Nević Nenad
The Living Force
Bluestar said:
In many countries writing on the money is considered as a crime by the law. That money would be worthless, and would be pull out of use.
Session 22 July 2010
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
In many countries writing on the money is considered as a crime by the law. That money would be worthless, and would be pull out of use.
cubbex
The Living Force
Galaxia said:
I would just like to say that; if ever a time comes when I am faced with a situation where the only way to survive would be to eat man's best friend or even a fellow human being... That wouldn't be living. When it comes down to sacrifices like that, it just isn't worth it at all. The point of it all, for me, would be gone.
I wouldn't want to become something like that, ever.
[/quote]
So what about the cows or pigs, they don't deserve your sacrifice?
What I do in cases like the stickers idea, is in youtube, sometimes I write, visit this page, to the forum or to the cassiopaean site. And some of those that read the link is reading the wave. Not so much, at least 4 or 2.
knowledge_of_self
The Living Force
cubbex said:
So what about the cows or pigs, they don't deserve your sacrifice?
[/quote]
Cubbex, I don't understand what you mean by the statement above- could you clarify please? Fwiw, I also agree with Galaxia and others by stating that I refuse to eat another human being if such a desperate time ever came... I don't want to live a life that requires such deeds- because I would not consider it living. I think such an act kills your soul and I rather have my soul- than sustain my physical body through such methods.
As it stands in this world animals eat animals that are on the same density because it is their primal instinct. Survival. Humans are 3rd density and have attained consciousness and morality- yes we do eat lower density life because we are by nature STS. But we no longer function based on the primal instinct of survival. Because of this, imo normal humans draw the line between survival and life. A life worth living isn’t just about surviving- osit.
anart
A Disturbance in the Force
Deedlet said:
Could you elaborate on why you think it would kill your soul? I would not knowingly resort to cannibalism either, but 'killing your soul' sounds like it might be a bit melodramatic.
D said:
Morality is subjective - depending on where you are on the planet, moral definitions differ.
D said:
I think if times get desperate enough, you'll see the majority of human beings functioning on the primal instinct of survival.
D said:
This may be true for some humans, but to say it is true for all humans is a bit of a stretch.
knowledge_of_self
The Living Force
anart said:
Well… thinking in terms of soul development- I see the act of cannibalism as a sadistic deed that propels you towards de evolution rather than evolution. Committing such an act- is imo saying to the universe that you make no distinction between conscious and animalistic/barbaric life styles. You only live to survive- and there is no place where you draw the line. Perhaps than I should say… that cannibalism kills any chance of having an STO soul? But perhaps it is a welcoming act if you want an STS soul.
anart said:
Morality could be subjective, but it could also be the basis for soul development. What’s the difference between having conscience and morality? As I understand it, having a conscience and morality is what separates normal people from psychopaths.
I think that in the context of cannibalism, morality isn’t subjective. You either have it- or you don’t.
anart said:
I think that’s true, if your only intention is physical survival. But if you’re not attached to your physical body and you believe in soul- and higher consciousness- than death is but a new beginning. And I think that’s a huge test in it’s self- to be put in that situation would you really stick to your morals? Does the end justify the means?
anart said:
You’re right and it is a bit of a stretch to apply that to all humans. But as you see above, I said “normal humans”. By normal humans- I mean those who are not psychopathic and are working on themselves to be free of psychopathic influences.
anart
A Disturbance in the Force
Deedlet said:
Well, you seem to be talking about cannibalism for cannibalism' sake - not as a last resort to avoid death, which is how I think it is being presented here. I'm not sure why you would think that was sadistic unless the person was tortured to death or something. We're also not (to my understanding) talking about a lifestyle here, we're talking about a 'no other way to avoid death' situation.
Again - I'm not saying that I would resort to cannibalism, but the way you write about it makes it seem that you're thinking of it as a lifestyle choice, not the last step before starvation.
D said:
No, morality IS subjective. Gurdjieff goes into great detail on this, and thus avoids using the term. Consciousness exists outside of morality, which is usually social/religious and emotional in nature. I hope I've not confused the issue more - just want to point out that your continued use of the words 'morality' and 'morals' is limiting.
D said:
You either have morality or you don't, or you either have cannibalism or you don't? Would it be moral to consume whatever is available to survive, or to help your child survive, in order to last until other food was available so that you could live to make an objective difference in the future? These are the types of questions that arise and why 'morality' has no bearing. I'm just trying to point out that things are not always as simple as they appear.
D said:
The vast - vast - majority of humanity knows no better.
D said:
Again, morals are subjective, and imply that one would 'go to hell' for consuming human flesh in a survival situation. This appears to me to be black and white thinking.
D said:
The vast - vast - majority of normal humans are not 'working on themselves' - they don't even know that there is work to be done. Just some food for thought.
Quote from Anart
Yes, it does seem very black & white. This discussion reminds me of the 1993 movie, Alive. It is a true story about a rugby team from Uruguay, whose plane crashed in the Andes Mountains. In their desperate attempt to survive, they resorted to cannibalism.
I never saw the movie, but there was a lot of "hoopla" in the press about it at the time it was released.
I just cannot see the souls of those young men being damned to STS for eating other humans in this survival situation.
Yes, it does seem very black & white. This discussion reminds me of the 1993 movie, Alive. It is a true story about a rugby team from Uruguay, whose plane crashed in the Andes Mountains. In their desperate attempt to survive, they resorted to cannibalism.
I never saw the movie, but there was a lot of "hoopla" in the press about it at the time it was released.
I just cannot see the souls of those young men being damned to STS for eating other humans in this survival situation.
Richs
The Cosmic Force
anart said:
The way Gurdjieff explains "morality" is the following (from In Search of the Miraculous" by Ouspensky):
"Further, in connection with the question of good and evil, we must try to understand the relative positions of morality and conscience. What is morality and what is conscience? We can say first of all that morality is not constant. It is different in different countries, in different centuries, in different decades, in different classes, with people of different education, and so on. What may be moral in the Caucasus may be immoral in Europe. For instance, in some countries blood revenge is a most moral thing; if a man refuses to kill somebody who killed his distant uncle, he would be considered most immoral. But in Europe nobody would think that, in fact most people would think a man very immoral to kill anybody, even a relative of somebody who had killed his uncle. So morality is always different, and it always changes. But conscience never changes. Conscience is a kind of emotional understanding of truth in certain definite relations, generally in relation to behaviour, to people and so on. This is always the same; it cannot change and it cannot differ in one nation or another, in one country or another, in one person or another."
So, acting 'morally' in the context of one's current culture may not always equal 'good'.
[mod: quote fixed]
H
Hildegarda
Guest
Lilou said:
Perhaps the issue is this.
When you say "eating other humans", it sounds like putting a fork into an already prepared dish in front of you, in which one ingredient just happens to be human flesh. As such, it may not indeed sound so drastic in regard to soul development.
But what if you envision what actually happens before that? I do not know the exact plot of the movie -- did they eat the flesh of someone who has expired from injuries, or did they actually killed and butchered one of their comrades? That could make a huge difference in what goes on in the person's mind.
What precedes "eating human flesh" is that a fellow human being (and possibly somebody truly close to you with whom you have a bond, a friend or a blood relative), undergoes ultimate dehumanization -- he or she turns not just into a creature of a substantially "lower order" but into a piece of meat. The further act of preparing such a meal cements it on a very visceral level.
It's probably not an accident that in the cultures for whom cannibalism was a lifestyle (which, some can say, stemmed from the fact that there was no available source of animal protein where they lived), they ate not their tribesmen but the captured outsiders who were strangers, and moreover were placed on the same level as animals in their view of the world.
Dehumanizing other people close to you, which is what cannibalism in a survival situation cannot avoid, is something that I think must be very hard for a soul to bear.
osit
Harold
Jedi Council Member
When looking at the big picture, according to the C's, all is one, we are all connected in some way, and everything has meaning. When one extends this to eating, arn't we all cannibals, even the vegetarians? If, for example, a 3, 4 or 6d entity comes back to experience being..... eaten or being a tomato. In the big picture, being a cannibal is, as has been said, part of our nature of being STS.
Apparently, hell is filled with those who ate meat on friday. As the bible claimed. This has been recanted, and now, nobody goes to hell for eating meat on friday. So what of all those in hell for eating meat on friday in the past? They must be ticked off! You ate meat on friday, and then you get sent to the biggest BBQ in town. No wonder the bible confuses so many, myself included.
I have read, seen(in movies) and heard of, soldiers who would eat their victims. These people used cannibalism to assist them to:
a)get a unlimited supply of nutrition.
b)travel light
c)energy boost
d)intimidation
e)create a mystique surrounding their ability to travel fast
This, is immoral cannibalism.... is it not?
When I think of the future, I do not like to think of cannibalism as a way of life either, but it could be a possibility. Again, I do think that I read that the C's have suggested to stay open to all possibilities.
Apparently, hell is filled with those who ate meat on friday. As the bible claimed. This has been recanted, and now, nobody goes to hell for eating meat on friday. So what of all those in hell for eating meat on friday in the past? They must be ticked off! You ate meat on friday, and then you get sent to the biggest BBQ in town. No wonder the bible confuses so many, myself included.
I have read, seen(in movies) and heard of, soldiers who would eat their victims. These people used cannibalism to assist them to:
a)get a unlimited supply of nutrition.
b)travel light
c)energy boost
d)intimidation
e)create a mystique surrounding their ability to travel fast
This, is immoral cannibalism.... is it not?
When I think of the future, I do not like to think of cannibalism as a way of life either, but it could be a possibility. Again, I do think that I read that the C's have suggested to stay open to all possibilities.
truth seeker
The Living Force
Hildegarda said:
If I remember the movie correctly, they ate the flesh of people who had already expired (most likely due to being frozen to death). They also were greatly disturbed by even having to consider such a thing and went back and forth over it. The last point is that they didn't cook the flesh (if I remember), and it was taken in small pieces so as not to really desecrate the body. They only took what was needed to survive. Not sure how accurate this movie is in reltion to what really happened.
While, the subject of cannibalism received quite a bit of attention, what is often overlooked in it was how the interpersonal relationships of those involved changed throughout the ordeal.
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alive_%281993_film%29
Hildegarda said:
As Truthseeker already stated, they ate flesh of those who had already died. The bodies were preserved by the snow & cold (they were high in the Andes Mountains). A few days after the plane crash, which killed 25% of the passengers, their shelter was hit by an avalanche. This killed 8 more people. Faced with subzero temperatures, little food, and news from a radio that authorities had abandoned the search for them, they came to a difficult decision. In fact, some refused to eat, but as hunger & cold overtook them, they changed their minds.
After 8 weeks, 2 of the survivors trekked for twelve days, before finding help. There were 16 survivors taken off the mountain after 72 days.
Link: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguayan_Air_Force_Flight_571
Thoughts.
To eat other people - to strengthen own physical body.
Not to eat other people, because their physical body - the same value, as well as own. (Importance of a physical body)
What of these actions clings consciousness for 3D more?
Whether it is possible, what it is the critical choice defining the further polarization - to leave a physical body, having died of hunger, but without wishing to keep a physical body at any cost?
Or it not a big cost?
(In what a difference - eating of people or animals?)
Or it is especially individual question?
To eat other people - to strengthen own physical body.
Not to eat other people, because their physical body - the same value, as well as own. (Importance of a physical body)
What of these actions clings consciousness for 3D more?
Whether it is possible, what it is the critical choice defining the further polarization - to leave a physical body, having died of hunger, but without wishing to keep a physical body at any cost?
Or it not a big cost?
(In what a difference - eating of people or animals?)
Or it is especially individual question?
