Forgiveness and the Law of One. David Wilcock video thoughts.

Following on from the previous posts. "Defining morals" in relation to this area. From David Wilcocks video, dated 8th of March. We have this quote:

34:57: So I want you to do your best, to honour the good in yourself, and remember, that in forgiveness lies the stoppage of the wheel of Karma. 

Also this:

1:34:00: At the forefront of this process, as soon as all the most important needs are fulfilled. You would practice forgiveness, compassion, patience and understanding. 

I have only perused up to 2 hours of this video of Davids (It is three hours thirty three minutes!) There may be more quotes I should have included. Owing to having 85% chocolate yesterday that apparently, causes my heart to want to thump out of my chest. So I could not watch further or concentrate yesterday.

But from what I have watched so far. It seems to me that David is just kind of throwing a whole lot of kind of word salady feel good terms and link them to the Law of One. To gain the authority of being a teacher of the Law of One. Of being a person with spiritual authority. But his explanation, and likely, understanding of all this, is so bad, that it is laughable.

In a way, Davids understanding of the Law of One here goes no further than the basics. When he says "forgiveness, compassion, patience and understanding". He does not know what these things mean. 

I just pulled up a Law of One quote showing the subtleties of balancing (85.16). I believe I understand what it means. But to go through it on this blog and make the argument is not the right direction I don't believe. So I will make a larger argument that forgiveness without contrition is not legitimate, and that people that make those statements usually do not know what they are talking about, and are spiritual bypassing. After that, it should become clear what is missing from Davids explanation. Or lack thereof. 

Forgiveness without contrition. 

When there is an argument between someone that knows what they are talking about, and someone that doesn't know what they are talking about. It goes in a predictable way. One person is engaging, giving reasons, adapting to the conversation. The other person is inflexible. Giving no explanations. But infuriatingly just having this assumption they are right, and that the other persons input is irrelevant. Or giving bad, transparent reasoning, that was clearly thought up in the moment. 

This is like listening to a Stefan Molyneux livestream. Someone will come in and ask him questions and he will answer clearly. Occasionally, a caller will come in with their own opinion and he will ask them questions. Like, from the perspective of a relaxed, natural place. It is only the other person that breaks the facade of civility. 

Another one of these arguments. Might be when someone has a perspective on Christianity, where they have done the research. And the other person is responding based on just what the mainstream idea is. It is a similar thing. Anger, making up quotes. On the part of the person that is trying to hold up the consensus viewpoint, but has clearly never thought about it before. The example is when someone is confronted with Aaron Abke's research, or Paul Wallis'.

There is a pattern and a feel to people who do not know what they are talking about. And that is the feel of a person that refuses to be challenged. Whom a carefully placed question would unravel their argument. Who contradicts themselves perhaps when they speak. Who says things that are obviously wrong from a common sense place to defend a position (Leftist redditors!)

This is the situation that I find myself in when I ask people questions on the forgiveness without contrition argument. Questions and logical points, there is a wall against them. One of the questions that I would ask, the one I got from my only discussion with Stefan Molyneux (and this was the topic!) Is; If you want to define forgiveness as forgiveness without contrition. Then what about people that go through a process to achieve forgiveness? Like, those where someone admitted fault and etc. Are you using the same term for these two things? Because obviously that would be incoherent, right?

This is where the discussions starts. There are many other points that layer on top of this. But this is where it starts.

But this post is specifically about the Law of One. So let's go back there. Taking one single quote from the book like that is taking one out of context. Early in session 34, the Law of One actually defined it as a PROCESS, including understanding, acceptance and forgiveness. 

This is another question to ask someone in this discussion. Can you define understanding?

A lot of people on the left, the political opinions that have decided that Marxism's 100 million death toll in the 20th century is clearly not enough. Define themselves as not being able to improve morally. Their ideas, that we should take money from some people to give to others make them the pinnacle of morality and no further movement forward is possible. 

I say this vaguely, but it is something I have observed in left wing individuals. Perhaps this deserves another article. But the right wing free market viewpoint does not set up the same limitations in my view.  

Peoples definition of understanding is like this, but I do not agree. I will give two examples of what I think understanding is in this context. Bear in mind, I am now arguing from a perspective that the Law of One is true, not from the perspective of this is the technically correct way to use the quotes. Since if the definition of understanding within this process, can be found in my own life experiences, then there is some reality to this outside of the Law of One books. 

Examples of understanding:

Example one 

This is the most instructive one I think I can think of. I once listened to a Stefan Molyneux call in. Something like, "My father tried to kill me". It was a guy who was in a bad position with his wife. She had falsely accused him of something. I cannot recall. Perhaps domestic violence or something sexual, and his daughters had been turned against him. Obviously we cannot fully know he was telling the truth. It sounded like he was. 

The first hour or so of this discussion was agonising. Because, every time Stefan would ask questions of the guy he would create a new story. It was like: "So when you worked away from your children for ten years did you miss them?" "Yes, after about two years it did start to sting". "OK, so when you started to miss them did you not think of changing your work situation?" "Well no not really, I was actually working from home three days a week and we would go to the park on Saturday". It was contradictions like this the whole time. The guy could not communicate coherently. Could not stand potential conflict. He folded and made new stories every time, and it was not even clear that he knew he was doing it. 

The story ended up that when this man was young. His father had been very abusive, and had almost killed him even. Lifting him off his feet, strangling him. Throwing bricks at him etc. So he had grown up with the survival imperative that he could not answer in a way other than what the abuser might prefer. 

Where this fits in with this process then. Is that the guy did not know this was his motivation. He did not know he was answering people in such a confusing manner and that this was the mechanism for that. So, this casts a different light on the situation. This way of communicating is going to alienate the good people, and even normal people, that won't be able to stand it; and attract the bad people with their own similar problems. Those that for whatever reason, do not want the communication to be sincere.  

This potentially changes the entire situation big time. In seeing his own part in it. And communicating in a better way in the future. But it is understanding. It is dear bought. 

Example two:

This is a personal example. The first example is preferable. But has the drawback that honesty cannot be definitively known. This is my own example. So even though I COULD be lying, and this is a relatively low stakes example. It is unlikely that a reader would both want to read my words, and also think I was the type of person to lie about this sort of thing. Since if I made up my own personal experiences, then there would be no value to reading this blog. 

My experiences with women, in the sense of looking for dates or any other particular thing. Have not been... "good". I suppose good might not be the right word, but I hope it suffices in explaining my point. 

When I was a teenager. I had a very idealistic "blue pill" view of women. The kind of view that does not see women as having any particular sex drive, as an example. Sees them only with divine motives (to be psychologised like a romance film).  

My real experiences were what brought me out of this. I watched videos on absorbed via social media the red pill, some of my understanding was from real life. It was my objective, every day experience of trying to be romantic and getting rejected. That formed my idea of women to be one that was very ruthless and sexually based. 

This ALSO went into my sexual fantasies. My fantasies are not just what I want. They include fairly complex ideas as to how to get the best results out of women. Like a natural instinct of how best to exploit any particular situation. How to identify the greatest value in any situation. 

From about the beginning of 2020. Right around lockdown. Up until June 2022. I had a friendship with a woman. We were both very single. I was not well but did not really have a lot of insight into that. The end date of the friendship is when she died via suicide. I was not actually friends with her by that time, as she had broken it off a few months prior. 

We did talk about sexual matters and my ideas of women were reflected in that. They were also heavily reflected in my fantasies. Sometimes made into erotic stories but not written down usually. 

I was reading the Law of One a few days ago, and session 84.20 discusses relationships. Away from the red pill kind of attitude. It talks about how sex that includes "green ray energy" is the most valuable thing a person has to offer, and that relationships should be to try and court this from the partner. 

This has created a sudden change in the way I think of women. Even fantasies. It has also allowed me insight into this friendship I had with this girl. The insight also allows additional insights. 

BUT, this is coming up on four years after the end of our friendship. It is a little bit of understanding, but it is certainly not clear that it is the "end" of my understanding. 

This is the point I wanted to make. I have other examples where insights into events even further back were important. Without understanding, no meaningful work on a situation can continue. But understanding, takes YEARS. To just assume one understands a situation, like leftists assume they understand morals. Both of these perspectives include a kind of belief in ones inherent perfection, and a complete lack of humility. Is not at all functional. 

Conclusion:

For David, to just put words up on a slide like "understanding" as though that explains anything, is pretty useless. For him to selectively quote the Law of One in order to gain spiritual authority is also, pretty useless.

I suspect the Law of One was only offering enough to point people in the right direction, but a lot more is needed to truly make a workable system. 

This was my first blog post, analysing Davids use of the Law of One. There were two things he said about it that gave me enough rage to start writing this. Two things he has said which were badly quoted and confused, destructive even. 

My next post specifically on David will literally use direct quotes of his and show where in the Law of One it shows his quote is not correct.  This blog post was on an overarching point. Forgiveness and contrition. So it's not quite yet into the analysis of Davids use. But on the philosophy of the Law of One and its practical meaning. 

Like I said, 85% chocolate DOES NOT, agree with me. I would have been three hours through had I not had to take yesterday off and I am still not well today (going to miss todays gym session, fallen off meditation routine!) So I might leave it a little while before following up on Davids video further, and perhaps write a few other articles in the mean time. Or perhaps get straight into Davids video and the Law of One sooner than that.  

Defining Morals Part 3.

Two last point then. 

The tarot analogy.

If we are talking about things that relate to morals, but within a framework where mystical thought like tarot is relevant. I think it is important to define the specific point where things stop becoming faith, and start becoming fraud. 

So, as I see it. When a tarot reader and their client meet to read cards and produce life advice from that. What are they agreeing on? They are agreeing that the cards are producing wisdom guided by a higher force. 

This is not like psychology. Where we have a certain skillset, agreement, of where the information is coming from. A science. There isn't a science to tarot that is agreed by secular sources. There is an agreement with it's adherents. An unprovable, and ultimately unfalsifiable faith. It is like a Christian church in a sense. The service is relevant because the people that go there believe there is a higher positive force called Jesus/ God, that they relate to.

Of course, there is some wiggle room here. What about if the reader doesn't actually believe it but the client does? Is this fraud? I would say no. While it would be if it could be proven. Faith is not a binary. It is not an on/ off. At any church there are some people that kind of think it's probably true but are not actually sure. People in the process of becoming atheists. 

Faith, or the lack thereof, is one of those things that can never be known. People can falsify that kind of thing for their whole life if there is something in it for them. It is rather like a bunch of excuses that generally abusive people have when confronted. "I did the best I could." OK, but is there any proof of that. Did you have private thoughts that "Maybe I won't do this crappy thing today" on the days when you did do the crappy thing?

Strictly of course, the act of lying, is like cheating in a sense. The client might not go to a reading if they knew the reader didn't have faith. But assuming the reader is reading in good faith, and is not condescending to the clients behind their back or giving them bad advice. Then I would not define lack of faith in itself as bad, because it is unprovable. 

The point where it gets unethical is when the tarot reader says something like: "There is a ghost in your house and for £2000 more I can remove it". The problem here, is A) that he reader knows there is not a ghost in the house. So this has become a lie. B) That they are making a claim to specialised knowledge that another person cannot confirm or deny. That cannot be objectively proven (unlike say, faith healing). This is inherently maddening as it disconnects people from said objective reality.

If you go to a tarot reader and they pull cards. You can buy a book on tarot and confirm what they have said. The knowledge is accessible. There is a lot of the new age that does not have this. 

Glass ceiling on spiritual teaching.

The video I am intending to review. at 35 minutes, David Wilcock talks from a Law of One quote: "In forgiveness lies the stoppage of the wheel of karma". 

I have had disagreements, in a sense. Not real disagreements. Debates perhaps. With llresearch. In making my case that forgiveness without contrition is not legitimate. I will make this case in my next post. 

But the overall point is that I have quite a long complex argument about what the Law of One really means (They mentioned a "process of understanding, acceptance and forgiveness") It is a lucid argument, that draws off real examples. But it is not the agreed upon argument. 

There is a difference between this statement and when David makes egregious errors with the Law of One. At one hour thirty one minutes, and not for the first time. He makes a statement that the Law of One says something that it explicitly does not say. It says that in many cases, the case is the opposite. One of these quotes is session 33.9. 

I just think there is a difference between these two things. It's rather like going to a bible sermon, or talking to a Christian. I believe that the Apostle Paul, who wrote like, half the New Testament. Is not a legitimate biblical figure and actually taught in opposition of Jesus. But it would not be a discussion that I would bring up in casual conversation.

If Christians were to say... vote left. I might ask them how they square this with the "thou shalt not steal commandment". This is a different argument than one that requires a certain level of intelligence and philosophical backing to understand. 

Conclusion.

Finally, those three posts are done. I have laid the foundation of the philosophical basis under which I can make a moral argument even within the fog of mystical beliefs. Where what David says is a statement of faith, a statement of lack of philosophical grounding, a statement of deliberate lies and fraud. 

Defining Morals. Part 2.

Obviously if I am titling something "Part 2". There is a "Part 1" previous article to this blog, the immediately previous post. Which has set the context and tone of the conversation. 

Defining evil then:

Stefan Molyneux defines evil thusly: Firstly, is an animal that harms another animal, like a Lion chomping on a Gazzelle, evil? He would say no. The reason is, is because animals do not have free will, which he defines as our capacity to compare proposed actions to ideal standards. The lion has no internal ability to create abstractions and consider the utility of processes outside the animal. It has no ability to say that it will endeavour not to chomp on the Gazelle because St Liony wrote a book explaining why this is not ethical. 

Defining evil then, once you have free will. The ability to create abstractions that are in opposition to objective reality. The ability to consider what 'St Liony' had to say about chomping on Gazzelles. The additional awareness can go one of two ways. it can work for virtue. Or it can work for the negative. 

The way the negative works is that it prefers that other people do not use the strategy that it uses. If there is a singular thief in an entire society of honest people. Then he can go around taking what he wants and the populace is very unlikely to suspect what is happening. They will more likely think they lost whatever item was stolen. A society run that has had its thinkers stress the inherent benefit of theft, is likely to have a lot of anti theft tools. Guards, alarms, guns etc. 

Where the animal predator. The Lion. Takes life to sustain itself. The evil being uses it's free will, it's ability to create abstractions etc. To increase it's ability to exploit the environment to levels that are not needed for survival. But the evil act is the act of saying, on the one hand, that theft is wrong, while doing the theft. 

This is the justification for one way that we can catch others on negative behaviour, this taken from first principles, that explains why these sorts of contradiction and hypocrisy are proof of lack of virtue.

Faith:

My god this is turning out to be a longer article than I had envisioned. I wanted to go straight to what will be the tarot card analogy. But I cannot even get there yet. There will possibly be a part 3 on this series. 

I have to diverge from Stefans opinion here, at least what I know of it. There are a lot of people all over the world that have strong, subjective and unprovable (hence unfalsifiable) experiences, that certain things are true. And that they choose to believe in their own interpretation of this, and not question this any further. 

There are people that believe prayer is communing with a higher being, and do not believe that prayer is communicating with the subconscious mind, as one of many examples. There are people that believe that astrology, or tarot, is legitimate. 

In truth, these things are not outside the reach of science to prove one way or the other. I have heard the founder of the Human Design discuss the potential science relating to these issues, in relation to neutrinos and such. But largely, as it stands, fields like astrology do not have that scientific backing yet. But it does have believers. 

Stefan is a hard atheist, to him, God explicitly does NOT exist. I am not a philosopher, I do not tell others what to believe. I don't reach for conclusions. I reach for utility. From my perspective, there is a lot that can be expressed that is "faith". That is not really up for criticism. And the reason being, is that we cannot really know. Atheists and believers of all stripes say they can. But I do not believe we can. The world is too vast and mysterious. 

Conflicts with Objective reality. 

The reason I define faith, is that a good deal of what David says, a good deal of the belief in the Law of One. Is a kind of faith. It cannot be falsified. It is similar, in a way, to a Christian sermon. XYZ is true and should be followed because God said so or Jesus taught x. While some of it might be good arguments objectively. For instance, generally being nice to others has obvious practical utility, and it means you live in a civilised society. A lot of it to do with prayer and faith in a positive future, has no objective grounding.

Some statements though, even in these areas. Are able to be opposed. 

In the video by David Wilcock I am evaluating, at 29 minutes he says: "The great spiritual teachers tell you you have to love yourself first and foremost."... OK, which spiritual teachers? When Jesus was asked what two pieces of advice did he give? Was this one of them or did he say something different? Does the Law of One agree from the quotes given? Are there quotes that conflict with this? What other spiritual teachings are there?

Statements of faith are things such as: "God has a plan for each of us". Statements that are hung on/ linked to, a more objective claim are things like: "All the great spiritual leaders said this". Because in the latter case, we can review what has been written and given and ask: "Well did they actually say that?"

Wrapping up:

I had planned this to be a single post before I got onto the review of David Wilcocks video and statements. But it is far longer than I intended. Because when wading into this area, there are different viewpoints on it. There are a lot of people that believe that anything from the law of one, any tarot reading, any astrology information. Is all fraudulent, and such people would possibly define any discussion on these things unethical. There are a lot of people that would viciously defend their right to hold such beliefs. 

To wade through what is actually unethical vs. what is unproven, and potentially mad, requires a fair amount of definition of these nuances. I hope there will be just one last post on this before I can get to actually discussing how David uses the Law of One quotes.  

Defining morals. Part 1.

As I said in the last post, I am about to write a few posts with a run down of my thoughts, and corrections, on David Wilcocks videos. Specifically in relation to his quotes and perspectives on the Law of One.

To do this I am going to have to define terms. Much of this thinking, much of the groundwork and my base in philosophy. Comes from Stefan Molyneux. But some of it is original. Since Stefan in general, as a hard atheist, does not believe in, is in fact emphatically against, the kind of mystical thoughts I will explore in its relation to ethics. 

Firstly, I will attempt to explain how I will define a bad way to define ethics first. That without proper philosophical grounding. And then I will discuss, seeing as we are not going to be relying on the 'bad' way of defining ethics, a way we can actually define ethics, and surrounding semi philosophical verbiage. 

The first general principle I want to outline in relation to ethics. This is pretty much copied from Stefan Molyneux. Outside of a secular system (I will explain why!). We cannot define ethics as other peoples conformity with our own ethical belief system. When said like this, this sounds obvious. But it is what people do. It is not as obvious when people do it. Since we are often familiar with these assumptions and don't question them. 

The conscience is perfect and it always informs us of these things. But it speaks often in vague feelings. To really understand ethics it is important for us to articulate why a certain ethical thing is relevant or important.  

Let us take Christianity. Christianity actually has quite a bad record on moral reasoning. Even though it might be the best that we have, based on the behaviour of its adherents. The issue with Christianity is that it relies heavily on "appeal to authority". So when the Christian is questioned. They cannot actually justify why a certain thing is ethical. Why a thing is like it is. They cannot articulate what their conscience is telling them. 

This leaves the door open to people who DO NOT believe in Christianity, to simply say they do not believe in the Christian God and his handed down commandments. From that position, on top of the obvious ridiculousness of insisting on ethical rules you cannot justify. You would have to force your belief system on others in order to make them conform with it. So on what basis can you then justify holding people to your ethical rules? Are they OK to pull you into conformity with theirs? Well, then the foundation of your ethical system begins with tyranny, and possibly the initiation of violence; and of course, where it began, appeal to authority. That is a logical fallacy. 

This applies to each religion and most ideologies of some description. But not secularism. The reason for this, is that secularism requires first principles to justify its moral reasoning. First principles, like everyday observeable reality, and all the objectivity that implies. A person can SAY they don't believe in gravity. But that isn't going to prevent them getting injured when they are pushed down the stairs.  

There is more to say here and I have just marked in "Part 1" in the title here, because I realise it is going to be longer than I expected. I will skip over how we define evil, and put that in a later post, because I want to get to a more basic and simpler point first. 

Skipping a few steps, one of the ways we can define something as immoral, and one that is very habitually and intuitively used, even by kids in a school yard. Is that if the person themselves declares a certain morality, but then is not in conformity with that reality. 

Here, I will say something controversial. If Andrew Tate did do all the things he is accused of, like trapping girls with the lover boy method and such. How would you trip him up? How would you argue against him?

The world has very little objective morality that it submits to. We live in anarcho- tyranny. That system of secular morality is not up and running yet. So, as I said, people can be challenged against the morality they have defined. But Andrew Tate is a Muslim and Muslim accepts the enslavement of women. 

In this situation, you wouldn't then be able to challenge him based on his morality. These behaviours, if he did them, are CONSISTENT with this morality. But you would be able to have your own in group, and freedom of association. To not associate with him for that reason. This might go for other Muslims as well that have not practiced sex trafficking. 

So this is why in my discussion about David Wilcock. I will not be defining his behaviour as amoral in relation to biblical standards. I will be defining said behaviours in relation to his understanding of the Law of One, his own ethical standard. 

Obviously, while I could go through Universally Preferable Behaviour (Stefans moral system, a secular system of ethics) to define every thing that he does do as wrong. Conman stuff in general. I don't really need to do that. For things like theft and egregious hypocrisy and lying, our own conscience speaks loud enough. Nuance and articulation aren't required.  

I am going to...

I am thinking of, planning on, but might not do in reality. 

I might start going through David Wilcock videos and making notes here. The reason being, is that I have deep, deep anger when I perceive he misquotes the Law of One. Or when he assigns his own belief to it. 

I remember once he said something like all our suffering is planned. Which is not what the Law of One says. Explicitly. There are words that could be interpreted like that. Even if it were to be decided as true. The actual quotes are far more deep and nuanced and complex. 

The Law of One group themselves, llresearch, apparently has fallen out with David Wilcock. Carla did not like him, and challenged him 'in the name of Jesus Christ'. Three times, and he failed the third. But apparently they have told him to stop using their material. Or was it to do with the name of the Law of One contact in his channeling?

This is... a bit confusing to me. I don't precisely know on what legal, or personal, basis, they would do that? I get the feeling that both parties are less combative than me when it comes to such a disagreement. I actually like carefully worded and creepy letters and lawyer speak. 

I do not like his material any longer and I feel angry that I ever believed him now. I actually wasted a good bit of my youth studying the wrong thing. Studying a thing that was never going to help me. Politics and Sociology. This was based on me not knowing what I wanted to do and then going with a 'saving the world' idea. 

Which, as I have recently explained on this blog. Is literally the most negative thing for me. It also, is the most negative thing I can imagine based on philosophy I now understand. Stefan Molyneux, whose philosophy I often wrestle in my head and end with the conclusion that he is right on things. Has stated as a fundamental premise of his, a truth, that NO ONE is able to handle political power. It corrupts in every case. There is just something about receiving resources without having to work for them that the human mind is unsuited to. (I think this is EvoPsych based)

I agree with that belief at this point in time. It is not a sure thing, but out of the differing ideas that I hold, it seems likely, and Stefan is right about almost everything. So Davids temptation, his fake insiders. Lead me down that path, to no fruit. 

The reason it is only a "might" is that I would struggle to get through the utter retardation that is Davids most recent videos. It would be a hard thing for me to do. Like jobsearching when I know the jobs are not there. But, I care about the Law of One deeply obviously, it is something that has unsettled me. So just through pure anger, it might motivate me to go through his videos and pick through it. 

This is not my meme. It was created by a twitter user @ Blyqretix 

Intuitive pushing on the South Node.

In relation to my previous thoughts on this subject. I have had a few personal insights. 

One, is that daily reading of the Law of One is important for me. If I do not do it, I get ill, I literally feel ill and reading the Law of One helps, or I get bad dreams or something. 

Two, one thing I have realised from not reading it. I figure it is some kind of protection. So I have the experience of not having that protection. I have realised the root of my more "negative" temptation. It is something that has turned up in life before. It is some sort of connection to wanting to be an ideological leader and engaging in politics. I think, my real route is music. Like I summarised in the last blog post. 

I have today, had insights into the most bizarre ideas. Leading on from subtle understandings of how our society functions and building off Law of One insights in building philosophies to oppose that. But I think that was negative, and feeling something was wrong I struggled to finding a more positive view of things today. Which leads in two directions. One is Christianity, and the other, after that, was the Law of One. So that is obviously something I can figure out. 

I had to meditate while writing this (before the day is over!) So all the insights into the Law of One that I wanted to say here, the specific sessions I have on other tabs here... Do not seem so important. In fact, talking about the Law of One seems quite similar to "creating my own philosophy". If I were to carry on talking about it. As it talks about things like justice. As it talks about good and evil, and agency in relation to that. As it talks about things like the red pill. What certain quotes might implicate. It seems obvious that taking from it, serves a function of hammering down real world implications from the quotes. A worldview. To create a philosophy. To communicate that to others. 

But it seems preferable to work on something more personal and intuitive, like music. The world is a big and confusing place. Values, human values, are important but, part of that confusion, music is... Not confusing. 

A rambling man (An info dump on human design information)

I wanted to repeat something I have said recently. And comment on it. Only a little. Almost like an irrelevant comment. But I am SURE this is the answer now. 

There is a kind of 'flow' to charts. What is happening in this chart is extremely specific. Like, even one channel or gate here is important. 

It is all a next dimensional level. This is relevant. Here is Stefan Molyneux's chart:

The only real part of this that is relevant is Stefan Molyneux has Gate 25 in his conscious Earth Position. I believe his philosophy is expressed, through his incarnation cross. There are several other areas his chart is relevant to mine. A lot of his philosophy is expressed through his conscious Mars in gate 4.1. And I also have that exact position. His unconscious Mars sits exactly on my Chiron. 

Now I want to go back to my own chart. If you see my own chart and how it's energy would naturally flow. There is a split path. After the energy travels up from the spleen through the 44-26. It can either go through the 51-25... Which is a projected channel. Or the 21-45, that is a manifested channel. 

I have mentioned this before. In that there are opportunities for me for the energy to go down the 51-25, and for that path to kind of dominate. But a better direction is the 21-45, and then, since the 51-25 is projected. The energised 21-45 invites the relevant information out of the 51-25.  

So what the actual expression is of the 51-25. Is shocking unpleasant information (51) leading to a kind of openly expressed philosophy of some description. One thing that happened, that I have mentioned previously, when Mars and Chiron were transiting 51.1. (the exact gate I have it in twice!) Is that a friend of mine killed herself. The events surrounding this were connected to the kinds of things discussed in the gate 25. By Stefan Molyneux. The general left- right divide and the deeper values this relates to shown by this gate. 

This, is probably not coherent to most people. I have to get all my information out. I feel it is important. But I recognise that right at this moment now, and possibly until the end of time if I am ignored. People will not really get it. 

So here begins to set up the tension and activity of my chart. I have said that a dysfunctional energy pathway is for their to be too much emphasis on the 51-25. Too much focus. In a sense my entire chart is trying to decide what to do with the information/ wisdom I pick up. 

One of the ways I can decide my path is actually the 51-25 projected channel is if I decide I am a "healer". Which is one way to use all the energy I have collected. Even suggesting it sounds heretical. Another, and one that is important here, is to decide that I am to become a "philosopher" of some sort. And this is partly built after having followed and admired Stefan Molyneux for such a long time. Stefan Molyneux is a philosopher. This energy in a sense wants to build on that and complete it. To escalate the gate 25. Which is also the conscious North Node (So I am saying the conscious North Node is not the real "way" in one sense, in another sense it definitely is). 

There are a few more thoughts here I will not go into. But I will refer to just briefly. I have wondered, when I have been ostracised from social situations and I have decided that it is the 51-25 channel that is rejected. What happens precisely energetically with social ostracism and what the follow on is. I.e. the 'karma'. But I will not go into that now. I have some good points on this though.

What I did want to explain a bit more of is how this fits together though. Based on something I was saying previously. 

Previously, I mentioned, that I have put a lot together. That our nodal points each have a behaviour connected to them. So for me it is conscious South Node, Exercise (46) Conscious North Node, Meditation (25) Unconscious South Node, exploring material on narcissism, like videos (48) and music (21).

The trouble is with these nodal points is it is hard to put together in some ways. Exercise of course, improves everything. Even partly music. Why do I think the gate 48 is relevant to the narcissistic information, when with what I have described of the 51-25, it probably fits there too?

And yes that is true. But it also seems to me that the particular south node point, references its north node equivalent. I knew this was true, but I did not have clarity on that until today.

Firstly, another point about male psychology I worked out and put in a video previously. I have this theory that exercise is very fundamental to the male psychology for a psychological reason. That reason I will explain as follows, the first, is that a lot of jargon can be in mens minds that is quite stressful stuff. 

I will give an example of this. I once had a workplace that didn't want to see too much more of me. So they sat a woman next to me who was a manager, who kept pretending she was helping me and kept trying to report me to some sort of manager. A lot of times these came back with that I had done nothing wrong.

You would think I would have taken a hint, and stopped believing this woman was trying to help me? I did not. This was at the time when I was bad in health terms. At a constant level of very high stress.  

So this piece of information. Considering this manager that had been sitting next to me. Was a puzzle piece in my mind that had two properties. It was a part of my world view to be integrated. It was something that had happened to me. And it was something that was incredibly stressful and I was not able to confront. 

How do women handle this kind of stuff? I am not quite sure. There are a few differing things they use. They are more socially engaged with others so they have more people watching their back. They experience stress keenly, leading them to talk things over with said friends. They have a lot more supporters because their general pleasing demeanor and attractiveness. 

But men, I think this is where some of the tension between the genders happens.

I was out one time and had just been for a long walk. All of a sudden, this realisation that this woman had been sitting next to me for this purpose, and I had not perceived it, became obvious to me. It felt very good. 

So what had happened. Is I had taken this experience, this memory, with an incredible amount of tension and fear in it. And I had gotten rid of all the negative emotion in it to make it an inert building block. Then I can fit it into my world view without issue. 

So where women get out of the situation. They negotiate. They justify. They do all the things. Men can go through a process where, due to their ability on an internal level to handle the tension and conflict. They can simply observe a thing for what it is without a need to interact with it or change it. They can say... "This is a nasty thing that exists in the world, and it is what it is. It is not going to change". 

You can see how this would view would upset women that wanted to find some way out of such direct awareness of how a thing is, that might possibly lead to confrontation!

But anyway, that side note was for an important point. I was saying that the nodal points are connected to each other. Gate 46 and the exercise, was connected to gate 25. In that, when I did the exercise, I have done enough of it recently. Loads of insights flooded my head of how to make a solid philosophical thesis together. This was a strong/ profound experience. A moment of clarity.

But, I believe, a false one. How I meet this false insight is... meditation. And this is where I think the 46 and 25 link for me. The 46 provides all the insight, the freed up emotion and information can then go to the gate 25 and express any conditioning that is not correct. But meditation ends this issue. 

After I meditated. I completely came away from the idea of being some sort of philosophy starter and sat down and wrote this blog. I do not know how. But I do believe gate 48 and the insights into narcissism etc. Is connected in the same way to music. There is some common material that is addressed both with narcissism information and can be expressed in music. I do not have this down yet. But I wanted to summarise my points to further cement my position on the Nodes.