"... the individual must choose whether they live in a benevolent or malevolent universe."
Or perhaps a completely indifferent universe? Or one that is both at the same time, depending on your relation to it. Or one that started out as benevolent, became malevolent but is transitioning back to benevolent.
One of the problems of communication is our framing of questions as a dialectic - a choice between only one of two alternatives, usually framed as 'good' or 'bad.'
You constantly see this technique (Hegelian Dialects) being used to manipulate us into opposing camps, the old 'divide and rule' strategy of British Imperialism. Recognizing that, and realizing that there are more possibilities than just the strictly binary choices being offered is key to breaking free of their influence.
To get to the point where one truly breaks free of the dialectic one must face the dragon, and to do that one must be confident not only that it exists in the first place, but in the ability to defeat it when it appears.
It might be ye auld divide and rule- a relatively negative trait it might be added, but it's also a principle in the reality of this electric universe; take a cathode (negative) and an anode (positive). Out of darkness blinding light appears. Light is the most positive metaphor there is.
I would be cautious when using physical analogies like positive and negative. If you look at the atom, only the simplest atoms (H and He) contain only positive and negative charges, while the rest have a number of neutrons (no charge) which are critical to the composition of matter, which itself relies on at least two other forces, the strong and weak nuclear forces, to sustain what we call the 'material world.'
Also, when comparing electric charges such as possessed by protons and electrons, one has to account for the fact that the proton is approximately 1836 times as massive as an electron, so something other than electric charge is clearly at work there.
But yeah... dialectics is hard to break free of since we're taught to think that way from day one.
I get a prompt asking me to sign in, but with what since I'm not subscribed?
"Caitlin's article is about metaphysics."
Are you sure? "Dominated By Narrative" to me suggests a semantic level analysis. Metaphysics is a fuzzy concept that has a different meaning depending on who you talk to. Semantics OTOH seeks to nail down the precise meaning of the words we use to communicate, otherwise we risk talking past each other. Maybe Caitlin could tell us which category is appropriate here?
Metaphysics is fuzzy for some but not for others, it depends on the level of intuition inherent in the person from birth.
She talks about 'inner work' too. That means addressing ones own self in ones own mind. Investigating the source of pain, humiliation, anger, stress, hate etc. and who/why/when/what/etc. causes it.
The more one recognises what triggers the emotions that we act on, like crappy politics or murderous Lahaina fires as an advertisement for non-flammable Hardiboard, the more ones consciousness rises.
Consciousness is the name of the game. There is nothing else.
"... the individual must choose whether they live in a benevolent or malevolent universe."
Or perhaps a completely indifferent universe? Or one that is both at the same time, depending on your relation to it. Or one that started out as benevolent, became malevolent but is transitioning back to benevolent.
One of the problems of communication is our framing of questions as a dialectic - a choice between only one of two alternatives, usually framed as 'good' or 'bad.'
You constantly see this technique (Hegelian Dialects) being used to manipulate us into opposing camps, the old 'divide and rule' strategy of British Imperialism. Recognizing that, and realizing that there are more possibilities than just the strictly binary choices being offered is key to breaking free of their influence.
To get to the point where one truly breaks free of the dialectic one must face the dragon, and to do that one must be confident not only that it exists in the first place, but in the ability to defeat it when it appears.
It might be ye auld divide and rule- a relatively negative trait it might be added, but it's also a principle in the reality of this electric universe; take a cathode (negative) and an anode (positive). Out of darkness blinding light appears. Light is the most positive metaphor there is.
Not sure what you mean with the dragon metaphor.
I would be cautious when using physical analogies like positive and negative. If you look at the atom, only the simplest atoms (H and He) contain only positive and negative charges, while the rest have a number of neutrons (no charge) which are critical to the composition of matter, which itself relies on at least two other forces, the strong and weak nuclear forces, to sustain what we call the 'material world.'
Also, when comparing electric charges such as possessed by protons and electrons, one has to account for the fact that the proton is approximately 1836 times as massive as an electron, so something other than electric charge is clearly at work there.
But yeah... dialectics is hard to break free of since we're taught to think that way from day one.
Caitlin's article is about metaphysics. That's the angle I'm speaking from.
"Creation by mere thought! Why haven't I seen this all along?"
https://youtu.be/f2BYyeS-fIU?feature=shared
That was brilliant.
The three powers of the soul - Thinking, Feeling and Willing
The three powers of the soul are a triune-unity. For every thought we have there is a corresponding feeling and act of will.
Thinking plus Feeling plus Willing equals Intent.
Whatever we Intend comes into being.
In this world, our ability to Intend things into being has a 'governor' placed upon it in the form of time/space and the laws of physics.
In the next world, whatever we Intend will come into being instantaneously.
We can begin to enter into the 'next world' even now, if we so desire...
Creation by mere thought
https://youtu.be/uAXtO5dMqEI
I get a prompt asking me to sign in, but with what since I'm not subscribed?
"Caitlin's article is about metaphysics."
Are you sure? "Dominated By Narrative" to me suggests a semantic level analysis. Metaphysics is a fuzzy concept that has a different meaning depending on who you talk to. Semantics OTOH seeks to nail down the precise meaning of the words we use to communicate, otherwise we risk talking past each other. Maybe Caitlin could tell us which category is appropriate here?
Metaphysics is fuzzy for some but not for others, it depends on the level of intuition inherent in the person from birth.
She talks about 'inner work' too. That means addressing ones own self in ones own mind. Investigating the source of pain, humiliation, anger, stress, hate etc. and who/why/when/what/etc. causes it.
The more one recognises what triggers the emotions that we act on, like crappy politics or murderous Lahaina fires as an advertisement for non-flammable Hardiboard, the more ones consciousness rises.
Consciousness is the name of the game. There is nothing else.
"Metaphysics is fuzzy for some but not for others..."
Which is exactly my point. If we don't share a common frame of reference or vocabulary we just end up talking past each other.