Code of life

General discussion about the Elder Race, Life, the Universe and Everything.
Post Reply
User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Code of life

Post by Raytrek » Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:37 am

I was going to call it code of conduct but I feel this simple 5 law system I have encompasses more than conduct, but I suppose that is subjective as all manner of behaviour can be interpreted as conduct. I want to get some opinions on it. I would love to use the word 'will'rather than 'try' but life does not always go according to plan and such a hard line leaves me open to disappointment in myself. I think all 5 are subject to the 'I will try to' rule. Obviously they are not original ideas but gathered by me to what I deem vital. They help me to co-exist with others, be able to live with myself and finally enjoy life. They may well be considered quite generalized, but I see them as themes.
1) I will try not to harm others
2) I will try to have love for others
3) I will embrace my passion
4) I will try to laugh every day
5) I will seek wisdom
With wisdom I like the saying "Seek wisdom but do not sacrifice love or happiness to do so as this is not wise" (I do not know the origin of that statement, as far as I know it may be a me original) I use that line of philosophy as a guideline for how I approach the search for wisdom.
These laws I consider fundamental and no ammount of knowledge aquired may serve to make me more judgemental or cause me to forget these simple laws. I feel that having these as the only permanent structure, it leaves my mind free to explore every other aspect of the universe without commiting to anything. The knowledge of the universe is but a play thing, all shy of the importance, even unnecessary in the grand scheme of my life. Having said that, exploring all these wonders themselves are a passion of mine, falling under law 3, but it is the law and not the content that is permanent, if you know what I mean. If you would like to add any considerations to this, feel free.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3906
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: Code of life

Post by LoneBear » Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:35 am

Raytrek wrote:If you would like to add any considerations to this, feel free.
I have two "codes" that I live by, which are a summary of the Code of Chivalry:
  1. Honor: Taking responsibility for my choices, recognizing that with responsibility comes duty and that moderation requires less responsibility than excess.
  2. Virtue: Placing the good of others before myself; compassion.
I only use the two codes, because those are the only things that my free will has total control over. I cannot help but laugh at a good joke; love, passion and happiness are all aspects of Joy, and my joy comes from virtue. I consider "seeking Wisdom" to be a natural condition of the human spirit, so my only free will choice there would be to suppress that seeking--which I do not do, so I do not consider it part of my code.

Having a code of virtue does mean that there are times where your own happiness comes second, or not at all. But over the years I have found that, in most cases, that happiness is not much more than ego gratification--and I've really not sacrificed anything of consequence.

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Code of life

Post by Raytrek » Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:40 am

It's amazing how people come to understand or make sense of things so differently but in the end it is all so similar. I have had trouble in my life from the search of wisdom, the goal of helping the people I can, even the world if possible, had consumed me and I was miserable. This is how I came to that conclusion "Seek wisdom but do not sacrifice...." It was my persuit that was bringing me misery, I was excessively responsible, if that is possible. I remember someone telling me when I was at my worst "give yourself permission to be selfish. This is not letting anyone down but actually works toward your effeiciency". I have found that now I have those egotistical and silly measures, rather than completely compassionate and wise, I help more people now than before and I am discovering much more about everything. It has opened my mind.

I came up with a new philosophy thinking of this "It takes knowledge to become miserable but it takes wisdom to reverse it"

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3906
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: Code of life

Post by LoneBear » Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:24 pm

Raytrek wrote:I came up with a new philosophy thinking of this "It takes knowledge to become miserable but it takes wisdom to reverse it"
My version is, "It takes knowledge to know you're miserable..."

Back when I was in my 30s, I had developed my first "Code"--had 28 rules of conduct. As Doctor Who says, "time and tide melt the snowman"... so I'm down to 2. I have found that most of the rules were really just crutches to remind me of how sneaky the ego can be.

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Code of life

Post by Raytrek » Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:06 am

I have been thinking a lot about the corruption of love by knowledge. You look at Jesus who said "continue loving your enemies and pray for their salvation" also why consort with sinners? "because the healthy have no need for a physician" stuff like that. But if we see a man, granted we do not simply love him as those we know, but we have a general sense of "this is a human being, a life" and we have veneration for that fact. But suddenly if you add: this man was convicted of paedophilia, this veneration is destroyed and usually replaced with some level of hatred. I feel that we do not have to believe in Jesus or God at all, these are bonus choices in life, but the choice that does matter, if you believe in God or not, the choice that vindicates the sovereignty of God, or hands it to the devil, is the choice to love or hate. Is this a reasonable choice for us to make or is it out of our control?

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3906
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: Code of life

Post by LoneBear » Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:09 pm

Raytrek wrote:I have been thinking a lot about the corruption of love by knowledge.
I've heard this before, and tend to agree with the psychological interpretation that knowledge lets one see past the facades of love. In many cases, what is called "love" is not even related to the actual emotion, but is one of the other aspects of trust (hope, curiosity, dominance, submission, sentimentality).
Raytrek wrote:but the choice that does matter, if you believe in God or not, the choice that vindicates the sovereignty of God, or hands it to the devil, is the choice to love or hate. Is this a reasonable choice for us to make or is it out of our control?
Christians love God and hate the Devil.
Satanists love the Devil and hate God.

Love and hate always seem to arrive in a matched set. It is in our control, if you "know" what you are looking at. Strong emotions are always reactive. Knowledge calms them down so consciousness can make the choice proactive.

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Code of life

Post by Raytrek » Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:57 am

I came up with this short bit of thought I had. It has a few of the aspects of what I said from the last post, but some extra also.

There is no apparent evidence of God because that would give God an unfair advantage over Satan. God could destroy Satan in an instant but that would mean he rules by power, not by right. The playing field had to be leveled so that a victory by God would be valid. This includes the removal of all apparent evidence of God.

I came up with this saying while writing my novel: “The sake of the world does not depend upon what you may believe to be right or wrong, it depends upon the choice to love or to hate”

Even believing in God is ultimately irrelevant, the word of God cannot possibly reach the four corners of the world and if it could, not everyone will be receptive to it. So it is not a matter of believing in God and the devil. Love and hate, however, have already reached the four corners of the world and people are receptive to both. This is the choice we make that decides who is rightful sovereign of the world, even if you do not believe such things.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3906
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: Code of life

Post by LoneBear » Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:43 am

Raytrek wrote:Even believing in God is ultimately irrelevant, the word of God cannot possibly reach the four corners of the world and if it could, not everyone will be receptive to it.
The classic, anthropomorphic sense defines God as some white bearded guy throwing lightning bolts at unbelievers... how are you "defining" God?

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Code of life

Post by Raytrek » Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:15 am

I came up with this saying "To believe in God does not automatically mean you have love as to have love does not mean you have to believe in God" So I am asking myself what is more important. This would be a blasphemous statement by many peoples standards and they would consider God and love as a package deal. I see God this way: If all titles are stripped away so that the very words (and concepts of) 'God' and 'love' do not even exist, then the sensation of love still remains. In every aspect of the phenomena, is that not God?

But of course we think of God as an opinionated man in the sky because we are opinionated men on the ground, as is the reason I use human terms and opinions to explain how I see God, because there is no alternative (ie: non opinionated human terminology). I think that even the most literal opinion we have of God can only be described as an analogy.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3906
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: Code of life

Post by LoneBear » Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:31 pm

I've been researching the origins of Taoism and last couple of days been digging through "The Way of Life" (Lao Tsze's final, written work--everything you want to know about the Universe in 5000 Chinese characters, or 6500 English words). It was the summary of everything he learned from personal research, historical writing and the Immortals.

One of the things that stood out in Mackintosh's translation was that he had a tough time translating the idiom that represented the concept of "God." He obviously did not want to associate Tao with the Christian concept of God (the translation was done in 1926), but if you read closely enough, you find that Lao Tsze spread it's meaning across a number of verses... when you assemble those pieces, a single concept comes out: something we would describe as a "fulcrum," the balance point of all things and non-things, that both New Agers and Larson describe as "Unity."

I find this a rather interesting interpretation of the Godhead, as it is not connected with emotions. Love can only exist in relation to hate; otherwise you could not distinguish love as having an opposite. Once all distinction is removed, the only thing remaining is the "fulcrum" from which these dichotomies were offset. It is very difficult to explain; Tsze even said that the concept COULD be understood, but man has no words to express it.
Tao 114 wrote:Nourishing all --below, above--
He does not play the lord,
But spends Himself in perfect love,
And asks for no reward.

Post Reply