reply to post by laffoe
It is indeed easy to make a quick judgement and move on, move so fast to the next subject, another thread... so fast that you almost don't feel the
insecurity, the little doubt inside you... what if the are right, what of they speak the truth?
Truth? What is truth? Are "we" all on the same page on what that means? Certainly in terms of physics there is truth. As Alan Watts and author
and individual puts it, a: "cold, calculating, detached" objective view of the universe as it is nothing more than mechanisms, or again as Watts
puts it a universe filled with "mere objects is objectionable", and indeed it is! There is truth in this mechanistic universe, to be sure, but
there is more than this, and if we ignore that then the "truth of physics" becomes a lie of omission.
Truth is more than just objective things or phenomena. Whatever truth actually is, part of that truth is that every individual is inherently
subjective. Because of this, and at the very least, in terms of the big picture and truth, part of that truth is subjective and such from the
perception of that subject. Physicists and other mathematical adherents love to get all up in arms whenever someone takes a more "spiritual"
approach and dares to link the idea of a relationship between observer and the observed, and declare them criminal for there mistakes of fact, their
misinterpretation of quantum mechanics, and certainly "the laws of physics". It is without a hint of irony that these modern day scientist insist
on a priest class status and that all others bow down as religious adherents to their mystical incantations of mathematical equations.
The physicist will rely solely upon objectivity as a tool to dismiss the notion that laws of attraction, or manifesting intentions have nothing to do
with the "laws of physics", but in doing so they are willfully ignoring the reality of subjectivity. Indeed, as they argue for the purity of their
objectivity they pretend they are being solely objective and have some how overcome their own inherent subjectivity. This inherent flaw in their own
arguments is similar, ironically, to the inherent flaws within the O.P.'s argument.
It takes the O.P. very little time at all to go from "we" to "you", and even before this the O.P. was clear in distinguishing "we" as seven. In
doing this any attempt at objectivity is hopelessly chained by the subjective viewpoint of the author. That author, whether they be one individual
representing them self as seven, or if seven individuals actually sat down together in some fashion and fashioned "the letter" I will from here on
out call simply the O.P, that Opening Post is as subjective as it can get, and the follow up post by that member is even more subjective. What if
they are speaking the truth?
They are, it would be only fair to assume, speaking "their" truth. This is not to argue that the truth itself is pliable and malleable. If we are
to ever effectively come to some form of communication, then surely we have to have a much more specific understanding on what we mean by "truth",
and it seems counter-intuitive to define this "truth" as something pliable and solely subjective. Surely the objective exists within truth and not
as some paradoxical conundrum but as a unified field that perfectly describes the nature of nature itself. The truth is quite simply that which is in
its full fledged glorious all. The allness of is, this is what the truth is.
So, again we come back to this question of whether or not "they" in the O.P. are speaking the truth. What is true for "them" is true, just as
what is true for you is true. What is true for you is true as long as it remains true for you. The moment it no longer remains true for you then it
is no longer true, replaced by some other belief in what is true. This what is true for you is trueness is a part of subjective truth, and has
little, if not nothing at all, to do with objectivity.
No matter how much you think you are being objective, if what is true for you turns out not to be true at all in the bigger picture of truth, then
objectively speaking, this presumed objectivity is being overwhelmed by subjectivity. Of course, one can argue, and with a certain amount of validity
that because this thing that was true for you was true, then in the bigger picture of the truth, that thing is the allness of is, this "what is true
for you is true"ness becomes a part of that truth. How that fits into the allness of is can be the overwhelmingly and seemingly unknowable part of
truth...or maybe not.
Everyone is an individual and as such subject to their own subjectivity and just as equally subject to the objective universe. This is the balance
that must be obtained. Learning to balance our subjectivity with an objective universe, and understanding that the distinction doesn't mean the
universe itself is solely objective, only that the objective universe tends to impose certain boundaries. How the subjective "object" deals with
these impositions is the exciting part of coming to understand the universe. Can the subjective "object" go beyond pushing the envelope of the
universe, and go beyond the objective boundaries?
These are the very real and tangible questions that arise when any individual attempts to grasp the allness of isness.
However, when someone asks others to go into agreement that they have succumbed to fear and doubt - and here is the point and why I Am compelled to
address your post - this question of the allness of isness gets much more complex. It is not enough to assume that everyone will succumb to fear and
doubt. Of course some not only will, but will sing their praises of fear and doubt as if they are necessary emotional tools in succeeding in an
Respectfully, I suggest to you, and anyone else willing to listen, that fear and doubt are, as another member put it: "base emotions". This is
specific language that should be given significance. That member chose not to use the phrase foundational emotions, but instead called them "base
emotions'. Of course, that member can always come in and defend the choice of the word as meaning foundational, but in my opinion a competent
unconscious mind consciously chose that word instead of foundational for a reason. Another definition of base other than foundation, would be the
lowest point of a thing or place. Fear and doubt are the lowest points of emotions not the highest.
In this regard we come to understand that base is not being used to describe any foundation, but is rather speaking to the lower levels of emotions,
even if this is being done while praising fear and doubt.
It is a choice.
Every individual can make the choice to feel fear, and/or doubt, or they can embrace love. If one has fully embraced love, there is no room for fear
and doubt. The cup runneth over with love, and there is no room for base emotions. One must empty their cup in order to feel fear and doubt, they
must be willing to function in the absence of love. For those who sing fear and doubt's praises, this choice is a valid choice because what is true
for them is true. Even so, fear and doubt lead to turbulence, and remaining undisturbed becomes improbable. Being gentle while doing good, becomes
far too difficult in an absence of love.
Every person must take their own path. If a person chooses to embrace love as the primary functioning emotion fear and doubt have no use. That path
will lead to where it will lead just as the path of base emotions will lead where it will lead, but both will not lead in the same direction. One
will go in one direction, and the other will go in a different direction. In the end, it is each individual's choice to make.
There is no right or wrong to this, there is only the subjective truth of choice. Each subjective choice will manifest its own reality based upon the
intentions borne of that choice. No one has to go into agreement with fear and doubt, and no one has to go into agreement with love. Which is
necessary? That is choice only you can make.