[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Main Index][Thread Index]

# RE: Re: What does it mean to become noble concerning passions?

#### Message 03550 of 3835

- To: BardonPraxis@yahoogroups.com
- Subject: RE: [BardonPraxis] Re: What does it mean to become noble concerning passions?
- From: "lux xul" <luxxul@...>
- Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 17:26:46 +0000
- Bcc:
- In-reply-to: <csrnc6+hu65@eGroups.com>

`Hi. Isnt an evaluation concerning such things REALLY ALL ABOUT ONES ATTACHMENT to those ideas? At times, it MAY be necessary to dominate a situation, draw it out of chaos and grant it form to act in a positive constructive manner. At other times one must DOMINATE ones own desire to negatively influence rationalizing that negative influence as a positive healing, ofr instance.. Ones emotional or negative emotional dependence on the concept of DOMINATION is more influential than the concept unused. Isnt it all about DISCERNMENT and attachment?`

> `From: "Ravi Mohan" <magesmail@...>
> Reply-To: BardonPraxis@yahoogroups.com
> To: BardonPraxis@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [BardonPraxis] Re: What does it mean to become noble concerning passions?
> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:06:30 -0000`

>     Rawn
>     A few questions if i may, just to make sure i have understood this
>     right ..

>     you said
>     > The process of transformation begins with and hinges upon the Soul
>     > Mirror *self* analysis of the *present* character.

>     also,

>     > Self-honesty means that *every* valuation you make about your character
>     > must be based solely upon how *you* *feel* emotionally and what *you*
>     > *think* about *your own* actions, emotional habits and habits of
>     > thinking (i.e., your manifest character).

>     ok. but does this not mean that there is a possibility of our own
>     "ideals" being out of whack with social/cultural norms ? For eg a
>     person could think it is "ok" to dominate others for example, because
>     he (a) "feels" and thinks that it is right (he could have a world
>     view in which domination of the weaker by the stronger is the "right
>     thing")

>     As a thought experiment let us take someone like say Caesar or Genghis
>     Khan , who have immense leadership and martial qualities and are
>     brought up in a culture of conquest(classical Rome or the stepes of
>     Monglia a particular periods in time).If such a person would do a soul
>     mirror exercise would he not put down the "ability to dominate others
>     and bend them to my will" as a *positive* virtue ?and when he
>     postivizes his soul mirror would he not try to maximise these
>     qualities ?

>     On the other hand if a person with such an ability had a "everyone is
>     equal irrespective of strength" ethic(which would be the case in
>     modern societies with "equality before law" etc ) the the "will to
>     dominate" characteristic would be "negative" and something to turn
>     away from him or use "constructively " (quotes because what
>     is"constructive" would also vary socially/culturally and situationally)

>     >This requires an
>     > absolute or "radical" honesty with oneself and here is where the
>     > perennial analogy of the murderer or "black magician" is absurd.
>     > By
>     > definition such an individual would be constitutionally incapable of
>     > this degree of self-honesty.
>     >

>     > Self-honesty means that *every* valuation you make about your character
>     > must be based solely upon how *you* *feel* emotionally and what *you*
>     > *think* about *your own* actions, emotional habits and habits of
>     > thinking (i.e., your manifest character).

>     ok i am confused here . why would someone be unable to look into
>     himself just because he kills (say, a soldier or a spy) or practices
>     occultism without understanding all the nuances of what he does (this
>     would be the meaning of "black magic" from abrdonian pov rght?) and
>     believes that invoking spirits and making pacts with them is the
>     *right way* ?

>     > When you begin interjecting
>     > what others think or feel or do then you are not reaching all the way
>     > down to what *you* are thinking or feeling. *Your* thoughts and
>     > feelings may very well agree with what others *say* they are thinking
>     > and feeling, and that's perfectly "okay" so long as they are *your*
>     > feelings and thoughts. And likewise, *your* thoughts and feelings may
>     > very well disagree with what others *say* they are thinking and feeling,
>     > and that *also* is perfectly "okay" for *you*, even if no one else
>     > agrees. *All* that matters in *this* process is what *you* think and
>     > feel about *you*.

>     yes my concern here is that by this standard if a person always does
>     what is right acording to your own "feelings" and "thoughts" , he
>     could still end up doing very destructive things as viewed from the
>     outside .

>     Is this still "balanced" ? Is a person whose thoughts emotions and
>     actions are in harmony balanced if he finds the consequences of his
>     actions "aceptable" within his examined and accepted world view?

>     > And of course (I assume this goes without saying but figure I might as
>     > well say it anyway just to be sure I'm clear enough), the way that our
>     > actions, thoughts and feelings effect others and our environment are
>     > important reflections of self that must be considered in any
>     > self-evaluation. If we feel really great about ourselves but are
>     > alienating every one around us then something is amiss and way out of
>     > any sort of *functional* balance.

>     considered yes . but the decisions to be taken after that
>     consideration would still seem to be very uniquely individual and
>     could range from very "positive" (by a particular set of beliefs) or
>     "negative" , Are you saying that if the person doing the self analysis
>     is satisfied emotianally and logicaly about the rightness of his
>     actions then that is "balanced" ?

>     what about if you are alienating some people and gaining the approval
>     of others ? Do you have to gain the approval of everyone /not
>     alienbate a single soul in order to be balanced ? just to restate the
>     point one more time , what if a person feels that a negative behaiour
>     like killing or domination is a)emotionally "right" b)and logically
>     "right" as per his world view ?

>     So would "balance" be culturally dependent ? (i have found a large
>     part of what seems "right" is very culture dependent .As an extreme
>     exmple whether one is a "terrorist" "soldier" or "freedom fighter"
>     and whether the victims of a terrorist attack/military strike are
>     "innocent victims" or "collateral damage" would depend very much on
>     cultural/social assumptions on the rights of the individual, the
>     nature of war etc .

>     Any thoughts are greatly appreciated .

>     Regds,
>     NKKA

- References:
  - Re: What does it mean to become noble concerning passions?
    - From: "Ravi Mohan" <magesmail@...>

- Prev by Date: Step one again(sorry)
- Next by Date: Re: Step one again(sorry)
- Previous by thread: Re: Re: What does it mean to become noble concerning passions?
- Next by thread: RE: What does it mean to become noble concerning passions?
- Indexes:
  - Main
  - Thread

Main Index | Thread Index