A Call To Men

[WendyDarling]

Fish scream you know?

[WendyDarling]

The reason I asked you the slaughterhouse question is to see if your conscience kicks in when an animal "unnecessarily" suffers and ultimately dies.

[WendyDarling]

Bad as in evil or bad as in tough?

Probably both. Depends on the girl.

It comes down to values and tastes

It's all subjective rather than categorically objective is that what your liberal mind is going with? Let's not make this political. A better man is not subjective. Oh, yes he is. The best man may be subjective based on personal preferences, but not a better man which would be an acceptable societal average of alike/similar answers of what constitutes a better man, not to be overturned or disregarded by choosing a best man, but better used as a stepping stone to narrow down the best.

^ Not sure what this last part means, but if we're going based on what the average woman wants in a man, and we force men to conform to that standard, you'll not only get a bunch of fakes, but a lot of disappointed women.

There's a LOT of diversity among men and women. Averages don't mean much.

I'm just not sure why we have to go farther than raising men to not be abusers. Shouldn't women have a wide variety of different types of men to choose from? If it's not a matter of a woman's taste, but objective morality in itself, then why are we focused only on men?

I was just talking to Iambiguous about the fact of our shared reality, which requires objective averages rather than subjective personal bubbles. Can't wait to hear his reply. Averages mean a great deal for they represent a shared reality overall.

[surreptitious57]

The reason I asked you the slaughterhouse question is to see if your conscience kicks in when an animal unnecessarily suffers and ultimately dies

This illustrates the point I was making which is that while we may each have a conscience we are not moralistic about exactly the same things

[WendyDarling]

You have not so you know not whether you would feel for the animal and rethink your hunger for meat. Go to a slaughterhouse and get back to me.

[gib]

Can actual guilt be taught or is it just your own conscience making you aware of your ways? Better yet, can you teach someone to have a conscience?

Er, uh, ee... that's a tough one. Teaching someone to have a conscience, if it is teachable at all, would be very different from teaching someone math or how to drive. I think having a conscience depends heavily on one's sensitivity to social circumstance and social cues. You know what they say about psychopaths: they simply don't have a conscience. The question is: were they born that way or was the conscience beaten out of them? If the latter, then nurturing a healthy conscience is just a matter of fitting a child into the right environment and providing the right upbringing. If the former, then conscience would be very difficult to teach seeing as how it would appear to be deeply rooted in genetics.

As for your question about guilt--can it be taught or is it just the voice of your conscience--I think guilt is the voice of your conscience, but then the question falls back on whether the conscience is teachable or not (which is probably why you followed that up with this question). However, I would always strive to be driven by inspiration, not guilt. Doing the right thing ought not to be a grueling depressing experience--one ought to be proud and inspired to do the right thing. Guilt arises when one is painfully aware of the schism between what ought to be done and what has been done. But pride/inspiration in doing the right thing is the drive to always keep that schism closed.

However, I should point out that the conscience isn't always infallible. We are sometimes mistaken about what the right thing to do is. We can also become imbalanced psychologically if we focus too much on following the conscience and ignore other drives and desires. I believe in finding the right place in our minds for the conscience, but always maintaining a balance between it and all other drives, wants, needs, impulses, etc. that also have a place in the human mind. Otherwise, even when your conscience gets it right, it will most likely be short lived--accomplishing great things morally speaking but then breaking down psychologically or "crashing" when all our other psychological needs and propensities come back to bite us.

[WendyDarling]

If the former, then conscience would be very difficult to teach seeing as how it would appear to be deeply rooted in genetics.

It's rooted way deeper than mere human flesh and blood, it's your essence, the nature and design of your soul which is eternal which brings us to the God's design issue. Who can change God's design other than God? Can a human soul awaken the spark of divinity in himself if it has fallen dormant? Or was the spark of divinity left out, hence no conscience? Boy, I'm talking about a lot of the same soul stuff in multiple threads in different circumstances.

[gib]

If the former, then conscience would be very difficult to teach seeing as how it would appear to be deeply rooted in genetics.

It's rooted way deeper than mere human flesh and blood, it's your essence, the nature and design of your soul which is eternal which brings us to the God's design issue. Who can change God's design other than God? Can a human soul awaken the spark of divinity in himself if it has fallen dormant? Or was the spark of divinity left out, hence no conscience? Boy, I'm talking about a lot of the same soul stuff in multiple threads in different circumstances.

Well, if the conscience was left out on purpose (by God no less), then that would make God the culprit. It means that a psychopath who is without a conscience (from birth) is a victim of God's cruel design.

Do you think this is something God does once in a while?

[WendyDarling]

Possibly. I don't believe that God is all love. He created all which includes hate and evil, so he could very well be responsible for those both lacking a spark of divinity and those who have a dormant spark of divinity.

[gib]

Possibly.

* shudder *

I don't believe that God is all love. He created all which includes hate and evil, so he could very well be responsible for those both lacking a spark of divinity and those who have a dormant spark of divinity.

God, to me, is the universe. That means he is everything: good, bad, lightness, dark, love, hate. And also that whatever he creates is a part of him, including heartless psychopaths. Thus, we are all responsible insofar as God is responsible.

[WendyDarling]

Possibly.

* shudder *Why do you shudder when below you acknowledge he created all?

I don't believe that God is all love. He created all which includes hate and evil, so he could very well be responsible for those both lacking a spark of divinity and those who have a dormant spark of divinity.

God, to me, is the universe. That means he is everything: good, bad, lightness, dark, love, hate. And also that whatever he creates is a part of him, including heartless psychopaths. Thus, we are all responsible insofar as God is responsible.

By His creating us we have at least an idea of how we are the same, but how are we separate or different from Him? Are we in charge of our souls once "born"? Or are we truly at the mercy of our design? This I question. Is there any help or hope outside of God's interference?

[gib]

Why do you shudder when below you acknowledge he created all?

Because a creator God can still be evil.

By His creating us we have at least an idea of how we are the same, but how are we separate or different from Him?

We've all got a piece of God inside us, if that's what you mean, it's just that we are not the whole of God. God is so much more than us.

Are we in charge of our souls once "born"? Or are we truly at the mercy of our design?

I would say we are in charge, but we're also limited. We're limited by the design.

Is there any help or hope outside of God's interference?

What do you mean, Wendy? Help or hope for what? We've got everything we need to survive life (most of us do, anyway). We're a product of our evolution which has had eons of time to mold us into survivors of our environment. If you're talking about help or hope in the afterlife, I'm afraid that's a big unknown in my mind, but if it's anything like Samsara--that is, the perpetual cycle of the soul in and out of life--then enlightenment is the only way out from what I've heard.

[WendyDarling]

Because a creator God can still be evil.

Why do you think that is necessarily true? I ask because I keep questioning the scope of what God may be or is? Can you create something that is extraneous from yourself without knowing it ramifications? This is of course yes, but it is also a responsibility that I would like to see tightened up so inventors harbor more responsibility in their work.

God is so much more than us.

Is more always better?

We're limited by the design.

What makes me laugh about this is that we don't even understand our design. Souls do not recognize their souls or what that design means...at all. Sure, flesh and blood they recognize for that takes no work to see it, touch it, smell it, hear it, no work to experience it at all...so I say the meat sack is a mere distraction on one minor leg of our journey through what appears (to me) to be eternity. I mean, on the other planes, there is no noticeable change, no objects to reference time, so those places seem eternal.

I'm afraid that's a big unknown in my mind, but if it's anything like Samsara--that is, the perpetual cycle of the soul in and out of life--then enlightenment is the only way out from what I've heard.

How do you enlighten a defective design? How do you teach someone to have a conscience?

[gib]

Because a creator God can still be evil.

Why do you think that is necessarily true?

I don't think God is necessarily evil, but when you mention that God is not necessarily all loving or good, the thought occurs to me and makes me *shudder*.

I ask because I keep questioning the scope of what God may be or is? Can you create something that is extraneous from yourself without knowing it ramifications? This is of course yes, but it is also a responsibility that I would like to see tightened up so inventors harbor more responsibility in their work.

Responsibility for things like war, pollution, health, things like that? Are we still talking about a pantheist God? If we are, then none of God's creations are really extraneous to himself.

God is so much more than us.

Is more always better?

Nope.

We're limited by the design.

What makes me laugh about this is that we don't even understand our design. Souls do not recognize their souls or what that design means...at all. When you say "our" design, what do you mean? You mean the life we make for ourselves, or God's design for the universe? Sure, flesh and blood they recognize for that takes no work to see it, touch it, smell it, hear it, no work to experience it at all...so I say the meat sack is a mere distraction on one minor leg of our journey through what appears (to me) to be eternity. I mean, on the other planes, there is no noticeable change, no objects to reference time, so those places seem eternal.

Have you been to these other planes?

How do you enlighten a defective design? How do you teach someone to have a conscience?

Idunno. Google seems to think it has all the answers:

How does one become enlightened?

I've sometimes wondered if we even get to choose enlightenment or if enlightenment chooses us. As the story of Siddhartha, the Buddha before he became enlightened, would have it, enlightenment befell him as he was meditating under a tree. Though it is said he acquired enlightenment through contemplating on life's deepest truths, the description of his awakening sounds spontaneous and unexpected, like it hit him out of nowhere. I've been contemplating deep life truths all my life and I haven't become enlightened yet. I wonder if it's possible that enlightenment is a force that chooses special people for some purpose, and you never know when it's gonna jump out of the bushes and hit you.

Then again, I've also wondered if enlightenment is just Maslow's stage of self-actualization--a perfectly normal, though rare, psychological phenomenon; self-actualization is described as the state one enters into when all of one's needs and desires are fulfilled--one has a secure source of income, one has a home, one is connected with close friends and loved ones, one is confident and has a healthy self-esteem--all these things culminate in self-actualization, and I think that sometimes this comes across to others as an "awakening"--suddenly appearing to be spiritually alive--and yes, often this is followed by incredible acts of kindness and giving. When one feels one has all his or her needs met and feels loved and supported by those around one's self, one often feels the impulse to give some of that wealth back to others, to stop focusing on one's self for the sake of putting one's self together and start focusing on others and one's community. <-- There's where the impulse to do good might come from: allow others to heal themselves first, and then they will be in a position to do good in a selfless way.

[WendyDarling]

Because a creator God can still be evil.

Why do you think that is necessarily true?

I don't think God is necessarily evil, but when you mention that God is not necessarily all loving or good, the thought occurs to me and makes me *shudder*. God having a temper could very well be. The Old Testament may portray one side of God, his unhappy side.

I ask because I keep questioning the scope of what God may be or is? Can you create something that is extraneous from yourself without knowing it ramifications? This is of course yes, but it is also a responsibility that I would like to see tightened up so inventors harbor more responsibility in their work.

Responsibility for things like war, pollution, health, things like that? Yes. Are we still talking about a pantheist God? Aren't we sorting that out in whether we have autonomy from His influence or not?If we are, then none of God's creations are really extraneous to himself.

God is so much more than us.

Is more always better?

Nope.

We're limited by the design.

What makes me laugh about this is that we don't even understand our design. Souls do not recognize their souls or what that design means...at all. When you say "our" design, what do you mean? Human bodies distract human perceptions from realizing their soul bodies. What's important about us is not what occurs in this lifetime of replays or other lifetimes of replays, what we actually consist of beyond our flesh and bones is what's important, what's eternal,
what's our reason for living, for being conscious.You mean the life we make for ourselves, or God's design for the universe? It's time for our consciousnesses to venture beyond this Earth dimension before our flesh bodies die to see for ourselves what's what. Sure, flesh and blood they recognize for that takes no work to see it, touch it, smell it, hear it, no work to experience it at all...so I say the meat sack is a mere distraction on one minor leg of our journey through what appears (to me) to be eternity. I mean, on the other planes, there is no noticeable change, no objects to reference time, so those places seem eternal.

Have you been to these other planes? Yes, three, but there are more, at least nine that I've counted so far,
but I didn't get to spend any time in the others, just passed through them super fast.

How do you enlighten a defective design? How do you teach someone to have a conscience?

Idunno. Google seems to think it has all the answers:

How does one become enlightened?

I've sometimes wondered if we even get to choose enlightenment or if enlightenment chooses us. As the story of Siddhartha, the Buddha before he became enlightened, would have it, enlightenment befell him as he was meditating under a tree. Though it is said he acquired enlightenment through contemplating on life's deepest truths, the description of his awakening sounds spontaneous and unexpected, like it hit him out of nowhere. I've been contemplating deep life truths all my life and I haven't become enlightened yet. I wonder if it's possible that enlightenment is a force that chooses special people for some purpose, and you never know when it's gonna jump out of the bushes and hit you.This happens, but does it happen when you are ready or God is ready?

Then again, I've also wondered if enlightenment is just Maslow's stage of self-actualization--a perfectly normal, though rare, psychological phenomenon; self-actualization is described as the state one enters into when all of one's needs and desires are fulfilled--one has a secure source of income, one has a home, one is connected with close friends and loved ones, one is confident and has a healthy self-esteem--all these things culminate in self-actualization, and I think that sometimes this comes across to others as an "awakening"--suddenly appearing to be spiritually alive--and yes, often this is followed by incredible acts of kindness and giving. When one feels one has all his or her needs met and feels loved and supported by those around one's self, one often feels the impulse to give some of that wealth back to others, to stop focusing on one's self for the sake of putting one's self together and start focusing on others and one's community. <-- There's where the impulse to do good might come from: allow others to heal themselves first, and then they will be in a position to do good in a selfless way.Only when life goes completely our way are we capable of generosity without fear? Is that what you've described as self-actualization?

[gib]

Aren't we sorting that out in whether we have autonomy from His influence or not?

We have about as much autonomy from God as my hand has from me. Like my hand, we are an extension of God. We are his tentacles.

Think of free will as a power strewn throughout all of God. We're all acting together, sharing in the will of one God.

Human bodies distract human perceptions from realizing their soul bodies. What's important about us is not what occurs in this lifetime of replays or other lifetimes of replays, what we actually consist of beyond our flesh and bones is what's important, what's eternal,

So you mean if we weren't so distracted by our bodily existence, we'd recognize the ultimate freedom we have... which is not limited by anything?

what's our reason for living, for being conscious.... It's time for our consciousnesses to venture beyond this Earth dimension before our flesh bodies die to see for ourselves what's what.

I agree that our persistent clinging to life is, at a deep level of our being, a choice... but you're talking waaay deep. On the surface, where most of us reside, it seems pretty clear that we're stuck with our bodies.

Yes, three, but there are more, at least nine that I've counted so far,
but I didn't get to spend any time in the others, just passed through them super fast.

Yes, I remember that now. I'm jealous. Some day, Wendy, I'll have a little taste of what you've been through.

This happens, but does it happen when you are ready or God is ready?

I don't know. Talking about enlightenment like it jumps out from the bushes and hits you is already very speculative for me. It's on the fringes of meaninglessness.

Only when life goes completely our way are we capable of generosity without fear? Is that what you've described as self-actualization?

Without fear yes, but we're all capable of doing good despite our fears. You don't have to be at the pinnacle of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it just comes more or less effortlessly at the top (or so I speculate). At the same time, there is a point to recoiling into defensiveness when we haven't quite made it to the top--one has to work on one's self before one can work on others, to stay temporarily blind to the humanity of others.