This is both a blog I am writing from a place of psychological exhaustion; and also one that is potentially more meaningful than a lot I have written. It is probably going to be LONG. It concerns a deep misgiving I have about following Stefan Molyneux's work. One that I haven't really wanted to voice because, I think, if I had my own way, I would probably be following it. But, I believe that the paradigm I have from the Law of One and Human Design Chart is not compatible with a lot of his work. Some of it is fine. But there comes a point where objectivism is not compatible with the more mysterious and mystical concepts of the Law of One.
First, here is one of the many tarot type cards I am working on. Since LLM's, I have tools to create these images. They are almost always dream images. Sometimes with some modification to show something of my understanding or something that the LLM's wouldn't draw:
The prompt for this image was a dream image that was far more of a car coming through a portal. But the LLM drew this and I like it. It is a little less obvious than normal but the point is. When two worlds collide. Sometimes no real good can come from it. If this were to really happen. If cars turned up from another dimension through a kind of water portal and appeared on a highway. No good would come from this. People would crash. People would not recover, and might not have any way to process this experience.
Laying it out.
These are many areas Stefans work conflicts with my own so far understandings. There is both the initial disagreement. Something I don't agree with him on. But, his philosophy, his worldview is deeply objective and rational and it is built like a mental fortress. As he says, matter has stable and predictable properties so we can draw conclusions from that. So his view is that you take the basics of life, what philosophers call "first principles"; and draw conclusions, and he concludes that the reason for life is to live a virtuous life. Even though he is steadily, fastidiously, atheistic in a sense.
The trouble is that when you believe in the Law of One and a few other things. Some of these basic premises are different. The Law of One, and the Human Design Chart, are partly faith based. These are partly subjective experiences people have that lead to belief. Especially the human design chart. I have marvelled often at the accuracy of human design transits. I recall specifically having an insight over the gate 54. But these things, though real to a lot of people, remain steadily unprovable in any objective way.
There are in fact some small scientific proofs that Ra Uru Hu brought up but these are small things.
For this reason, I would say that a lot of these things are based on faith and how would I define faith? Faith is information that is not falsifiable. It is not scientific and is usually only experienced in a subjective manner. However, these things are very real to a lot of people.
If you believe in the Law of One you believe in visualisation.
If you believe in the Law of One you believe in crystals.
If you believe in the Law of One and new age paradigms in general, you believe in astrology.
If you believe in the Law of One you believe in 'the One Infinite Creator'.
Premises such as these, and others, starts a person off on a different footing than you start off with from Stefans philosophy based perspective. Also, this can also reach up into everyday life experiences and virtue.
The larger plan. The Q perspective.
One of the things Stefan talks about, and that I think has a lot of merit and I have used in my real life. Is the idea that people on the left wing side of politics are lacking in virtue. It is a good, well worked out, highly intelligent perspective. It is based roughly on the idea that taxation is the initiation of force and that no good can come from the initiation of force. Which, on a deep level. Is an argument about free will. Once violence starts negotiation stops. Once an organisation has money given to them via taxation. They do not have to negotiate with the customer.
This does follow into the real world. Bear in mind I am not agreeing or disagreeing with this perspective, just laying it out. But it follows on from that argument that keeping people out of your life who do not have a commitment to virtue. To freedom in a sense. Freedom from the initiation of force, the national debt, and state power. Is necessary. Not only because they would not reason in a particularly moral way. But also because they will continue to vote for these same kinds of policies. The expansion of state power and such. That ostracising them from your life, especially as a group, will go some measure towards influencing them to come away from those ideas.
It is a good argument. Not one I agree with or disagree with as I have said. But two points I will mention. One is that I have in fact used this argument against people. I have used it when people show a lack of any particular moral backbone. I will say to them things like 'What are the abstract values that you commit to?' Because if you are having a conflict with someone and you don't want their behaviour to be repeated. You need an abstract value that they prioritise beyond their emotional preference that you can appeal to. This is devastatingly effective against those that subtly take a centre - left position and sit happily in the moral highground while treating you with disrespect.
Secondly though, just on a personal level. I have a huge misgiving about trying to effect others or tell them how to behave. This is doing so. It is not logical perhaps. Perhaps it is my own issue. Perhaps we need to do so to some extent. But when it comes to me applying influence to others I simply recoil. I deeply want people to play out their lives in accord with their own free will. Away from me if necessary. But I don't want to engage in the emotional conversation.
Now to the Q posts.
Be that as it may we need to bring in another thing here. The Q posts. Q came on the scene in 2017 and is a feature of the most far out conspiracy community you can find. Even though it has gained popularity. The premise is still very obscure.
The idea behind the Q posts is that a government insider of some sort, associated with the Trump administration. Has been dropping a lot of coded hints of how things are going down. That they have become dominant behind the scenes. That the real world is far more fantastic than most of us can imagine, that advanced technology is concealed behind top secret clearances. And after some truly negative beings have been jettisoned from the world. We will live in an amazing, better than Star Trek future.
Notably, this perspective aligns very much with a lot of the Law of One. There is even a hint of a link in reference to session 17.17. 17, the alphanumeric number for Q, is thought to be used as a big part of the code in this community.
I will summarise something Jordan Sather said when talking about Q. 17 days before the 17th anniversary of September 11th. No name - As he was called in the media and was referenced in the Q posts. Due to Trump using his bill and taking his name off of it. John McCain died. There were other Q linked events surrounding this but Jordan brought up a point. He said... "What do the anti Q shills say when they are confronted with this kind of evidence?... They don't, they don't say anything."
There have been even more numerically/ code based powerful events. Including personal synchronicities for me. Some being about 6 years ahead of time when they were predicted in the Q posts. I do believe in this. As I have said, this aligns with the Law of One. It moves the discussion in a very different direction than a normal paradigm.
From this perspective. There is absolutely no danger from the people in our lives that are left wing and have other confused political ideas. The society is being worked out of a kind of brainwashing. Q has specifically said he wants the anons that follow them to be trying to open "normies" minds.
So this is a distinct difference. Most of the left wing people in my life have gotten me out of their lives for the cheek of, well, existing it often feels like. But in relation to the big complicated world there is a conflict here. Stefans idea of socially ostracising anyone with those views goes against the conclusion that one can draw if they take in, as fact, things such as the Q information, and also, potentially, the Law of One.
One that serves two masters.
I have actually used Stefans information to bolster my understanding of the Law of One in a big way. In session 34.6 the contact in the Law of One defines 'the process of balancing' to include "understanding, acceptance and forgiveness". The understanding part of that equation. Understanding your triggers right through to childhood. Is something that Stefan has shown a great deal in his radio shows. Once a situation is really understood, often what is motivating it, and thus what can solve it, are completely different from the knee jerk idea that the person began with.
In my view, the 'understanding' part of that equation could take years. I am still understanding a lot of my past as my brain clears from years of illness. I could not perceive my own anxiety and the effect I was having on others for years.
But there is a great deal of conflict with a lot of the rest of it such as when someone gets up to studying archetypes and such like that. Even though I have liked a lot of his output, such as some things that are individual products. I have decided to step away from keeping up with his current output and making his world view a part of my mind. I need to allow myself to draw a lot of my own conclusions from philosophy.
But it all comes down to an even deeper issue I think, that I will talk about now, that relates to this:
Youtube: Jade Norby: Law of One Session 4, in depth analysis and discussion.
https://youtu.be/CDQCcqKwFvY?si=Yhl4ZrP0b4XE4zUu
This series has been very interesting to me. But what I want to discuss that has come off this particular episode is 'The Law of Responsibility'.
The Law of Responsibility, roughly states, as has been stated in other parts of the Law of One, that when you hear a teaching, you have to apply it in your life otherwise you get a kind of bad karma.
Well, why is that? To me, the reason is that when you hear a teaching. You then have understood that the morally correct thing is to use that teaching. This is the first example that came to my mind when I wanted to talk about this, as it is more exciting, and I am glad I have the freedom on my blog to do this. Whereas if I was writing to someone more personally it would be like I am trying to discuss these matters.
Imagine you have a guy and a woman. The guy is a cool guy. But with a hot temper. They are very much in love but the girl is a bit of a wallflower. A bit delicate. Sometimes when they get in arguments he gets a bit physical. He doesn't hit her. But he kind of lunges towards here a bit, he stamps his feet. He doesn't think anything of this.
Let us say this guy is attached to a teaching, like Stefans perhaps, where non violence is a big part of the idea. Which he is applying in a lot of his life. But as he is contemplating. He realises that when he gets aggressive towards his girlfriend. She gets very submissive. She does what she can to quiet the situation, including being nicer than she would otherwise to him.
At this moment, he has a choice and one he did not have in the same way before. Before, he got angry and expressed a bit of aggression, and enjoyed the result of this. Perhaps this was how he grew up as one of five brothers or something, or an aggressive mother. But he did not have much choice because he was not aware. But now he does have a choice. He can choose to do it again deliberately, and get the advantages. Or he can choose to not do it, to make sure he doesn't intimidate her, and then potentially put up with mediocre cooking.
The point is, once the teaching and insight becomes conscious. He has to use it because choosing not to use it is taking advantage of the situation for a negative purpose.
Lessons learnt and applied.
As much as I have enjoyed and liked Stefans work. I find more that is useable in the Law of One. I have a huge problem with tidying. I have been doing it lately. But I am someone that lives so completely in their head it is a struggle. Not doing it, but noticing it needs to be done.
In this run down of session 4 by Jade she talks about making sure to pay attention to the mundane things in life and it reminded me of when the Law of One contact told Carla to repeat something about the Creator when sweeping. Well, I did this and have done a lot of tidying. This has improved my life significantly.
It is a lesson that references the normal, mundane world a great deal. And one that has given me a fantastic benefit. To follow a teaching is to be subject to the Law of Responsibility in relation to it. Which cannot be done with two conflicting teachings and world views.
This has been a big thing for me. I have followed Stefan for almost ten years now. But, I think, the principle, unfortunately, is sound.
No comments:
Post a Comment