Selfishness/Manipulation (Change/Take) is NATURE, should we use Law of Attraction or Accept what is?

Death is stronger than life. The moment life exists it is already being broke down. It takes so much energy to produce something but easier to destroy it. Death is also change as one thing dies its resources are used for something else (manipulation/taking) such as an animal eating another and absorbing its energy.

Selfishness also seems to be natural, it seems like the poor people are almost never selfish and the rich people almost always are (studies show they also have less empathy).

Accepting what is does NOT seem natural. I tried to do it but even when I accept what is the body doesn't. It still desires to eat if it is hungry. It still desires to sleep if it is tired. It is selfishly trying to survive.

Law of Attraction - focusing on what you want and going after it - being selfish - taking seems natural and it seems to agree with the law of nature that things are always changing.

The Earth will keep absorbing energy from the sun and it will take it to do its own thing (grow its own trees, fruits, soil) and then humans and other life forms will selfishly take what they can to absorb energy and survive.

What do you think of all of this?

reply to post by arpgme

What do you think of all of this?

I wrote a thread once on a theme similar to the ideas your are explain. Existance could be viewed as a matrix of delineated forms energy some concentrated into organic beings others inorganic. All beings need to feed and the natural sustance is the energy of other beings. Its natural. Selfishness is a manifestation of the beings nature to want, the greater the want the greater its hunger. The question is are we humans capable of rising above our hunger thirst.

reply to post by AthlonSavage


I heard that even spirits need energy to survive. Demons will feed on fear and hatred and angels will feed on light (love)...

reply to post by arpgme

I heard that even spirits need energy to survive. Demons will feed on fear and hatred and angels will feed on light (love)...

Does the idea of an Angel feeding off you love make you repulsed knowing its a form of parasitic attachment to feed off your engery?

Can you please tell me how selfishness and acceptance are related as incompatible?

reply to post by AthlonSavage


Demons invoke fear and Angels invoke love. So you can choose to be fearful and then have demons putting thoughts in your head of more fear, or you can be loving and let angels guide you to more love. If me, I choose whatever I want in the moment. Whether you are aware or not SOMEONE is feeding off of your energy.

reply to post by smithjustinb



If you are hungry you can accept what is (hunger) and starve. Or you can resist (hunger) and take some food/energy for your own benefit.

reply to post by arpgme

Demons invoke fear and Angels invoke love. So you can choose to be fearful and then have demons putting thoughts in your head of more fear, or you can be loving and let angels guide you to more love. If me, I choose whatever I want in the moment. Whether you are aware or not SOMEONE is feeding off of your energy.

The way you view it as i see it is that you accept your manipulated by Angels and Demons and they are feeding off you. You however dont become fixated on that you focus on the feeling it gives you. You are addicted to the the experience of what you fantasy over and as the moment arises, new fantasies come and old ones go. Question is what is your fantasies?

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by AthlonSavage

 

Demons invoke fear and Angels invoke love. So you can choose to be fearful and then have demons putting thoughts in your head of more fear, or you can be loving and let angels guide you to more love. If me, I choose whatever I want in the moment. Whether you are aware or not SOMEONE is feeding off of your energy.

reply to post by smithjustinb

 

If you are hungry you can accept what is (hunger) and starve. Or you can resist (hunger) and take some food/energy for your own benefit.

Wouldn't accepting what is also include the fact that you need to accept what the urge to pursue your desires and act on them?

reply to post by smithjustinb


If you are accepting what is, then nothing needs to be changed, right? Acceptance is ALLOWING it to BE.

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

If you are accepting what is, then nothing needs to be changed, right? Acceptance is ALLOWING it to BE.

I don't think so, because "what is" is always changing. So really, you are accepting the speed of change, and in your masterful coping powers, you are also able to accept the changes you make without the feelings of guilt or regret

reply to post by smithjustinb


Yes, "what is" is always changing but how can you know in what way it is supposed to change? How do you know if you are supposed to give up or keep resisting then? And if this is the case, wouldn't that mean that we should give in to all of our emotions, desires/intentions ?

If a person wants to be mean and hurt others, should they "accept what is" (the meanness) and act on it? Just as you say if a person is hungry they should "accept what is" (the hunger) and act on it?

reply to post by arpgme


This is a cool post and a good philosophical addition to ATS, I feel.

Reminds me of what is known from Hindu as two distinct spiritual paths: The Left and The Right Hand Paths. Through the ages those definitions found their way into Western spiritual culture, along with the natural evolution of concept and humanity in general, the definitions and understanding of the archetypes of those paths have evolved somewhat. Fortunately, in my opinion, humans are born with two hands.

We have to consume life in order to survive, this is fact. We have to survive if we want to enjoy what this planet has to offer in experience. Eventually we all have to face hard choices that impact either our survival or anothers. I think your choice of the word selfishness is accurate, but I think some will see it in a different way.

For instance, people go to the store to buy food these days. It could be a vegetarian buying hoards of veggies, fruits, breads and whatnot or a regular omnivore getting a little bit of everything plus a good amount of meat - the fact remains all that product was produced from living things. While the animals were raised in mass-production, mass-harvesting enviroments, the person who buys the meat product never had to view these conditions and never had to take part or even witness the process killing the animal. We live in a world more and more where we don't come close at all to understanding what it takes to produce meat food. I would say taht vegetables are the same way. If you have ever had a plot of your own in your backyard or lived on a farm even, you should have experienced the patience and wisdom required to get it right. Its not as simple as "seed in ground, water every now and then and BOOM FOOD"

What I mean to say is just the food aspect, which consuming is a CONSTANT daily thing to survive, is something that requires alot of will yet these days it doesn't. It could be argued that a person has to have a job to get money to buy food. I am not sure about that arguement though, I think the understanding of what is naturally and healthily a 'selfishness' factor that keeps us alive has been pushed under the rug by society.

I wouldn't call it selfishness, personally. But I think people will have a sort of realization by seeing it called selfishness because sometimes extreme language can have that effect. Sorry to ramble, I don't have alot to add in response to this thread other than agreement and I am sorry if this post comes accross as just a rehash of everything said in orginal post. Thanks for sharing this here, Peace

reply to post by indigothefish


Exactly, a vegetarian that is buying a whole bunch of fruits and vegetables are still taking in resources that could have been used for others - for their own selfish survival.

Energy is taken from other places for survive whether it be another animal, a fruit, or a vegetable. I agree with you.

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

Yes, "what is" is always changing but how can you know in what way it is supposed to change? How do you know if you are supposed to give up or keep resisting then? And if this is the case, wouldn't that mean that we should give in to all of our emotions, desires/intentions ?

If a person wants to be mean and hurt others, should they "accept what is" (the meanness) and act on it? Just as you say if a person is hungry they should "accept what is" (the hunger) and act on it?

edit on 27-2-2013 by arpgme because: (no reason given)

But if a person wants to be mean and hurt others, wouldn't that mean they probably don't accept them? If you accept all, wouldn't you never be mean just to be mean?

reply to post by smithjustinb


If a human feels the need to take in the energy of another existence (due to hunger), doesn't that mean that that existence is not respected/accepted?

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

If a human feels the need to take in the energy of another existence (due to hunger), doesn't that mean that that existence is not respected/accepted?

edit on 27-2-2013 by arpgme because: (no reason given)

Wouldn't it also be disrespectful to those who don't have a problem with eating to think that you are above eating?

reply to post by smithjustinb


This is my point. No matter what you do, there will always be a conflict. At some point you can't be "accepting" as you would be contradicting something else so this "all accepting" thing is false.

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

This is my point. No matter what you do, there will always be a conflict. At some point you can't be "accepting" as you would be contradicting something else so this "all accepting" thing is false.

Maybe not. Maybe it's just one approach that can be justified just as well as any other approach. Things in opposition to any highest good seem to be justifiable just as easily as any good thing. So I think it really just does not matter what you do, but you'll create the world you choose to observe... Or something like that

reply to post by smithjustinb


I don't want justification. I want obvious truth. Maybe it is true that I am creating my own world view, or maybe not.

I wonder, if a group of people were living today in nature with food and everything , they didn't have contact with the outside world, I wonder how would their world view be?

I doubt they would be thinking of how they can "control/create" their world view without a language. It will probably be automatic, but I wonder, what would it be...

reply to post by arpgme


Remembering that it's all part of a cycle is the most important element.

When someone is born that is a form of creation: a brand new life.
This child could grow up to be anyone, to do anything.
They might make a scientific discovery, a medical breakthrough.
They might write a moving novel, or paint a beautiful piece.
They will grow, mature, make friends, and change their world.
They will age, begin to decay, and hopefully leave a legacy.
When they die, their body will return to the elements.

These elements will become sustenance for plants, flowers, and fungi.
That flora will become sustenance for herbivores.
Herbivores will become sustenance for predators.
Both of those become sustenance for omnivores, like humans.
Another human will ingest the previous-human's matter/energy.
Then they will make someone pregnant, or become so themselves.
A new life, partially created from the old one, will be brought into existence.

This new life will be able to continue from where the old one left off.
Not necessarily reincarnation, but cellular recycling.
It's always a cycle: creation begets destruction begets creation.
Destroying something always allows it to be re-created as something else.

So, while you call it selfish, I prefer to think of it as half of the equation.

~ Wandering Scribe