Jeremy F Kreuz
Dagobah Resident
The information I gathered from here and other sources, seems to indicate the options a human being has boils down to two: STO or STS. Either it is through sharing and become an active part of the creation; or it is through taking and become an active part of the destruction, that one is part of the total. Either one becomes an evil cunning bastard with no regard whatsoever, or one becomes an benign being that enjoys the process of creating and expanding the lesson. After all is said and done one either becomes an atom or unifies with the one.
Both paths seem to be part of one big circle: the cosmic game: a road that can be taken clockwise or counter clockwise. The choice that the players and pawns make is between black and white. That choice seems to be defined as ‘free will’.
But is this free will? Would free will not include a third option: the one of partaking in neither STO nor STS? Could there be a way to refuse to be a part of the cosmic game at all: to take the green pill and drop out?
Stagnating, being not decisive, not to choose between black and white, seems to resolve nothing, it prolongs the course and postpones the one and only decision to take. Suicide just reincarnates one with more karmic load on the back. Decision upgrades, from a pawn to queen to player behind the board. After checkmate is reached, whether on the loosing or winning side makes no difference: a new game is started: ad infinitum.
Nowhere there seems to be a ‘drop out’ choice available. Nowhere a button or pill that dissolves, evaporates, unthinks and terminates the experiment, the game, the cosmic plan, at least for the I, whatever that is, that I I am aware of. Yes, at the end of the line that may be exactly what happens, to dissolve as entity, either becoming an atom - out of which a new pawn is cast - , or either in unity with the one - being one with the game? -. But what if one doesn't want that, being either atom or in unity, part of pawn or being the game, what if one just simply does not want to be, in whatever form or shape; whether it is as rock or a thought, a solid of ethereal being, separated or unified, pawn or player or game? Is that possible?
It is true that somewhere down the line, I, whatever that is, have agreed upon the conditions and accepted ‘to go all the way’. But, from the point of view of that I, that seems a bizarre deal, where something holds an unequal control over the contract conditions. No force majeur included. No escape hatch. As in: being sold to the cosmic plan, forever.
Looking at the plan from that point of view makes it even more bizarre: it is a plan that never ends, one that is always balanced, one where what is created is destroyed, where all is one and there is no other purpose then being for the sake of being. This plan seems to make it impossible ‘not to be’. Why is that so?
The answer might be found in the laws of thermodynamics. If a system wants to be in balance, the following is an condition: nothing can disappear, nothing can escape. If some part of the system could ‘get out’, the system would become imbalanced and as a consequence of that imbalance evolve to either extinction or completion.
The condition for balance seems to exclude free will, or at least, limits it to a choice between two options: black or white, STS or STO. It seems also that these choices are counterbalancing each other, or, worded different: contributing to the overall balance of the system. If one part of the system chooses STS, then another will choose STO.
Being conscious of the consequence of that choice between STO and STS makes it further clear that there is no free will involved. Free will is a deliberate act to upset the system, to unmake the balance. This seems not possible when there is no drop out possible. Once in, one is always in.
So, is the cosmic plan indeed a nasty deal, a tricky contract? As stated above the result of an imbalanced system is either total extinction or total completion. To be able to define extinction or completion, both situations need a frame in which they can be compared to there current status. Extinction means: there is nothing in the frame. Completion means: the frame is filled up completely. Without frame talking about nothingness or completion is not possible. The only way to talk about something without a frame is when it consists on its own, that is: in balance.
The answer to the question raised seems therefore to be that only a balanced system is possible to exist in its totality on its own. Imbalanced systems cannot, they can only be part of a balanced system, and in that case, they will be counterbalanced by an equally imbalanced system, somewhere in the balanced system.
It seems therefore that STO and STS are imbalanced systems that form together the balance of the only one system that can exist on its own. If an STS choice is made, that part of the system may believe in the illusion that it does upset the system, that it does has free will, but it has not. The STO choice seems to indicate that freewill is the knowledge to be freed from that illusion, and accepting the game as a joyous experience worth the ride. Freewill therefor includes the knowledge that there is simply no green pill. One may make himself believe the blue is green, but it is not.
Both paths seem to be part of one big circle: the cosmic game: a road that can be taken clockwise or counter clockwise. The choice that the players and pawns make is between black and white. That choice seems to be defined as ‘free will’.
But is this free will? Would free will not include a third option: the one of partaking in neither STO nor STS? Could there be a way to refuse to be a part of the cosmic game at all: to take the green pill and drop out?
Stagnating, being not decisive, not to choose between black and white, seems to resolve nothing, it prolongs the course and postpones the one and only decision to take. Suicide just reincarnates one with more karmic load on the back. Decision upgrades, from a pawn to queen to player behind the board. After checkmate is reached, whether on the loosing or winning side makes no difference: a new game is started: ad infinitum.
Nowhere there seems to be a ‘drop out’ choice available. Nowhere a button or pill that dissolves, evaporates, unthinks and terminates the experiment, the game, the cosmic plan, at least for the I, whatever that is, that I I am aware of. Yes, at the end of the line that may be exactly what happens, to dissolve as entity, either becoming an atom - out of which a new pawn is cast - , or either in unity with the one - being one with the game? -. But what if one doesn't want that, being either atom or in unity, part of pawn or being the game, what if one just simply does not want to be, in whatever form or shape; whether it is as rock or a thought, a solid of ethereal being, separated or unified, pawn or player or game? Is that possible?
It is true that somewhere down the line, I, whatever that is, have agreed upon the conditions and accepted ‘to go all the way’. But, from the point of view of that I, that seems a bizarre deal, where something holds an unequal control over the contract conditions. No force majeur included. No escape hatch. As in: being sold to the cosmic plan, forever.
Looking at the plan from that point of view makes it even more bizarre: it is a plan that never ends, one that is always balanced, one where what is created is destroyed, where all is one and there is no other purpose then being for the sake of being. This plan seems to make it impossible ‘not to be’. Why is that so?
The answer might be found in the laws of thermodynamics. If a system wants to be in balance, the following is an condition: nothing can disappear, nothing can escape. If some part of the system could ‘get out’, the system would become imbalanced and as a consequence of that imbalance evolve to either extinction or completion.
The condition for balance seems to exclude free will, or at least, limits it to a choice between two options: black or white, STS or STO. It seems also that these choices are counterbalancing each other, or, worded different: contributing to the overall balance of the system. If one part of the system chooses STS, then another will choose STO.
Being conscious of the consequence of that choice between STO and STS makes it further clear that there is no free will involved. Free will is a deliberate act to upset the system, to unmake the balance. This seems not possible when there is no drop out possible. Once in, one is always in.
So, is the cosmic plan indeed a nasty deal, a tricky contract? As stated above the result of an imbalanced system is either total extinction or total completion. To be able to define extinction or completion, both situations need a frame in which they can be compared to there current status. Extinction means: there is nothing in the frame. Completion means: the frame is filled up completely. Without frame talking about nothingness or completion is not possible. The only way to talk about something without a frame is when it consists on its own, that is: in balance.
The answer to the question raised seems therefore to be that only a balanced system is possible to exist in its totality on its own. Imbalanced systems cannot, they can only be part of a balanced system, and in that case, they will be counterbalanced by an equally imbalanced system, somewhere in the balanced system.
It seems therefore that STO and STS are imbalanced systems that form together the balance of the only one system that can exist on its own. If an STS choice is made, that part of the system may believe in the illusion that it does upset the system, that it does has free will, but it has not. The STO choice seems to indicate that freewill is the knowledge to be freed from that illusion, and accepting the game as a joyous experience worth the ride. Freewill therefor includes the knowledge that there is simply no green pill. One may make himself believe the blue is green, but it is not.
