Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2018 23:51:33 GMT
Thankfully, you guys have mentally engaged in the idea of "secret societies" (which might not even exist in the world but are at the very least an archetype of thought) subconsciously and consciously to such a high degree that it doesn't even matter that I was literally incepted with similar ideas at a vulnerable stage of my development because there's no evidence of these things.
Of course I also did this work, but in the realm of ideas, one stands their ground.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caylus Ark on Jun 11, 2018 21:49:44 GMT
What gives you the idea there is no evidence that secret societies exist? The fact of secret societies is completely historical. The Illuminati is accepted among mainstream academia as a society spearheaded by this guy Adam Weishaupt who had this plan for a better world. Yes, in terms of history it's also accepted his society was disbanded, but there is no contest within the community that it ever existed, only how long it existed for and the extent of its machinations. So, while you can say there is no evidence that any current illuminati exists, you can't say that secret societies do not exist and never have. The Freemasons are a current historical secret society, and while you may say that they have no influence over major events and do not constitute a legitimate conspiracy, you can't say that they aren't real or that they don't selectively curate their membership and that they don't consider themselves secretive in spite of the fact that they have secrets known to members that are unknown to non-members. Secret societies, by this fashion, are real. It is not out of the norm of humanity to have secret groups with secret rituals, and there is no question as to whether humanity has or has not had these groups, as they have been historically declassified. Now, how much you believe this stuff matters, is where the question becomes open for debate. My personal stance is that it doesn't matter what somebody is hiding as long as the truth gets revealed. So what becomes important by my measure is that if something is a secret, it is possible for that secret to be exposed, and if it is, the source of the secret doesn't matter anymore. What matters is the content of what you intend to communicate. If you have information that can change the world...the bang is in the bringing, not the tease. Either you can deliver...or you can't.  |
|
|
|
Post by Caylus Ark on Jun 12, 2018 0:30:09 GMT
-Dark Star Rising
|
|
|
|
Post by ^v^ on Jun 12, 2018 0:35:35 GMT
What gives you the idea there is no evidence that secret societies exist? The fact of secret societies is completely historical. The Illuminati is accepted among mainstream academia as a society spearheaded by this guy Adam Weishaupt who had this plan for a better world. Yes, in terms of history it's also accepted his society was disbanded, but there is no contest within the community that it ever existed, only how long it existed for and the extent of its machinations. So, while you can say there is no evidence that any current illuminati exists, you can't say that secret societies do not exist and never have. The Freemasons are a current historical secret society, and while you may say that they have no influence over major events and do not constitute a legitimate conspiracy, you can't say that they aren't real or that they don't selectively curate their membership and that they don't consider themselves secretive in spite of the fact that they have secrets known to members that are unknown to non-members. Secret societies, by this fashion, are real. It is not out of the norm of humanity to have secret groups with secret rituals, and there is no question as to whether humanity has or has not had these groups, as they have been historically declassified. Now, how much you believe this stuff matters, is where the question becomes open for debate. My personal stance is that it doesn't matter what somebody is hiding as long as the truth gets revealed. So what becomes important by my measure is that if something is a secret, it is possible for that secret to be exposed, and if it is, the source of the secret doesn't matter anymore. What matters is the content of what you intend to communicate. If you have information that can change the world...the bang is in the bringing, not the tease. Either you can deliver...or you can't. On the other hand, perhaps it's more a matter of us demonstrating that we're worthy of the goods ... or we aren't. Who's to say? |
|
|
|
Post by Caylus Ark on Jun 12, 2018 0:52:38 GMT
On the other hand, perhaps it's more a matter of us demonstrating that we're worthy of the goods ... or we aren't. Who's to say? Who is to say indeed? Necessarily an easy answer to a big question. Who is to say is whoever has the goods. The question is, do you trust them? |
|
|
|
Post by ^v^ on Jun 12, 2018 1:03:27 GMT
On the other hand, perhaps it's more a matter of us demonstrating that we're worthy of the goods ... or we aren't. Who's to say? Who is to say indeed? Necessarily an easy answer to a big question. Who is to say is whoever has the goods. The question is, do you trust them? Seems like a lot of mental masturbation and circular thinking to me. But each to their own wisdom. Mine I'll keep to myself. Be well. |
|
|
|
Post by Caylus Ark on Jun 12, 2018 1:05:32 GMT
Who is to say indeed? Necessarily an easy answer to a big question. Who is to say is whoever has the goods. The question is, do you trust them? Seems like a lot of mental masturbation and circular thinking to me. But each to their own wisdom. Mine I'll keep to myself. Be well. It is hard to understand how opening a question up for debate could ever be considered mental masturbation. On the other hand, keeping your beliefs secret and not allowing them to be open for discussion is an easy way to mentally assure yourself that you are already in the right. If anything, that seems like masturbation. But your thoughts and beliefs are yours to keep and discern as you see fit. As such I will continue airing mine and inviting discussion, even when said discussion questions my own truths. For I see such as not circular but inviting evolution in thought to take place. To each his own. |
|
|
|
Post by Caylus Ark on Jun 12, 2018 1:11:32 GMT
I see the truth as an open and self-sustaining system and lies as closed and self-dysregulating. Lies require more lies, whereas truth invites observation and questioning. Lies require blindly accepting and hiding, whereas truth speaks for itself. When the truth is spoken, it contains clarity rather than obsfucation and is simple even when describing something complex.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caylus Ark on Jun 12, 2018 1:37:18 GMT
When the truth is unassailable, there is no harm that comes from questioning it. But the exact opposite is true of a lie.
|
|
|
|
Post by ^v^ on Jun 12, 2018 1:41:39 GMT
Seems like a lot of mental masturbation and circular thinking to me. But each to their own wisdom. Mine I'll keep to myself. Be well. It is hard to understand how opening a question up for debate could ever be considered mental masturbation. On the other hand, keeping your beliefs secret and not allowing them to be open for discussion is an easy way to mentally assure yourself that you are already in the right. If anything, that seems like masturbation. But your thoughts and beliefs are yours to keep and discern as you see fit. As such I will continue airing mine and inviting discussion, even when said discussion questions my own truths. For I see such as not circular but inviting evolution in thought to take place. To each his own. As I said, be well. Sorry that my candor regarding the construct you were employing, coupled with personal well-wishes, seemed to be an invitation for an ad hom attack. But there you have it. As I said, be well. But now I'm repeating myself. |
|
|
|
Post by Caylus Ark on Jun 12, 2018 1:46:14 GMT
It is hard to understand how opening a question up for debate could ever be considered mental masturbation. On the other hand, keeping your beliefs secret and not allowing them to be open for discussion is an easy way to mentally assure yourself that you are already in the right. If anything, that seems like masturbation. But your thoughts and beliefs are yours to keep and discern as you see fit. As such I will continue airing mine and inviting discussion, even when said discussion questions my own truths. For I see such as not circular but inviting evolution in thought to take place. To each his own. As I said, be well. Sorry that my candor regarding the construct you were employing, coupled with personal well-wishes, seemed to be an invitation for an ad hom attack. But there you have it. As I said, be well. But now I'm repeating myself. Is questioning something attacking it? Is the notion of truth a construct? Is the idea of mental masturbation emotively neutral ? Is it substantiative or predicated on the basis of unspoken ideas that supposedly speak for themselves? You can call something self-defeating or circular or say it is insubstantiative, but if the basis of your claim is something you refuse to disclaim, then you show your claim to be as insubstantiative as the idea your claim intends to support. There is nothing ad hom about this, it is just the logic of intersecting ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by ^v^ on Jun 12, 2018 1:57:43 GMT
As I said, be well. Sorry that my candor regarding the construct you were employing, coupled with personal well-wishes, seemed to be an invitation for an ad hom attack. But there you have it. As I said, be well. But now I'm repeating myself. Is questioning something attacking it? Is the notion of truth a construct? Is the idea of mental masturbation emotively neutral ? Is it substantiative or predicated on the basis of unspoken ideas that supposedly speak for themselves? You can call something self-defeating or circular or say it is insubstantiative, but if the basis of your claim is something you refuse to disclaim, then you show your claim to be as insubstantiative as the idea your claim intends to support. There is nothing ad hom about this, it is just the logic of intersecting ideas. Hits and drama are a big part of any forum's lifeblood. I get that. And you're a shrewd forum owner. I would simply say that our little interaction here in this thread is neither as hostile or confrontational as you — perhaps — are building it up to be. Frankly, I do not believe that the pace of social media platforms allows for much contemplation of the subject matter, nor is it designed to. It is designed to encourage impulsive reactions. Which is why I offered what I had to offer at the moment, and wished you well. I would simply invite you — if you wish — to sit with the material that you posted, and consider my response, and perhaps reflect upon it. If you gain something from that exchange, then great. If you do not, that's okay too! So again, I understand both the purpose and the nature of these forums, but I am also free to employ them as I choose to. So thank you, once again, for the platform. And be well! |
|
|
|
Post by Caylus Ark on Jun 12, 2018 2:16:14 GMT
Is questioning something attacking it? Is the notion of truth a construct? Is the idea of mental masturbation emotively neutral ? Is it substantiative or predicated on the basis of unspoken ideas that supposedly speak for themselves? You can call something self-defeating or circular or say it is insubstantiative, but if the basis of your claim is something you refuse to disclaim, then you show your claim to be as insubstantiative as the idea your claim intends to support. There is nothing ad hom about this, it is just the logic of intersecting ideas. Hits and drama are a big part of any forum's lifeblood. I get that. And you're a shrewd forum owner. I would simply say that our little interaction here in this thread is neither as hostile or confrontational as you — perhaps — are building it up to be. Frankly, I do not believe that the pace of social media platforms allows for much contemplation of the subject matter, nor is it designed to. It is designed to encourage impulsive reactions. Which is why I offered what I had to offer at the moment, and wished you well. I would simply invite you — if you wish — to sit with the material that you posted, and consider my response, and perhaps reflect upon it. If you gain something from that exchange, then great. If you do not, that's okay too! So again, I understand both the purpose and the nature of these forums, but I am also free to employ them as I choose to. So thank you, once again, for the platform. And be well! Fair enough. I don't see our exchange as dramatic or confrontational either. What has been on my mind lately have been questions of control. So I suppose my response reflected that consideration. If we have to be worthy of receiving the goods so to speak, it seems imperative to examine the notion of worthiness and whom or what determines it. One of the reasons that I happen to like forums is that they are slow-paced and more than other social mediums facilitate thought-out responses when compared to say a messenger app, which sends read/read receipts or tweets that have tiny character limits. I suppose that forums have caused me to ask and consider big questions so I don't feel cynical about them. If they worked for me in this respect I extend that to others. Passion and drama are fine but I think that they detract from the forum as a whole in the long-term because they alienate anybody not involved in the conflict. I'd prefer to avoid that. But I am happy to debate any idea, as I don't take ideas personally. |
|
|
|
Post by ^v^ on Jun 12, 2018 2:59:45 GMT
Hits and drama are a big part of any forum's lifeblood. I get that. And you're a shrewd forum owner. I would simply say that our little interaction here in this thread is neither as hostile or confrontational as you — perhaps — are building it up to be. Frankly, I do not believe that the pace of social media platforms allows for much contemplation of the subject matter, nor is it designed to. It is designed to encourage impulsive reactions. Which is why I offered what I had to offer at the moment, and wished you well. I would simply invite you — if you wish — to sit with the material that you posted, and consider my response, and perhaps reflect upon it. If you gain something from that exchange, then great. If you do not, that's okay too! So again, I understand both the purpose and the nature of these forums, but I am also free to employ them as I choose to. So thank you, once again, for the platform. And be well! Fair enough. I don't see our exchange as dramatic or confrontational either. What has been on my mind lately have been questions of control. So I suppose my response reflected that consideration. If we have to be worthy of receiving the goods so to speak, it seems imperative to examine the notion of worthiness and whom or what determines it. One of the reasons that I happen to like forums is that they are slow-paced and more than other social mediums facilitate thought-out responses when compared to say a messenger app, which sends read/read receipts or tweets that have tiny character limits. I suppose that forums have caused me to ask and consider big questions so I don't feel cynical about them. If they worked for me in this respect I extend that to others. Passion and drama are fine but I think that they detract from the forum as a whole in the long-term because they alienate anybody not involved in the conflict. I'd prefer to avoid that. But I am happy to debate any idea, as I don't take ideas personally. Okay, well since you're intent on still engaging let's get back to topic. "Secret Societies" aren't — IN MY OPINION — so much archetypal, as much as they are representation of a couple of distinct yet related truths (little t truths). On the one hand, 'secret societies' refers collectively to the society of humans within society who possess, and exhibit, latent psychic abilities — which includes, but is by no means limited to, the ability to psychically communicate and interact by means both aural and astral (which in de-mythologized terms simply means audibly and visually) — in which case the 'secret' simply refers to this communication by and large being unperceived by those who do not possess — or have not developed — these abilities. The aural and astral are associated with the third eye (or sixth chakra) in certain esoteric systems, but this is by no means the only symbolic representation of this ability, just one that is in vogue in this particular era. There are other psychic abilities, of course, and there have been schisms and debates as to the usefulness and value of the astral and aural between esoteric groups, with some placing greater or lesser emphasis on the third eye than others. In fact, many Hindu traditions warn of the realm of the third eye as being a dead end to spiritual progress, and just as illusory and transient a reality as the physical world. In the west, the Theosophical system also cautioned against overemphasis on the third eye chakra at the expense of the crown chakra — again, because overemphasis of the value third eye can impede further psychic and spiritual development. Of course, then there are the Taoist, Zen and Buddhist schools, which have largely been lost in translation when introduced and re-purposed in the archetypal west. Which naturally brings us to an alternate meaning of 'secret societies', which can refer to more formalized groups that keep their 'antennae' up for those who begin to exhibit psychic talent, and who often then target (in the value-neutral sense) those individuals with the purpose of developing these emerging psychic abilities — but also providing structure and a fair amount of ideology and rules and obligations into the mix. These are so well integrated into the 'mundane' sociopolitical structure as to seem indistinguishable at times. Shall I go on? Since you are after the Truth. Sorry if I am being impulsive here. But after all, the platform. But I think I'll exercise a little restraint at this point, if you don't mind. Be well! |
|
|
|
Post by Caylus Ark on Jun 12, 2018 3:18:37 GMT
Okay, well since you're intent on still engaging let's get back to topic. "Secret Societies" aren't — IN MY OPINION — so much archetypal, as much as they are representation of a couple of distinct yet related truths (little t truths). On the one hand, 'secret societies' refers collectively to the society of humans within society who possess, and exhibit, latent psychic abilities — which includes, but is by no means limited to, the ability to psychically communicate and interact by means both aural and astral (which in de-mythologized terms simply means audibly and visually) — in which case the 'secret' simply refers to this communication by and large being unperceived by those who do not possess — or have not developed — these abilities. The aural and astral are associated with the third eye (or sixth chakra) in certain esoteric systems, but this is by no means the only symbolic representation of this ability, just one that is in vogue in this particular era. There are other psychic abilities, of course, and there have been schisms and debates as to the usefulness and value of the astral and aural between esoteric groups, with some placing greater or lesser emphasis on the third eye than others. In fact, many Hindu traditions warn of the realm of the third eye as being a dead end to spiritual progress, and just as illusory and transient a reality as the physical world. In the west, the Theosophical system also cautioned against overemphasis on the third eye chakra at the expense of the crown chakra — again, because overemphasis of the value third eye can impede further psychic and spiritual development. Of course, then there are the Taoist, Zen and Buddhist schools, which have largely been lost in translation when introduced and re-purposed in the archetypal west. Which naturally brings us to an alternate meaning of 'secret societies', which can refer to more formalized groups that keep their 'antennae' up for those who begin to exhibit psychic talent, and who often then target (in the value-neutral sense) those individuals with the purpose of developing these emerging psychic abilities — but also providing structure and a fair amount of ideology and rules and obligations into the mix. These are so well integrated into the 'mundane' sociopolitical structure as to seem indistinguishable at times. Shall I go on? Since you are after the Truth. Sorry if I am being impulsive here. But after all, the platform. But I think I'll exercise a little restraint at this point, if you don't mind. Be well! That seems to accord with what I've learned up until this point. There seems to be evidence in favor of the idea that psychic abilities may be real, despite the mainstream notion that psychic abilities are nonsense. throughout history, different secret societies have claimed a lease on mystical truths while holding these truths only in piecemeal form. today, we don't have mystical truths and so the function of a secret society seems rather outdated- why guard a truth which nobody believes anymore? If somebody does exhibit psychic talent, I suppose they might be inducted by a secret society. But if that didn't work out, perhaps they would be derailed by a secret society instead, if leaving an individual to their own devices might become a threat to the power concentrated within the secret society. It's hard to say without direct experience of such, and if you happened to have that direct experience, I highly doubt there would be much of a platform for you to discuss it and where anybody would relate or take it seriously. in that way truth with a minor t or a capital t seems to be protected from mass observation, and again it is called into question whether a secret society is even needed. I'm not sure if it's necessary that people within the society have psychic talent though. Perhaps all they need to have are secret truths or heritable connections to other secrets. I think if we see a big intersection between the world of intelligence agencies and the world of the so-called paranormal, it is because existing links between family members and secrets tend to proliferate from generation to generation. I don't know. I am speculating on some level, but I believe that if you get roped into it to the point where those truths are revealed to you, it is too late to wholesale walk away. If you come to understand certain things beyond the point of self-doubt, and you have arrived there without self-delusion, and third eye is "open" or whatever language you want to use to point to that phenomena, you can't go back to being ignorant even if you desperately wanted to. And that being the case, there are consequences to what you now know. You have to live with the consequences of your heightened awareness. That is the double-edged sword of truth, and the proverbial "magician's bargain". |
|
|
|
Post by Caylus Ark on Jun 12, 2018 3:28:50 GMT
Perhaps the secret society would engage with the notion that since they are the guardian's of spiritual truths, it is their obligation to preside over psychic powers. I could see a hypothetical secret society with noble intentions operating from this perspective. Maybe they would see humanity's latent psychic functions as a veritable wildcard and make an effort to make the secrets of these abilities amenable to tenants that preserved it from baser intentions. Perhaps they would call themselves "watchers" and keep their identities anonymous. All of this is pure speculation, but if it were so, I would suggest that even oversight committees tend to need overseers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caylus Ark on Jun 12, 2018 3:38:02 GMT
Arguably it is pointless to address speculatory notions of a secret society and then ask ourselves whether they are functionally “good” or “bad”. For one thing that would probably be a simplistic question and for another thing we are introducing multitudious assumptions before we have even gotten off the ground. I still think the questions are interesting regardless, so I don’t shy away from asking them. If secret societies exist, should we trust them?
|
|
|
|
Post by ^v^ on Jun 12, 2018 3:39:07 GMT
Okay, well since you're intent on still engaging let's get back to topic. "Secret Societies" aren't — IN MY OPINION — so much archetypal, as much as they are representation of a couple of distinct yet related truths (little t truths). On the one hand, 'secret societies' refers collectively to the society of humans within society who possess, and exhibit, latent psychic abilities — which includes, but is by no means limited to, the ability to psychically communicate and interact by means both aural and astral (which in de-mythologized terms simply means audibly and visually) — in which case the 'secret' simply refers to this communication by and large being unperceived by those who do not possess — or have not developed — these abilities. The aural and astral are associated with the third eye (or sixth chakra) in certain esoteric systems, but this is by no means the only symbolic representation of this ability, just one that is in vogue in this particular era. There are other psychic abilities, of course, and there have been schisms and debates as to the usefulness and value of the astral and aural between esoteric groups, with some placing greater or lesser emphasis on the third eye than others. In fact, many Hindu traditions warn of the realm of the third eye as being a dead end to spiritual progress, and just as illusory and transient a reality as the physical world. In the west, the Theosophical system also cautioned against overemphasis on the third eye chakra at the expense of the crown chakra — again, because overemphasis of the value third eye can impede further psychic and spiritual development. Of course, then there are the Taoist, Zen and Buddhist schools, which have largely been lost in translation when introduced and re-purposed in the archetypal west. Which naturally brings us to an alternate meaning of 'secret societies', which can refer to more formalized groups that keep their 'antennae' up for those who begin to exhibit psychic talent, and who often then target (in the value-neutral sense) those individuals with the purpose of developing these emerging psychic abilities — but also providing structure and a fair amount of ideology and rules and obligations into the mix. These are so well integrated into the 'mundane' sociopolitical structure as to seem indistinguishable at times. Shall I go on? Since you are after the Truth. Sorry if I am being impulsive here. But after all, the platform. But I think I'll exercise a little restraint at this point, if you don't mind. Be well! That seems to accord with what I've learned up until this point. There seems to be evidence in favor of the idea that psychic abilities may be real, despite the mainstream notion that psychic abilities are nonsense. throughout history, different secret societies have claimed a lease on mystical truths while holding these truths only in piecemeal form. today, we don't have mystical truths and so the function of a secret society seems rather outdated- why guard a truth which nobody believes anymore? If somebody does exhibit psychic talent, I suppose they might be inducted by a secret society. But if that didn't work out, perhaps they would be derailed by a secret society instead, if leaving an individual to their own devices might become a threat to the power concentrated within the secret society. It's hard to say without direct experience of such, and if you happened to have that direct experience, I highly doubt there would be much of a platform for you to discuss it and where anybody would relate or take it seriously. in that way truth with a minor t or a capital t seems to be protected from mass observation, and again it is called into question whether a secret society is even needed. I'm not sure if it's necessary that people within the society have psychic talent though. Perhaps all they need to have are secret truths or heritable connections to other secrets. I think if we see a big intersection between the world of intelligence agencies and the world of the so-called paranormal, it is because existing links between family members and secrets tend to proliferate from generation to generation. I don't know. I am speculating on some level, but I believe that if you get roped into it to the point where those truths are revealed to you, it is too late to wholesale walk away. If you come to understand certain things beyond the point of self-doubt, and you have arrived there without self-delusion, and third eye is "open" or whatever language you want to use to point to that phenomena, you can't go back to being ignorant even if you desperately wanted to. And that being the case, there are consequences to what you now know. You have to live with the consequences of your heightened awareness. That is the double-edged sword of truth, and the proverbial "magician's bargain". Again, each according to their own wisdom. Ultimately it's not about any individual or group ego. Personally, I would never choose to interfere with another person's path, or group's path, for a variety of reasons. I would simply describe the landscape, and choose to live (firstly) and let live (subsequently). When paths cross and join, beautiful things can manifest — despite ideological or practical differences. Because the ultimate reality transcends petty individual/group dichotomies, and also transcends humanity's experience. But that's simply one wisdom. Other wisdoms, such as that which you delve into above, certainly form strands in the current braid of reality — at least until the scissor sisters decide otherwise. There are more things in heaven and earth ... Be well! |
|
|
|
Post by Caylus Ark on Jun 12, 2018 3:46:18 GMT
Greece tended towards the notion that none were higher than the fates. But I doubt atropos and her friends simply snipped on a whim. Fate is part of a feedback loop informed by a relationship between self and other rather than a hierarchy. Entropy functions towards balance, and balance is a story of tension and release or it is never a story at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by ^v^ on Jun 12, 2018 4:00:13 GMT
That seems to accord with what I've learned up until this point. There seems to be evidence in favor of the idea that psychic abilities may be real, despite the mainstream notion that psychic abilities are nonsense. throughout history, different secret societies have claimed a lease on mystical truths while holding these truths only in piecemeal form. today, we don't have mystical truths and so the function of a secret society seems rather outdated- why guard a truth which nobody believes anymore? If somebody does exhibit psychic talent, I suppose they might be inducted by a secret society. But if that didn't work out, perhaps they would be derailed by a secret society instead, if leaving an individual to their own devices might become a threat to the power concentrated within the secret society. It's hard to say without direct experience of such, and if you happened to have that direct experience, I highly doubt there would be much of a platform for you to discuss it and where anybody would relate or take it seriously. in that way truth with a minor t or a capital t seems to be protected from mass observation, and again it is called into question whether a secret society is even needed. I'm not sure if it's necessary that people within the society have psychic talent though. Perhaps all they need to have are secret truths or heritable connections to other secrets. I think if we see a big intersection between the world of intelligence agencies and the world of the so-called paranormal, it is because existing links between family members and secrets tend to proliferate from generation to generation. I don't know. I am speculating on some level, but I believe that if you get roped into it to the point where those truths are revealed to you, it is too late to wholesale walk away. If you come to understand certain things beyond the point of self-doubt, and you have arrived there without self-delusion, and third eye is "open" or whatever language you want to use to point to that phenomena, you can't go back to being ignorant even if you desperately wanted to. And that being the case, there are consequences to what you now know. You have to live with the consequences of your heightened awareness. That is the double-edged sword of truth, and the proverbial "magician's bargain". Again, each according to their own wisdom. Ultimately it's not about any individual or group ego. Personally, I would never choose to interfere with another person's path, or group's path, for a variety of reasons. I would simply describe the landscape, and choose to live (firstly) and let live (subsequently). When paths cross and join, beautiful things can manifest — despite ideological or practical differences. Because the ultimate reality transcends petty individual/group dichotomies, and also transcends humanity's experience. But that's simply one wisdom. Other wisdoms, such as that which you delve into above, certainly form strands in the current braid of reality — at least until the scissor sisters decide otherwise. There are more things in heaven and earth ... Be well! Perhaps I should have said scissor sister, but generally the three do seem to work in tandem. Their cloths and tapestries, though! Master works. Trustworthy or no, it all seems rather besides the point. Ah, but that's yet another tradition. Yet another tradition that is not my own. |
|
