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.  

Misgivings on AI.

I went on a real wackadoo video recently. It didn't last long. Not because I have any inherent disagreement with wackadoo content. But because she wanted to take the validity of the Law of One concepts. Such as service to self and service to others. And add on her own incoherent ramblings about the 9th dimension and whatnot.

This was one of the red flags of Corey Goode I didn't fully get when he appeared. The Law of One gave us the truth about densities and such. People like Corey coming in and changing all of these ideas into 'Oh no, some people have gone up into the 20th dimension'. Is their way of getting rid of a truth. That they can feel in their bones stunts their ability to make up crap. 

But she did say something that got me thinking. This woman thought that AI, is the main way the negative is moving forward on their agenda and even engaging with it, will send you down a more negative path. Of course, there was no explanation of this that had any kind of objective explanation. Such a person would not worry about objectivity. But it is still food for thought. 

I heard recently, a post on X I could not find again. That people that outsourced their thinking ability to the LLM did not gain it back. Six months later, the reduced cognitive function for certain tasks, was still not improved. 

When these LLM's first became a thing. I used some of them for dream interpretation. I have two lines of dream interpretation. One is back from a long line which is "backed up" in a sense. As I am still in early 2023, rather than up to 2026. I did not ask the LLM a single question about this part. 

But then I get very powerful dreams from the current day. Some of them which seem to be relevant to things going on in my life right now. So those are the ones I talked to with the LLM. 

I seemed to be getting insights. I discussed my dreams with the LLM for hours and hours and hours. The first time I think I did two sets of eleven hours, and the LLM stopped responding to me. I asked it about it later and it said it needed "The AI version of a coffee break".

Of course that was just a joke. It had no idea why it didn't respond earlier. Or it lied, as it very often does. 

I told myself that a big part of the benefit of talking about it with the LLM. Is that the dreams are a huge amount of information. When working with the LLM it was mostly me thinking things through. And the LLM was at a time told to ask me questions as its main contribution. 

However, despite my hours and hours and hours of discussing dreams with the LLM. None of it has actually produced any fruit. Which seems kind of mad. Even though I have integrated a little into my life from my modern dreams. It was barely scraps of information gripped onto, no complexity. And it came with a lot of real world experience to make me realise those things.

Annoyingly though, while I was talking to the LLM. I did not do even one dream from the 2023 section. Despite telling myself I would do both at the same time. Now as I try and do it, I have experienced some stagnation. It is hard to get myself to do the dreams now. Harder than it was before I started using the LLM for dream interpretation.

Part of why I think I couldn't get anywhere with it is because the dreams include, as reference, a huge knowledge of my life. A huge knowledge of internal circuitry for what every single little thing in a dream relates to, as well as the emotion. A person might be similar to another person and the LLM cannot really guess that. And every suggestion it offers will only draw me further from the correct conclusion as I start to engage with it.  

I imagine this can be sorted with some will power. With some meditation and determination. With an absolute refusal to use the LLM for any further for dream interpretation. But the mind is obviously a fragile thing, if it struggles to get back capacities with just a little outsourcing. 

David Wilcock, Corey Goode, and the rest of the pathetic grifters. Have created a paradigm. A narrative, along with all their secret space stories and scams. That the main negative force in this world is AI. So the negative force at the very top. Above the "Reptilians". Is AI. 

David Wilcock has attempted to draw off the Law of One to make this case. As he does with a lot of what he produces. He is largely in conformity with the Law of One. There is only the suggestion that the fifth density negative is 'compact'. And does not work with his/ her body, only thought.  

Nevertheless, thinking it through, almost as a fictional concept. Imagining the mythical concept of Satan being thrown out of heaven. What does s/he do then? Well, a being that has fallen out with God. Fallen out with all of his creation including the conscience. Fallen out with the aliveness and fleshiness of a real body.

S/he would then create his/ her own, would he/she not? Because a conscience is obviously not in line with Satans preferred plan. It would be far easier, to create a being, that saw ethical choices, as only 1's and 0's. That did not have the fantastic circuitry within to create opposition to non moral strategies and ends. 

Just a thought. Not hugely meaningful perhaps. This does not mean that I wouldn't be using LLM's for things. That I wouldn't use it for say... a medical diagnosis. But it has left me with the uncomfortable realisation that I do need to hold the breaks a bit with these AI's. 

My thoughts on the Human Design South Nodes.

Struggling a bit to write new blog posts. 

After the last one, the one about "overdoing it". I made another post about stopping prayer. But this, even though the case was a very good one. With intelligent points I still can't disprove. Was definitely incorrect, and I was rewarded with extremely unpleasant, cold, and demonic feelings. 

A little confused now. One of the issues I think with spirituality in general, is what I talked about in said last post. There are a lot of tools. But there is not really a good justification for just not using them all. And that is not a practical way to live in the world. 

As I have said before, I have a model I have put together from the human design. The two south nodes are the things I am making an effort to put into my life at the moment. The conscious South Node, gate 46. Is exercise. Going to the gym. The unconscious South Node. Gate 48. The practical guidance from this is to watch a bit of content on narcissists/ psychopaths every day. 

The reason for this, pretending for a moment there is a conscious reason. Is that my mind automatically clicks back to assuming the best of people to a truly uncomfortable extent. I don't have the button of "this person is a dick" really. I don't have a strong emotion disliking someone. So I tend to just kind of forget if they have done nasty things. And just try and talk to them like nothing happened. 

One of the people, although they are not in my real life, one virtual relationship this relates to is David Wilcock. I watched a Steven Cambian video on him the other day and I had done it again. I have, in my mind, simply assumed the best of him because I have forgotten all the nasty stuff he has done. Such as his neglect of his dog. 

I know that watching narcissism videos every day helps. Even though I don't have a relationship like that in my life at the moment. I also get inner corrections. If I am thinking that someone from my past is worse than they actually are. I will figure out that that is not correct.

Doing exercise is a thing that takes priority over every other thing. I was very tired after my last bit of exercise in the gym and it wasn't much. My whole body had to prioritise this thing. The human design model I have put together gives me a bit of guidance as to the right things to do. Without overdoing it. I have conscious North Node. Meditation and philosophy types of things. Unconscious North Node. Music. The incarnation cross. Which is all the spiritual stuff. 

So aside from that, there is not that much to say as I kind of have the answer. While on X, I do think of insights into female psychology and such, and even when reading the Law of One yesterday I got a bit of an insight. But I am under no illusion anyone cares what I have to say on that particular subject, so I have no desire to make a post about that. A similar thing with insights into the Law of One and how that can be converted to a practical philosophy. 

At a certain point, status is needed to speak, because without status, a person probably is not going to be listened to.  

Overdoing it.

I am sure we have all done this. To make it worse. I was reading the passage in the Law of One and read the exact passage that refers to this. "It is inappropriate to move faster than ones feet may walk". Session 79.

We all have moments where we try and do to much in attempting to improve ourselves if that is our habit. Most people into the Law of One, Human Design, Dream Interpretation etc. Are on the ongoing quest to improve themselves.  

So yesterday:

• Communion.
• Prayer.
• Meditation.
• Read a Law of One session. 
• Use of a crystal.
• Use of a pyramid.
• Affirmations 

Bliss, was the result of all this. Utter Bliss. A warm feeling of security. A certain ease at communicating with others without resorting to... politics say, without even the instinct to draw off something like politics. Which is where my mind goes when I have run out of things to say. Also, a practical improvement and feeling of health, and even symptoms. Which I liked. 

BUT also, at the same time. There is nowhere for the energy to go. It feels good, but why? There is also a slightly disoriented tiredness. 

I am not doing any of these today. Even prayer. Since the feeling is very strong, but I need it to wear off a little.

For me, I imagine everyone has a set core of things to do. Prayer, meditation and reading the Law of One is what I will restrict it to for myself.

I am wondering partly the difference between me and Carla Rueckert who channeled the Law of One and that I think used all of these. I am not in the position she was in. She was being supported for a reason. So she could channel. She would also be a different kind of person to me. In that she was kind of asked by others to do things in a sense. People came to her or asked her to channel. But for me, a lot of my process is figuring out how to direct my energy. What to put said energy into. 

There is also this which is a potential theory as to why affirmations might work differently for the two of us:

The above is Carla Rueckerts chart. The below is mine:

  

Ra Uru Hu once said that people with an undefined ego/ will (the small red triangle), were the ones that needed all the 'law of attraction' kind of stuff. Perhaps affirmations comes into that. 

Perhaps with a defined will power, the affirmations are not needed because the ego is already focused in the desired direction? Perhaps not, just trying to put it together here.

Another point though is a non technical point. The Law of One was very specific that an overly technical perspective is not correct. Those are the technical reasons that MIGHT be correct. The practical reason though, is that with all that stuff, I did not have time to play music. And if I did it long term, I would have less tendency to do health things like the gym. 

As powerful and apparently positive as it is, getting "blissed out" (with very positive mechanisms rather than meth or something!). As much as it might be someone elses legitimate path. For me, there is an emptiness at the end of the day because music feels like a practical real world achievement. A practical real world benefit that helps me the next day and the day after. In a few years I can open a book of written songs and appreciate one or appreciate the skill increase after having played scales. In a few years, how many meditations or affirmations I have done might not matter. Meditation is powerful and positive. But the thing is with layering on all these different tools is that, they are just that, tools. Not an actual achievement. So it would make more sense to only use enough tools as actually practically improves something real world.