"Poverty is a state of consciousness"
-
Of course I do. And mine is genuine. I actually live by my beliefs. I don't pretend to be helping others through some government agency or get vicarious satisfaction out of forcing others to behave philanthropically.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"FraterLA>"You speak constantly of freedom for the True Will, yet you constantly react to these others as if their True Will can't possibly include advocating the cause of the truly oppressed."
So, getting back to an earlier point, this is fairly accurate.
I do not believe anyone with a genuine awareness of True Will would waste any time or effort "advocating" anything. He would simply do that which he wants done."
Completely sidesteps the issue of championing the oppressed. Here you once again sidestep an opportunity to answer the question directly. Instead, you simply attempt to teach me again.
"One very fast way to halt learning and growth is to waste time trying to alter or influence the behavior of others against their will. To pass judgment on others based on the perceived lack of compassion for the "oppressed" is a common error among the sub-neophyte class."
What was that you were saying about stepping in and telling people how to think or behave? I think I may have missed your point. But this is exactly mine. You can't play both cards. You are both telling us how we should behave in regard to compassion as well as telling us true initiates don't tell people how to behave...
Stop teaching and look in the mirror. Stop sidestepping issues with your pedantic sensibilities and answer directly based on the question of whether it can be someone's True Will to liberate the oppressed:
What is your opinion of the story of the initiate MSH? Come on, qabalist. Were his actions Severity or Compassion?
"To reserve any space in one's consciousness with concerns about the way others 'should' think, feel or act is folly."
Yes. Yes. Yes!!! My entire point with you. Look in the mirror!
"I sense a giant vacuum in the space where respect for Hadit would normally go. There is an imbalance."
And I sense a giant vacuum in the space where respect for Nuit would normally go. Need I further point out the circle?
-
Neo, turn-about is fair play.
Get over it.
And if you only read those words on the level of my relationship with you, you completely missed the point.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"Of course I do. And mine is genuine. I actually live by my beliefs. I don't pretend to be helping others through some government agency or get vicarious satisfaction out of forcing others to behave philanthropically."
Perhaps the above quote is a great example of where the imbalance in one's self between "Hadit consciousness" and "Nuit consciousness" can lead. Look at all those "I" statements and the need to defend "I" or impress your "other" (me) about this "I" and your relation (perhaps) in comparison (competition with) the "other" (still, talking of me here in this example). I'm not spending my life comparing myself to you - I'm comparing myself to myself as I was yesterday. And in the example of a charitable act I gave on page one of this thread (remember, stepping out of my car and all?), that was of the nature of recognizing the "other" in the same light I would recognize myself. I offer to help you, I want you to feel better about yourself so I'm not going to just give it to you, I'm going to give you a chance to learn to take it. In fact, in the example I gave, I made it appear that it would be a favor done for me (help me help you to help you) But instead, frequently I watch you choose to take up arms and don the armor.
Now don't get me wrong - I'm in no way stating that weaponry is bad. It has its time and place, but in this discussion - I don't see its need at all. So I hope that even though some of the words of various aspects of your "other" (which, by the way, are parts of your Self) may seem barbed or tinged with assault to your senses, you won't necessarily feel the need to throw slings in return but might just say, "hmm, it's at least worth considering. I'll give it some thought and maybe later tell you about it." I mean, if that's what you learn... if that's the least you learn about things from discussions like this, you will have done a great service to yourself and the worse that can happen is that you waste a few minutes reading opinions you'll never agree with.
I just want you to know that I truly suspect you're only finding help around you in this thread - no one intends to be able to say, "aha! I just won an internet argument!"
-
@Labyrinthus said
"Of course I do. And mine is genuine. I actually live by my beliefs. I don't pretend to be helping others through some government agency or get vicarious satisfaction out of forcing others to behave philanthropically."
"Watch the Lady! Watch the Lady! Everybody is a winner!
Compassion, Sympathy, Empathy!
What I do is right and what you do is always wrong...!
I show compassion (the right kind). Mine is genuine (of course, not like your obviously unexamined "sympathy"). Of course, when you argue for compassion, it is necessarily merely a shallow understanding of it. It can't be fully-formed, and if it involves some government agency, the it is of course the wrong kind."
Please, Labyrinthus! Teach me some more about how your actions are always correct and my answer is always wrong...!
You sense imbalance...
If you would just stop all the ridiculous condescending statements regarding your judgment of our lack of Hadit-awareness, you might be able to hear that we already agree with you entirely in essence - something that we have only been able to wring from you after the debate has taken extreme turns.
I think you've decided you want to test us and decided that we will fail your test.
If you want to put on the lens of Hadit, then all compassion fails. Including your own. There is no room for it in the world of Hadit at all. There IS no mercy, no quarter, nothing held back, no reserve, no survivors. There is only ME..!
If that's the standard by which you will judge the compassion of others, WE will always fail.
You can't judge compassion through the lense of Hadit. It's an entirely different direction in Reality. Compassion will always seem imbalanced in Hadit's scales. Stop handing them to him and look through other eyes.
-
@Poe said
"The last thread ultimately led to a very Zen Satori.
http://www.lonestarstangs.com/forum/images/smilies/MichealJacksonPopcorn.gif"
@Poe said
"*Places sandals on head and walks away."
-
@_aLL_seEing_eYe_ said
"
@Poe said
"*Places sandals on head and walks away."
"How many times do you intend to say you are dead to this conversation before you actually act like it?
-
@Frater LA said
"Of course, when you argue for compassion, it is necessarily merely a shallow understanding of it"
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. Please explain what you are trying to get at.
@Frater LA said
"and if it involves some government agency, the it is of course the wrong kind.""
This is straightforward. Not just that it is the wrong kind (govt enforced philanthropy is completely phony) - it is just plain wrong and un-Thelemic.
@Frater LA said
"Please, Labyrinthus! Teach me some more about how your actions are always correct and my answer is always wrong...!"
what the heck are you talking about? Please, can you cut-n-paste the exact quote of something I actually said and reply to that?
-
@Frater LA said
"If you would just stop all the ridiculous condescending statements regarding your judgment of our lack of Hadit-awareness, "
When, where or how did I** judge** your lack of Hadit-awareness?
(I did not... and to make such an accusation is not a good thing)
-
@Frater LA said
"
Lab>" I do not believe anyone with a genuine awareness of True Will would waste any time or effort "advocating" anything. He would simply do that which he wants done."Completely sidesteps the issue of championing the oppressed."
No, it doesn't.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"
@Frater LA said
"
Lab>" I do not believe anyone with a genuine awareness of True Will would waste any time or effort "advocating" anything. He would simply do that which he wants done."Completely sidesteps the issue of championing the oppressed."
No, it doesn't."
Instead of saying, "no, you're wrong!" I'm confident that you would go much further in being understood if you showed by example or some anecdote what you mean. For example, how do you fit Martin Luther King Jr. in your image of what is and what should never be?
-
@Takamba said
"Look at all those "I" statements and the need to defend "I" or impress your "other" (me) about this "I" and your relation (perhaps) in comparison (competition with) the "other" (still, talking of me here in this example)."
I am not afraid of my "I". You see, Takamba, I am not delusional about my actual status here on planet earth. I am not in denial about my "I"ness. I believe that I have here a temporary body and an individual identity that I am able to opportunistically capitalize on in the interest of Eternal Goals.
Those who pretend to be in sympathetic oneness with the Universal Being while projecting words from the human consciousness are playing a game that does not serve the Eternal Purpose, if you ask me.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"
@Takamba said
"Look at all those "I" statements and the need to defend "I" or impress your "other" (me) about this "I" and your relation (perhaps) in comparison (competition with) the "other" (still, talking of me here in this example)."I am not afraid of my "I". You see, Takamba, I am not delusional about my actual status here on planet earth. I am not in denial about my "I"ness. I believe that I have here a temporary body and an individual identity that I am able to opportunistically capitalize on in the interest of Eternal Goals.
Those who pretend to be in sympathetic oneness with the Universal Being while projecting words from the human consciousness are playing a game that does not serve the Eternal Purpose, if you ask me."
I too am not afraid of my "I"ness. I have an aunt whose name is Inez, she used to scare me. But my individuality does not scare me, nor my ability to feel for those I perceive who are also like me. And this is not pretending. I believe, though I may be mistaken, that you are afraid of Union. You are afraid of losing consciousness of this "I"ness, which in fact is not a bad description of the mystical experience of the Great White Brotherhood.
Yes, there are many who are pretending. Sometimes I just outright call them out loud "the Democratic party," but I'm usually mostly playing. I know better that not all people fit a mold even when they consciously choose to name their mold. But because some people follow altruism with false sentiments, that doesn't mean that all of us should become ignorant and not want to raise the entire population to a state of self awareness.
(by "raise to a state" I don't mean force, I mean afford an opportunity)
Now at this point I hear you saying "ah! so you think your awareness is 'higher' (aka, better) than that of others?!?" Yes. Yes I do. And I want to remind you of that moment earlier when I asked you to become aware of the irony of what you are saying - because the more obvious thing about you so far that every one else is finding fault with is that you are portraying yourself as superior to everyone else here. But I've gotten to know you and I for one don't actually believe that's you. I just believe that you are confusing yourself, and in trying to share your perceptions, have caused others to confuse you even further. And that's something that I believe you would like to not happen any more, and you can make not happen any more. Just accept that both you and I agree that your self-consciousness is all important, and your self is one of many "selves" that makes yet another kind of consciousness that is also all important. Stars with Twinkles someone once called it. And even though you don't fully grasp everything I've said (even if you think (think thunk thuuuu) you do, trust me - you don't), you don't need to disagree with it just yet.
I'll agree to hear you if you'll agree to hear me.
-
@Takamba said
"I asked you to become aware of the irony of what you are saying - because the more obvious thing about you so far that every one else is finding fault with is that you are portraying yourself as superior to everyone else here."
Now that is rather surprising in its sheer audacity and presumptuousness. I have not met "everyone else here" so I would not even begin to portray myself as superior. I do understand how my failure to automatically** subordinate **myself and grovel sufficiently at the outset may have disappointed some here and that singular failure may be interpreted as a demonstration of superiority. But really I am left guessing at this point. Could you grab a few lines of what I actually said that demonstrates a posture of "superiority"? (Is simple disagreement viewed as copping a superior attitude?).
@Takamba said
"But because some people follow altruism with false sentiments, that doesn't mean that all of us should become ignorant and not want to raise the entire population to a state of self awareness. "
? become ignorant? I stopped wanting to "raise the consciousness" of others when I realized that I cannot raise the consciousness of others. Only the individual can raise Its own individual consciousness. i mean, if others were able to do this... wouldn't they have done it by now?
@Takamba said
"(by "raise to a state" I don't mean force, I mean afford an opportunity)"
Then why didn't you just say that? That is confusing. The active 'raising' act versus the more passive "afford an opportunity" are two very different expressions with completely different meanings. (?) I do not think they are at all interchangeable.
@Takamba said
"Just accept that both you and I agree that your self-consciousness is all important, and your self is one of many "selves" that makes yet another kind of consciousness that is also all important."
I am not sure what you mean by that. Can you explain that a little more?
-
@Takamba said
"Instead of saying, "no, you're wrong!" I'm confident that you would go much further in being understood if you showed by example or some anecdote what you mean."
I think that when someone says 2+2 = 5 a reply of "no, it doesn't" is sufficient.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"
@Takamba said
"Instead of saying, "no, you're wrong!" I'm confident that you would go much further in being understood if you showed by example or some anecdote what you mean."I think that when someone says 2+2 = 5 a reply of "no, it doesn't" is sufficient."
I was, until now, beginning to believe you had an ear.
Good night, and good luck.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"I am not sure what you mean by that. Can you explain that a little more?"
And in case you have any question why I am no longer listening back to you, I am adopting the unsympathetic attitude you are asking of us.
-
@Takamba said
"I am adopting the unsympathetic attitude you are asking of us."
How am I asking that?
-
"Those who pretend to be in sympathetic oneness with the Universal Being while projecting words from the human consciousness are playing a game that does not serve the Eternal Purpose, if you ask me."
I think this is a pretty damn good example right here of your condescension.
You act like your sign is the only one in the sky. But I will speak from my seat at the table. I will express myself as I will and behave as true to my own nature as I will. Did I ever claim a great title or grade?
"Of course I do. And mine is genuine. I actually live by my beliefs. I don't pretend to be helping others through some government agency or get vicarious satisfaction out of forcing others to behave philanthropically"
"The Masters are however deeply compassionate towards the plight of the ignorant masses of humanity.
They care little, however, for the phony do-gooders masquerading as philanthropists. These are simply petty tyrants who try to assuage their guilt complex by forcing others to behave in a manner consistent with their hopelessly ignorant viewpoint and clearly doomed intentions."
What? Are we supposed to act like your just making up these descriptions out of thin air? - as if their is no context? - no previous discussion and no players in it?
The casualness of your insults disgusts me. Yes, sir, I am a lowly pre-neophyte who can't be expected to say anything intelligent about the nature of reality. But one thing that Aleister Crowley has taught me is that even if I am the very black of blacks to your white of whites, I have a right to exist and a right to express myself as I will. Such is the nature of manifestation.
If there is anything else I've learned, it's that my stars have a meaning and play a role. And that table, my humble brother, is round. It is perfectly round. And you come in here claiming that, whatever my True Will may be, it certainly can't be the liberation of the oppressed, such thinking is merely the subject and perpetuation of manipulation.
So, I, sir, stand from my seat at the table at Sun in Libra, Moon in Pisces, and I accuse you of acting like your stars are the only ones in the sky. I stand as a Child of the Sun and accuse you of limiting my potential Will.
Can you understand it if I say it like that, oh my master?
Now either teach me something new about how liberation of the oppressed can never be an at least occasional function of reality, or shut your insulting pontification and learn something.
Frater Lusate Auton
-
@Frater LA said
"I think this is a pretty damn good example right here of your condescension.
"It is a bad example. Read the question again.
So, another speaking confidently of his knowledge on an esoteric matter appears to be 'condescension' to you?Why would you choose to react that way?
@Frater LA said
"You act like your sign is the only one in the sky."
I speak confidently on my own experience. You have a problem with that? Your exaggeration is weakness and your needless put-downs speak for themselves. I had made no accusations towards you of this nature. What is your problem?