Copyrighted Logo

css menu by Css3Menu.com


 

Bruce's 5th book, a Home Study Course, is now available.
Books & Tapes by Bruce Moen
    Bruce's Blog now at http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/blog....

  HomeHelpSearchLoginRegister  
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Send Topic Print
Moral Relativism or "I'm ok, you're ok" (Read 38218 times)
DocM
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2168
Re: Moral Relativism or "I'm ok, you're ok&qu
Reply #15 - Feb 10th, 2006 at 6:18pm
 
Recoverer,

That is interesting.  But the state of his consciousness would determine his perspective and afterlife state.  Again, as Kyo pointed out, if he were somehow self-brainwashed, then the lie to himself might truly not be seen in his deepest belief as a lie. 

Ah well, it is all hypothetical...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Kyo_Kusanagi
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 317
Re: Moral Relativism or "I'm ok, you're ok&am
Reply #16 - Feb 10th, 2006 at 6:31pm
 
Quote:
For example, one objective truth which can never be altered by any being in this Universe, and will be a fixed reality until we phase out of this Universe and create our own Universes.... the Law of Like attracts, or begets Like.

  It will work no matter how much you do or don't believe in it, you cannot alter it, you can only comply or not comply with the deeper Law behind, and which allows for or creates the condition of the Law of Like attracts Like...    

 The deeper Law is Love, both the awareness of and active participation in Oneness.  Without an objective reality of Oneness, how could the Law of ever balancing energy/motion exist?


What is referred to herein, are what has been called the universal principles, or more precisely, the total of 12 Universal Laws :

Law of Manifestation
Law of Reflection
Law of Karma
Law of Permanence
Law of Opposite Expression
Law of Cycles
Law of Thought
Law of Help
Law of Speech
Law of Symbols
Law of Progress
Law of Love

(Click here for more on 12 Universal Laws)


These Universal Laws may be said to be God's living expression throughout Creation, throughout all beings and all levels of the Cosmos.

The figure 12 is of course arbitrary, as are the names by which they are labelled. These 12 names or labels listed above, are only as we of the karmic jurisdiction on Earth, understand or interpret them in human concepts. An extraterrestrial might have 7 Laws instead, or 1000 Laws, but it would not matter - the essence and working of the Universal Laws will exactly be the same, only in iteration or writing, might there be any differences in number or language in which these laws are iterated.

What does this say about Truth then? Would Truth be defined as these 12 Universal Laws?

Every consciousness in the Cosmos, each & every being in Creation, will be design or Divine intention, have a slightly unique experience, understanding and perspective of the 12 Universal Laws. (Do not also forget that individuality and universality are not ever truly separate)

Is this subjectivity within objectivity, objectivity within subjectivity? Chaos within Order, Order within Chaos?

These 12 Universal Laws are really neither objective nor subjective. It is correct that these 12 Universal Laws (in essence, not in english) will be experienced by *all* beings across *all* levels of Creation/the Cosmos across *all* realities, without exception.

Why is this? The answer is simple.

It is God's natural expression, central to which She/He/It experiences Her/Him/ItSelf as each & every consciousness of Creation/the Cosmos. Understand that all Twelve Universal Laws are really just One Law. (But analyzed as 12 aspects of such).

It is as if combined, all Twelve Universal Laws collectively iterate only one thing - Oneness. (It is deliberately meaningful that the final of the 12 Universal Laws is the Law of Love.)

And yet, each and all (of the infinitum of) beings or consciousnesses of God, will experience and enjoy a slightly unique experience, understanding, perspective, and working with this Oneness, and hence of the 12 Universal Laws.

The 12 Universal Laws may be said to be 'absolute' or 'objective' in that it applies to All, but it is only because it is really just One Being experiencing Itself through these Twelve Laws - GOD.

And so as far as Reality is concerned, with all beings being extensions of the One Being, and whose (God = All Beings)'s existence invariably revolves around these 12 Universal Laws, the individual reality of every consciousness is still a relative or subjective one.

The only objectivity or absolute Truth, is Oneness (ie. the Twelve Universal Laws). Within which, there is, by divine design or intention, free will and hence an infinitum of possible or relative realities (which collectively make up the consciousness of GOD, but this is in the form of Creation/the Cosmos, and is hence ItSelf ever-living, ever-dynamic and ever-evolving, ad infinitum. Tis fun being GOD, eh).
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 11th, 2006 at 12:24am by Kyo_Kusanagi »  
 
IP Logged
 
recoverer
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male
Re: Moral Relativism or "I'm ok, you're ok&am
Reply #17 - Feb 10th, 2006 at 6:43pm
 
DocM:

Perhaps he could get stuck in an isolated state where he experiences his own dream World. But for how long could a spirit be happy with being lost in its own dream World? And why should others take part in it, unless they're like minded? Plus a deluded mind, unless it's dealt with, is liable to end up becomming more and more deluded as time passes by. Who knows what state of mind he might eventually take on. He might not like it.


Quote:
Recoverer,

That is interesting.  But the state of his consciousness would determine his perspective and afterlife state.  Again, as Kyo pointed out, if he were somehow self-brainwashed, then the lie to himself might truly not be seen in his deepest belief as a lie.  

Ah well, it is all hypothetical...

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lucy
Super Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1158
C1
Re: Moral Relativism or "I'm ok, you're ok&qu
Reply #18 - Feb 10th, 2006 at 6:45pm
 
Matthew

Would it be easier to answer your original question if we could answer something more practical?

For instance, did you get into medical school because you maintained a certain GPA and got certain scores on the SAT-type test and schmoozed correctly at the interview and so forth, or did all those incidental things just fall into place because you believed you would get in and your belief created the situation and got you past any possible glitches you may have had in the application?

I don't think this is a trivial question. How DOES reality work? and how can you answer your original question if you don't know this?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Kyo_Kusanagi
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 317
Re: Moral Relativism or "I'm ok, you're ok&am
Reply #19 - Feb 10th, 2006 at 7:00pm
 
Quote:
 One thing that is interesting though is that you take certain things as given : There is a new age belief system which encompasses much of the beings/processes you describe which is not verified by everyone.


Simply because these, like everything else, is a relative reality insofar as different souls are concerned. That is to say, not everyone will experience all of these in exactly the same way, and very naturally, some may not experience some of the aforementioned beings/events. It's a matter of what is appropriate or needed by the individual soul.

The beings/events I mentioned and you highlighted, I mention not only because they are indeed experienced, by virtue of usefulness or appropriateness, by a vast majority of human souls (for whom such events have *benefit*... consider this point), but *precisely* because these have benefit or relevance to the discussion (of hypothetical scenario, as well as subject matter being discussed) at hand.

Yourself, and many readers of this forum, have worked as guides & helpers (in past and present, in many ways and on many levels), surely you remember, or intuitively recognize the nature and relevance of these events, and intuitively understand how these work in the scheme of things. If something (eg. life review) is of value or benefit, we as guides & helpers will bring such to the awareness of the soul, of course in varying form, depending on the needs of the soul.

From the perspective of the guides & helpers, this is why much of the discussion as to verification of certain matters (eg. life review, council of elders, etc), is a moot or quite useless one. It's relative and dynamic, not absolute, and it depends on what is appropriate, helpful, or cosmoethical.

And the details really don't matter. From Michael Newton's perspective of research, it did matter. So it does matter, to him or some of his clients. But from our perspective, from the way we work, what is important is the essence, the helpfulness.


Quote:
I do think its possible that things like the life review and guidance, etc. come in different forms for different souls.  So here, we may again be talking about perspective.  


Yep, that's what I'm saying. Smiley


Quote:
I also like the idea of divine cosmoethical law or consequence.  I do think that if the contract killer had some loving relationships, part of his inner pscyhe would be torn, knowing the harm he caused directly.  This is well shown on "The Sopranos," with the likeable Tony Soprano being just this sort of vicious killer and also family man.  He ends up passing out frequently from panic attacks due to the internal self conflict (in the show).  


Ah yes, many of these productions include very relevant and educational points, with regard to the human psyche, existence and evolution.

If the individual does not have a balanced functioning psyche that would register compassion, then the individual's soul energies is (verily by such acts or experiences), warped and the soul's evolution, retarded. The karma will have to be worked out and balanced, the outcome of which, the learning of compassion and the helping of others, evolution.

Moreover, you could also see it as, that particular recalcitrant soul's guides & helpers are the *other aspects of that soul* that do recognize the difficulties, inappropriateness or anti-ethics of the situation, and reach out to, and counsel, the recalcitrant aspect of themselves, that is, that individual soul. Afterall, we're all One, aren't we? Smiley



Thank you too, Matthew, for this engaging conversation and for your amicability.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Berserk
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 979
Gender: male
Re: Moral Relativism or "I'm ok, you're ok&qu
Reply #20 - Feb 10th, 2006 at 9:22pm
 
Matthew,

I just noticed this thread.  I can't remember seeing more thoughful posts on this site in so short a period of time.  Of course, as a Christian, I disagree with some of what is said.  But this site is too saturated with my views right now.  LOL!  So for now I deem it best to set up 2 "straw men" and see how posters respond to THEIR arguments.  I might offer my own responses later.

(1) AN ATHEIST'S RATIONALIZATION FOR MAYHEM

"Morality" and "ethics" are merely code words for the communal desire to impose limits on behavior to prevent rebels from infringing on the freedom, dignity, and happiness of the community.  To the extent that the Golden Rule is embedded in the psyche of the masses, this can be attributed to evolutionary processes designed to promote the survival instinct, including group survival.   Once this evolutionary programing is understood, the "enlightened" maverick is free to violate any rules he pleases, if he is confident he can get away with it.  Nature is governed by the principle of the survival of the fittest.   No one can prove that human interactions should be any different.  So if I want to cheat, rob, and rape, there are no moral absolutes to which I am accountable.  

You may protest, "But what if everyone embraced your brutal outlook?   YOUR world would become a living hell too?"   Our narcissist might reply, "But only a minority will in fact live by my brutal code.   So if power and control over women makes me happy, you have no moral grounds for condemning my abuse of women.  You don't know if I can get away with it or not.  Even if I can't, that is a practical issue, not a moral issue."  

(2) A RAPIST'S POSTMORTEM RATIONALIZATION

Both Robert Monroe and Bruce Moen affirm the principle that "There is no good, there is no evil.  There is only experience."   Consistent with this principle,  Bruce Moen's astral explorations have determined that the only reason souls remain trapped in lower astral planes is their decision to stay there.  True, my inital postmortem locale will be based on the principle like attracts like.  But when I tire of hanging out with my ilk, I  can make new choices and leave.  Or I can benefit from a soul retrieval which can work like a jailbreak. I can ascend to Focus 27 and blissfully remain there as long as I temporarily agree to respect the freedom of others.   I can use the system to rest up for my next incarnation in which I can once again indulge my kinky passions by raping and controlling women.  Or I can find a fulfilling new vice like drug dealing.  And if that's what makes me happy, you have no moral grounds for protest.  

How would you respond to both rationalizations?

Don

P.S. Mark Twain was once asked about his wishes for an afterlife.  He wittily replied, "I'd choose Heaven for the climate and Hell for the company."  

Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 12th, 2006 at 2:36am by Berserk »  
 
IP Logged
 
Rob_Roy
Super Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 539
New Hampshire, USA
Gender: male
Re: Moral Relativism or "I'm ok, you're ok&qu
Reply #21 - Feb 11th, 2006 at 12:42am
 
This number of posts from Kyo must be a record.

Truth = Reality (including wider reality).

The closer we are in conformity with Reality, the more truthful we are.  I don't believe Truth as such has an objective existence.

Rob
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
DocM
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2168
Re: Moral Relativism or "I'm ok, you're ok&qu
Reply #22 - Feb 11th, 2006 at 8:09am
 
Thanks, Rob.

I believe that is the general consensus here.  I have found Kyo's replies to be extremely well written and enlightening.  In some ways, they complement the new erudite threads that Don has written.  This is a tremendous growth spurt on the board.  The issues raised are, for me the main reason I came to the board. 

Lucy, I'm not sure what to say.  I think intent is behind results in reality but that there are complex interactions between people whose intentions differ and so I don't know what to say.  I initially went to college and thought I would be a scientist.  As such, I studied biochemistry and by doing so, I took all the required courses for medical school.  I used to laugh at the premedical students at the front of the lecture halls, recording every word, and I would just sit back and try to understand things.  For me, there was no rat race of competition.  Then, after working for some prominent professors at Columbia University, I decided that pure science without application was not for me.  I found scientists who studied minute interactions of carbon atoms or certain molecules.  When their life's work was taken over years, it added up to a lot, but in the short term, the relevance to the human condition seemed small.  That is when I decided to go to medical school (toward the end of college).  I figured that as a physician, everything I did or researched would have an immediate relevance to the human condition.  I therefore had little competition or preparation to do to get in. 

For me, the idea that truth is relative, that good and evil are not real, that there is only a cosmoethical point of view, is new but a bit disappointing.  I still feel that we place ourselves in physcial reality to share some of these common universal laws as "absolute," and because of that, there must be some greater basis for truth and the common experience of good and evil, right and wrong.  I have not been able to make myself more clear on this yet in this thread, but I will when I figure it out.

Best to you all,

Matthew

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lights of Love
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 881
Re: Moral Relativism or "I'm ok, you're ok&qu
Reply #23 - Feb 11th, 2006 at 11:24am
 
Hi Matthew,

This thread sure got long fast.  I haven't had time to read all of it yet.  Some good points for sure!

I think it's the relativity of truth that gives meaning to absolute truth... again here I think of the way I understand consciousness as a continual feedback process.

Hi Don,

I'm thinking I spoke to the subjects you bring up on your Fresh Look at Heaven thread on page 6.  I may have time later to add more.

Kathy
Back to top
 

Tread softly through life with a tender heart and a gentle, understanding spirit.
 
IP Logged
 
dave_a_mbs
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 1655
central california
Gender: male
Re: Moral Relativism or "I'm ok, you're ok&qu
Reply #24 - Feb 11th, 2006 at 7:04pm
 
Interesting thread-

The one problem I detect is that we live inside a Cosmic Paper Bag, and we're trying to figure out what it looks like from the outside.  You can't get there by deductive logic. However, inductions help.

What we know is that each day is fully and completely determined by the prior day, and in turn it defines the succeeding day. We also know that the elements of the world that continue existence are logically coherent so that none is a negation of its own self.

The chain of causality traces back to a Beginning in which we find two terms, Purusha-Prakriti (Hundu), Specificity-Generalization (Egyptian), Yang-Yin (Taoist), or Void and Uncaused Cause (Christian). (I call this the Primal Dyad, and view it as a Statistical Tendency that projects its own nature.)

Assembling these into a future in which yesterday defines today, and today defines tomorrow,  in every possible manner, can be done only by an iterated complexion (a complexion is the set of all possible subsets. Repeat it over and over). This gives a pencil of worldlines that define a cluster of parallel universes. This is like Hugh Everett's "many worlds interpretation of QM" and was the view of others, such as Archibald Wheeler toward the end of his life.

To the physicist, reality has no purpose except to Be. Morality thus favors the highest type of Be-ing.

Everything is totally determined by material cause and effect linkages. Even the statistical aspects of QM are simply cases that are too complex to analyze, but they do not annul causality. (Einstein was right - 'The Herr Gott does not play dice with the universe") Choice enters when we use Intention to hop to a different worldline, like changing sidewalks while wandering through a city in whic everything has already been laid out. This requires that we maintain a connection with the Ultimate Creative Principle, Higher Self, God Self or whatever you prefer to call it.

Each individual occurs along a specific and unique worldline. That gives individual history.

The entire pencil of worldlines is the Collective Consciousness, or, if you wish, God-Mind, or Buddha-Mind (in the cosmic sense).

The two levels of samadhi thus give participatory awareness of the Cosmic Consciousness in sarvastarka samadhi, and of the Beginning in nirvastarka samadhi.  This can be directly verified, and I suggest that you go there and have a look. You can't "think it", in this case. You have to "do it" to have the perception.

Since you and I evolve along divergent worldlines, Your Truth will have elements that are My Falsehood, while My Truth must have elements Untrue for You. We can agree only by returning to the instant of the initial Beginniing in samadhi, since all else is defined as divergent.

In the same way, morality for You differs a bit from My ideas of the Good. There is no ultimate or archetypal "Good" except that which represents the furtherance of the entire cosmic evolution. Thus, morality, on a human level, must be situational, although it grows together toward a totally common notion as we look farther toward the Oneness in which the Cosmic Consciousness furthers itself.

This thread remnds me, when one opens a can of worms, it takes a bigger can to put them back again.  If we can.

dave

Back to top
 

life is too short to drink sour wine
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Berserk
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 979
Gender: male
Re: Moral Relativism or "I'm ok, you're ok&qu
Reply #25 - Feb 11th, 2006 at 7:14pm
 
Dave,

Increasingly, modern college courses in ethics have no appeal to students without a constant application to concrete examples.   So I'd be very interested to see how you (or anyone) would respond to the rationalizations of my two "straw men" in reply#20.  Would you find fault with their logic?

Don
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
dave_a_mbs
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 1655
central california
Gender: male
Re: Moral Relativism or "I'm ok, you're ok&qu
Reply #26 - Feb 11th, 2006 at 7:33pm
 
Don-

As far as I can tell, the major difference between your perspective and my own is that you view morality as a limitation, blocking us from the unpleasant or inappropriate, while I view it as a facilitation, allowing us to make better choices.  BFD.

As I just was suggesting, your world and mine differ. I live in my own world and interpretation because I have no other choice. This is true in life while I rape the innocent, it is true in death when I merge partially back into the totality of the collective system of all definitions (God-Mind) and when I realize what I have done and seek to repair myself by creating samskaras to ripen as later karmas, and it is still true in the next life when I am being the innocent and others rape me.  (This information is readily available from a review of a few dozen past lives, and can easily be verified.)

The degree to which your worldline and mine overlap might be very small, so the effect of my ignorance on your moral decisions might be slight, or it might be great if we have very similar realities.  You might be experiencing an Earthly Paradise, while I experience a material Hell, and we then carry these ideas into the afterlife.

IOn the more general level, the reality in which we involve with society tends to be socially determined. Wars, Inquisitions and Jihad are among the ways in which we manifest our Higher Moral Awareness. However, if we average everytihg over a long period we discover some real advances in social conditions, such as flush toilets and central heating, as well as a few things that turn out to be dangerous, like pop-top cans and safety razors.  The global tendency is simply pro-life, because that's all we can see to share.

dave
Back to top
 

life is too short to drink sour wine
WWW  
IP Logged
 
DocM
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2168
Re: Moral Relativism or "I'm ok, you're ok&qu
Reply #27 - Feb 11th, 2006 at 8:45pm
 
Don,

No one is accepting your challenge as yet.  I think we should address certain topics in morals and ethics on this thread such as: what  compels us to act in a moral or ethical manner, other than random rules of an individual society?  Supposedly, in the afterlife, there is little we can keep to ourselves; thus lying and deception may not exist, depending on the communication methods used (if your thoughts are open to all). 

However, a child may learn from the time they can talk that they may not tell the truth, and "get away with it."  In essence, they may not be getting away, as their conscience/consciousness carries the lie around, and our very natures are dynamic and energetic (for every action, there is an equal an opposite reaction).  Thus, the notion of karma is born.

However, if all but the most basic universal truths are relative, what compels us to "right action?"  One could say, the desire to grow closer to God, would, be the very nature of that desire, lead to cosmoethical action (I now like this term, Kyo). 

I appreciated Kyo, your 12 "laws," that we can see in action in the universe.  I'd be interested if you have expanded on these.  I think we all agree Dave, that our common shared reality has these laws.  Many currently seem immutable.  Those laws come as close to a "truth," as we can right now.

Of course our amazing minds look for exceptions to the rules. 

Matthew
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
B-dawg
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 596
Missoula, Montana
Gender: male
Doc's questions, my (preferred) answers...
Reply #28 - Feb 11th, 2006 at 8:48pm
 
Dave's posts about ultimate truth made me think and open this thread.  Do Buddhists find Buddha because of their mind set and consciousness when they die?
*****************
-I'd like to think so. (Thusly, I can create MY preferred reality! Including coming back HERE, if things are too "pure and holy" on the other side...)

The pope warned of a moral relativism that is rampant in our culture.
*****************
-I somehow think that Pope Rat isn't the man to see, if you're loking for ultimate truth. (Roman amalgamation of Greek paganism and Christianity, weinerschnitzel, sauerkraut and Hitler youth all rolled into one!!!)
(I wonder when he's going to get a propeller, to put on that beanie he wears? Be a nice touch, I'd say...)


Is there, in fact truth at all?
*****************
-What a liberating thought, that there may NOT
be..!

B-man
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Berserk
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 979
Gender: male
Re: Moral Relativism or "I'm ok, you're ok&qu
Reply #29 - Feb 11th, 2006 at 9:02pm
 
B-man, can I assume that you would agree with my first "straw man's" position in reply #2?   And what do you think of the second "straw man's" reasoning?

D-man
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Send Topic Print


This is a Peer Moderated Forum. You can report Posting Guideline violations.