consider love?

The converse would be nihilism, postmodernism, Darwinism, etc. It takes love, meaning, responsibility, and any real striving away. Then you just have pure mechanical "rules and regulations" for their own sake. We become aimless machines with no higher purpose or direction except one arbitrarily chosen for us and inscribed into law like a computer program.

I think people are designed to strive for a higher purpose, and this is exploited, like you say, with substituting spiritual goals or life, with the strictly material. It is like creating a vacuum, and then filling that vacuum with false ideas, and beliefs.

Laws disconnected from consciousness only produce purely materialistic restrictions with the sole purpose of keeping us under control, making us believe in the "good intention" of these (human rights, etc.) because they appeal to our noble feelings, to deceive us and that no one does the job of discerning, that is, taking responsibility for using our free will.

This is something that we see in Gnosis I, Boris Mouravieff when he speak of the General Law:

If by marching directly towards the goal, which is liberation and salvation, man successively transposes obstacles, and therefore gives evidence of a force that it allows to challenge the dominion of the General Law, this same law begins to act on it indirectly, in general through its close friends; when they don't follow the same route. This action, is inserted in the moral plane, often takes emotional forms*, appealing to his noble, generous, selfless feelings, to his charity, to his obligations, to his piety. He seeks to lead him to a dead end road, hinting at him so he returns to his duty...

Then we see the pattern: That the laws that exist in the world are only more complex developments of the General Law and this General Law is part of the STS nature in which we are living.

From the laws of the Old Testament to present international human rights laws etc ... are all arrangements of the general law.

*Note how current generations have this tendency to be exaggeratedly empathic, altruistic and how the laws conform to this in the form of political correctness.

I will continue to elaborate later.

 

[Sol Logos]

@alkhemst
Then we see the pattern: That the laws that exist in the world are only more complex developments of the General Law and this General Law is part of the STS nature in which we are living.

From the laws of the Old Testament to present international human rights laws etc ... are all arrangements of the general law.

*Note how current generations have this tendency to be exaggeratedly empathic, altruistic and how the laws conform to this in the form of political correctness.

I will continue to elaborate later.

There's always good rules and bad rules. If we follow rules mindlessly without considering their impact in practice, where's our discernment?

It might be that our head is saturated with black and white beliefs and ideologies, so our ability to discern is severely compromised. So we think we're doing "good" or acting "moral" despite the facts demonstrating otherwise.

Imagine if everyone who came to this forum had high functioning thinking, feeling and physical centres? Would guidelines need to be articulated? I've got a rule that anyone visiting my home doesn't go around breaking things on purpose. I don't need to tell people that because I wouldn't invite someone like that in. The point is, there are rules, whether or not written down.

When they are written, like the Ten Commandments, might it indicate the people were thinking, feeling and acting in discordant and harmful ways? If that's right the fact we have thousands and thousands of laws, statutes, policies, rules etc. might say more about our current social condition than about the quality of laws in general. That's my guess anyway.

But at what point does a rule become accepted as law? One maxim about law, as far as I remember is it has to be consistent. So these rules that don't apply to a "special class" of people, allowing them to be above the law, don't fit this basic maxim of law. That kind of thing is the result of there being no rule of law in a society. In other words, those rules aren't strictly speaking, law.

My take on Paul is that being more fully integrated in ourselves (coming from a position of love) means we implicitly follow the law. So laws don't need to be explicit, stated or written etc. Those would be only the kind of laws that have universal appeal as opposed to rules that benefit the few, that is.