ethics

Forum for the sharing and discussion of various research projects going on.
Post Reply
Alluvion
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:37 pm

ethics

Post by Alluvion » Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:48 am

if the yellow ray/3rd density ...'situation' is based fundamentally from choice, in if the fundamental choices are to accept, reject or refrain, and every choice can be filtered into one of these categories, does immorality/unethical choice exist? It appears to me the only thing immoral/unethical would to be not to choose but I don't think that that choice is available only according to an entity's level of ignorance - the more ignorant one is, the less aware one is of choice, the ability to make choice, and the responsibilty of making that choice. Ignorance of choice would stem from 2d/orange ray existential patterns where the group makes decisions for the 'individual' - following larsons scale, the inanimate, the biological , the ethical - and then compassion, wisdom, and integration.

It makes sense to me that an entity progressively expanding its conscioussness would need to have established a clear/true moral/ethical "body" to be open to all that entails pursuing the next level of existence, that of compassion - choice only in truth, for truth, and of truth, and then wisdom - perhaps this is truth making choices, and integration - the balance and realness of choice choosing choice - perhaps this is getting too circular, I don't think I know enough compassionate/wisdom based existences to really comment - but I think an ethical/moral foundation is necessary to translate into being a compassionate entity: polarity is based on these fundamental choices, to accept all and self as source is to radiate, to reject all source while accepting only self is to absorb, and to refrain from choice is non-polarity, ignorance.

I feel like this is old news but its here for whatever else comes along.

_adam

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3912
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: ethics

Post by LoneBear » Thu Dec 02, 2004 11:22 pm

WarmSylph wrote:if the yellow ray/3rd density ...'situation' is based fundamentally from choice, in if the fundamental choices are to accept, reject or refrain, and every choice can be filtered into one of these categories, does immorality/unethical choice exist?
Actually, the "choice" made in 3rd density is the choice of the service path -- namely service-to-self, service-to-other, or the third-way. This defines the character of self that will continue on thru 4th and higher densities.

Refraining from making a choice will result in repeating the 3rd density cycles, until a choice is made. You cannot proceed past 3rd density without making The Choice -- do not pass "Go", do not collect $200.
WarmSylph wrote:It appears to me the only thing immoral/unethical would to be not to choose but I don't think that that choice is available only according to an entity's level of ignorance - the more ignorant one is, the less aware one is of choice, the ability to make choice, and the responsibilty of making that choice.
Moral and ethical codes are defined by valuing systems, as we have been discussing here with spiral dynamics (see Alliance Reference Material forum for descriptions). They are NOT absolute, but defined by quantized norms as people move thru the different subdensities of spiritual experience.
WarmSylph wrote:Ignorance of choice would stem from 2d/orange ray existential patterns where the group makes decisions for the 'individual' - following larsons scale, the inanimate, the biological , the ethical - and then compassion, wisdom, and integration.
The choice can only be made as a knowing, intelligent act of free will, by a person who IS an individual (since you cannot choose for another).

In other words, an "ethical control unit" must exist, using Larson's terms. The whole process of the first two densities (inanimate and biologic) work to create this control unit. This is what Ra terms the "spirit complex" of the third density. Since we know from the Reciprocal System that the universe moves in quantized, discrete steps, we see the vMemes of Spiral Dynamics result as these ethical control units accumulate.
WarmSylph wrote: but I think an ethical/moral foundation is necessary to translate into being a compassionate entity: polarity is based on these fundamental choices, to accept all and self as source is to radiate, to reject all source while accepting only self is to absorb, and to refrain from choice is non-polarity, ignorance.

I agree... right, Zenmaster? :D

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3912
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

St. John of the Cross on Consciousness

Post by LoneBear » Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:33 pm

Elain and Arthur Aron wrote:St. John of the Cross, living in sixteenth century Spain, wrote that doing good works is valuable until one experiences what we have called pure consciousness. Then one "should not become involved in other works and exterior exercises," because "a little of this pure love is more precious to God and the soul and more beneficial to the Church, even though it seems one is doing nothing, than all these other works put together."[1]
--The Maharishi Effect, A Revolution Through Meditation


[1] St. John of the Cross, The Collected Works of St. John of the Cross, Washington, DC, ICS Publications, 1979

Alluvion
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:37 pm

Re: ethics

Post by Alluvion » Fri Feb 04, 2005 1:27 pm

so:
in line with choice and the big choice:
how one lives in one-ness -

has been talking about as polarity, and the negative/positive path, or the left-hand/right-hand yadda yadda paths:

what about the path of will and the path of faith? how do we feel/what do we think about that?

I say will in place of 'negative' because it drops that word and all its baggage, and a path of one-ness exemplified through the will could not truly be judged as innapropriate or 'wrong' (we all have willpower and the choices with how to use it)

I say faith in place of 'positive' also because of the baggage with that term. And this term balances now because it doesn't really suggest the 'quality' (good vs evil) (evil vs good) of the polarity, rather its avenue of bias.

but then within this, there is the flip.

if will is primary, and one-ness understood and saught in service, one has faith in oneself only - faith/will (faith from willpower)

if faith is primary, and one-ness understood and saught in service, one has will power as the result of farith - will/faith (willpower from faith)

does this make sense?
TO me this begins to describe a spiritual bias beyond the 'good' and 'evil' dichotomy which does not express one-ness because it is a desire for the conquest and banishment, or eradication, of the other. Instead, will and faith are both components of all seeking beings and so of 'god' or 'one-ness' in all its sentient forms. This also makes room for the understand that neither path is 100 percent free from challenge or difficulty. Instead it is a 'benign' word which is easily 'filled in' and applied by the worldview of the indivudal - what is your faith? what truth do you belevie in? who are you? - what will you do? what is your desire? what do you want?

for example, looking back at the historical accounts of buddah - it would seem he gathered so much energy with one-ness and at first it sat definately in the realm of his will. Then, with his decision to teach and share and with the cascading of what followed, that intent moved towards faith - his acknowledgement at the buddha nature inherent in ALL THINGS was that expression of one-ness, his seeking for himself was an act of will and he acheive a far reaching penetration into the cosmos. But then he shared with others, aiming truth and his 'polarity' at the buddha-hood latent in others. Many many other beings followed his teachings and more became 'distorted' towards faith - such as pure land and mahayana buddhism which are centered around the supreme benevolence of the enlightened being to exit from the cycle of rebirth (3rd density).

just one examination, if anyone can fill in holes or compare, please do!

A_dam

Post Reply