I have been wondering what angle to take with this article. I write the articles in my head as I go about my day. I could go via the Law of One and my thoughts on it, catalysts and such. Or I could go via the Ayn Rand route. Both will probably reach the same conclusion but via different slightly different material.
Atlas Shrugged.
I think I will go via Ayn Rand.
I am reading Atlas Shrugged at the moment, and this line that I quoted and will now probably, occasionally, post on social media. Said exactly what I was saying in my blog yesterday:
Ayn Rand is one of the strongest right wing voices there is and Atlas Shrugged is a book that is very critical of socialism. It is set in a society where socialists are very active in simply taking things over, and passing strange laws, and the economy is failing as a result.
The book has a lot of socialist characters. A lot of people that say the kinds of things that socialists today say. But it is more pure than todays political climate. It is more focused on socialism vs capitalism. There is no mention of race or global warming, and very little mention of gender. It is purely based on the capitalists. That are very like business leaders actually are. We have all dealt with them at some point I imagine. The conversation goes, "casual chat, let's do x then y then z", and that, on most cases, will solve the issue.
The socialists are a lot different though. They have the thing that modern day socialists do have. They don't really engage directly. They try and get out of direct points that are made by saying "yes, the facts go in this direction, but there are larger concerns here". They call anything the capitalists do as selfish. They say those people are selfish. They declare rather. With an authority they do not have.
I find a pattern kind of like this in real life. Although I do perceive more nuance in real life. This post is not meant to be about socialists vs. capitalists, I am trying to get to another point. But I find with socialists. They often want to launder all these emotional values into the conversation that... well, don't really have a place. It's like "you say 'a', but you didn't consider that I might think something that would disagree with 'a'"... They don't even go as far as saying "I might think 'b'". They say "You didn't consider that I don't agree with 'a'".
To which I say to them. "Yeah, I didn't consider that you might think whatever, that is your side of the conversation"! Do these people want to be treated like children? I think they do, that was what all the drama was about "safe spaces" a couple of years ago.
The book also includes a lot of conversations amongst socialists. Where they talk amongst themselves and share an incredibly obscure and confusing value system. They keep talking about what to do 'for the public good' and things like that. It is often things like 'We have to stop this efficient company trading so all the business goes to our socialist friends who are incompetent, we don't want our socialist friends to lose out'.
The discussion for me comes down to fundamental values about what we should be doing with our lives. In this book, the capitalists are the virtuous ones. They might have bad turns. But they are the ones providing value. It is the basic right wing argument. If you give an ambitious guy free reign, then he creates a business, and enriches everyone around him. The value system this book and the right wing in general says is that there is no need for this person to be massively positive or compassionate in dealing with the world around him. His own self interest, his greed and desire. Are suitable drives to move the entire society in a more positive direction.
To gain money and status in a free market you have to provide value. A guy might just want to make money. But to do so he creates a pencil factory and improves the lives of everyone.
This point, stated in the extremely deep and powerful way that Ayn Rand does, in Atlas Shrugged. Actually goes to very deep values within me. Values that have not been questioned in years.
History.
When I was 14, I discovered the Law of One. It was from this point that I made the phrase "Service to Others" a very integral part of my life. I wonder if I yielded a bit of my own authority to this term in a sense. My own agency.
It served me well and after all these years, it has become very habitual. I recall that when I was that age about I was very big in getting everyone around me presents. A habit I have not observed in other 14 year olds. I remember one Christmas making a little pack for each person in the family. It had some stationary and various other things.
Over the years though, in dealing with "catalyst" as such. The Law of One advises to intelligently engage with the world. Not just assume things are unuseful and random. Pretty much most of my attempts to help others in any way has fallen flat. I have volunteered previously that went VERY badly. I have "gone above and beyond" in terms of working in customer service jobs. I am not a super caring person and people can feel this within me. Although in my personal life, I do do nice things and do some kind of 'caring'. In terms of friendships, people just don't confide in me, and sometimes, often even, don't want to see me. So there is not much opportunity for caring.
Where I do excel though, is in two areas. One, humour and being fun and laughing about. Two, deep and meaningful philosophical style conversations.
I have never "helped the poor" or had any real opportunity to. I volunteered with a food bank once and it was just that. Volunteering. Riding around in a van picking up and delivering food places. Most recently, ridiculous admin problems have stopped me volunteering. While the volunteering probably did help me find work when I was younger. It never connected me with anyone socially. It never connected into my life like a "meaning of life" thing logically should.
I once heard how Stefan Molyneux broke down how "helping the poor" was not a great moral instruction. I forget the specific reasoning behind it. And Stefan Molyneux helps a LOT of people. That is a guy that walks the talk.
Jesus said pretty directly that feeding the poor was a positive.
I also, like Ayn Rand. Have a lot of illness. I do not have a chronic illness that destroys my entire life. I have an invisible illness that causes a lot of little problems. These are not painful just inconvenient, time consuming and causing of fatigue. I think with people that have illness, the idea of helping others is less of an option. If you have illness, you tend to not have that much energy.
Of course, Carla Rueckert was more ill than me. She followed the Law of One in the sense that the term "service to others" meant, literally "to serve others". But her catalyst also lead in that direction. Her catalyst lead in the direction of her teaching channeling and very often being engaged socially with others. This is also the case with a great many other people. Like nurses and such.
We will see though what the Law of One actually says about this term:
Questioner: What is the greatest service that our population on this planet could perform individually?
Ra: I am Ra. There is but one service. The Law is One. The offering of self to Creator is the greatest service, the unity, the fountainhead. The entity who seeks the One Creator is with infinite intelligence. From this seeking, from this offering, a great multiplicity of opportunities will evolve depending upon the mind/body/spirit complexes’ distortions with regard to the various illusory aspects or energy centers of the various complexes of your illusion.
Thus, some become healers, some workers, some teachers, and so forth.
But to me, in my personal life. I am starting to doubt that my commitment to the term "service to others", does actually help me.
The world is emotionally changing for me. It is changing in an internal way that changes the way I look at everything. I suppose this is the result of 'the great work' in a sense. It is also something people naturally experience through aging and things like that.
My point being that, one of my main goals is music. Another is my personal health and specifically making sure I get to the gym and things like that. Health goals. If I wake up in the morning and start planning my day. Does an abstract commitment to "service to others" and "helping others" (a term recently removed from my prayers.) Actually help me? Or does it help me more to think. "Man, I really want to get to the gym. I intend to write a great song". And why... because I want to! Because it makes life better for me! I enjoy these things.
A way that I do "serve others" might be this blog? But this blog is not a commitment to serve others. This blog I do because I want to do it. I want to share my fascination with the various metaphysical things I talk about.
Link to the deeper work.
Back to my earlier point though. I said that my perspective is changing a lot recently. This is partly through these studies and loyalty to this spirituality I think. Firstly, I have just grown tired of politics in general. This requires no particular discipline. I just can't stand it and as a result. While I still go on X and such. I simply do not pay attention to the political stuff and am less motivated to go on X as frequently as I did before.
Separating from politics, also separates me partially from a kind of delusion I have identified. Also informed by my understandings of Nietzsche. I have noticed that naturally within myself when younger (before I was humbled) and then again reflected through 'transcient' material. There is a great tendency within people as a matter of course to engage in a kind of "false status". Engaging in beliefs that we kind of feel and believe gives us status. But in actual fact, do not.
As my idea of myself. My idea of myself as 'informed' falls away. What I am left with, is a very delicate inner persona that values music a great deal. In a sense. My songs are not much. But they are a very valuable possession of mine - to me. I am letting go of all the self connected to the political stuff and connecting more solidly with the beauty that is music. I am letting my internal push towards the mystery find a home in music. Rather than seeking it anywhere else.
"Nothing has to be overcome, that which is not needed falls away" - Law of One. 18.5.
Conclusion.
I think I have stated my point here quite clearly. To conclude. For me personally, I am starting to consider that ideas I have had that are sometimes religiously linked about helping others, is not actually my best path. And that the path of the highest good, might be more in the direction of determination for personal achievement and excellence.
No comments:
Post a Comment