On Authority

Happy · 2021-12-07 21:38:38

Vega wrote:

[...] just by reading "Authority is the right to not explain behavior affecting others" I got what that means and I understood a lot better why I was intuitively behaving in a certain way, and it's a good way to put in words what I intuitively knew.

Vega,

Thank you for touching upon the authority-perspective in another thread there! It [edit: my own presentation of it] is written without references and wider context to make it available for questioning. What I have pondered a bit on lately, is the first aspect of it, which you picked up on, too.

This aspect - "not-explain-not-yourself"/"explain-yourself" - is undoubtedly connecting the two types of authority described later on there. But it seems to me that the negative form points to the "imposed/imposing" type (type 2), while the positive form is connected to the "natural personal" type (type 1). What is striking in this, is how type 1 harbors the deep defining aspects of the concept, while we all are used to relate to type 2.

And since this reveals the difference between the (intra-)personal and inter-personal aspects of the concept, it is also strongly related to how I understand the difference between moral and ethics, where the same difference is found.

----------------

For reference, I put my earlier presented perspective on authority here:

Authority
– is the right to not explain behavior affecting others.
This statement – "not explain – not yourself" – is not a true double negative, so the positive phrasing is not automatically true either. But since such phrasing will disregard inter-personal aspects, there is reason to think it is.
“Right” in this is even more fundamental than what is understood as a “human right.” You exist by your own right. This right is formed by the same property that enables you to think new thoughts, while approaching the effects of your own choices. As such it also enables you to cross borders in a wider sense. It also presents reason to ask questions and to what 'science' is supposed to be. Note: The root of the word “question” is “quest.”
It is an inter-personal aspect of behavior, and strongly related to the concept sovereignity. If you were alone in the entire world and nothing of what you did affected others, then your authority would be nonsensical. So, when the mentioned 'borders' are crossed, you do it within your own inherent authority. Your choices may then affect or change others' options to choose for themselves, whether that is with purpose or not. This wielding of your authority can thus both enable and disable – liberate and force – another's choice. A good example in this would be when you allow another individual to take what is yours... as part of a trade agreement.
There are two main types:
1) Natural personal authority;
– is a strictly individual property. It is the recognition of how the individual’s senses give raw data to be processed rationally, so a coherent personal understanding of the world can be formed. This processing naturally works for everyone, and usually builds upon previously acquired understanding. There are several premises for its formation, and among these are:
- - a functional apparatus of senses;
- - skills in reasoning – to infer effects from causes or premises;
- - skills in making the final leap from processing data into holding a conclusion as the individual's ‘truth’, with bearings on which choices are available or relevant to the individual in any given situation.
The recognition of one's own natural personal authority is directly connected to the recognition of the same authority within other individuals; the one cannot happen without the other. However, as this is tightly connected to ethical development, this realization quickly becomes antagonistical to imposition, which then describes the other main type of authority:
2) Imposed/imposing authority (given or taken);
– has its source from other’s authority, hence ‘given or taken’.
– is dependent on lack of information to appear genuine and such deflect questioning that may erode it.

The exercise of the two types can be almost indistinguishable from each other. Apart from blatant criminal behaviour, the most reliable discernment is whether you find reason to question the behavior or not. If reason is freely given, then it may be sound and socially beneficial, but it may still be imposed. If reason is not given, it may be dubious, and there is also reason to consider it likely imposed. Note: Authority exercised on behalf of somebody – like in a hired job- or trade-situation – is always authority given or taken. It is also considered imposed/imposing to the same degree that it affects others. There is almost never reason to question the exercise of natural personal authority, as it will almost always appear as a matter of course for any observer.
There are nuances and dynamics between the types of authority activated while individuals adapt to the mechanics in a society. This is in conjunction with the integration of the moral standards. Natural personal authority establishes a marked threshold for imposition. The stronger this trait becomes in a society, the more harmonious the development of the individual becomes. The result is a stable society, less imbued with internal conflict; rising above and solving conflicts becomes more important than eliminating opponents, and cooperation becomes prioritized before – or ranked above – competition.
It is a given that natural personal authority is ethically superior to the imposed/imposing type. The cause for this is that the individual is the foundation for the collective. With no individual, there would be no collective: The individual can stand tall, alone, and strong with no collective, but a collective without individuals don't exist.

Addendum: In the above, I use the definition of moral as "the standard of behavior you communicate," and the definition of ethics as "the standard of behaviour you follow yourself." These are not the common understanding of moral and ethics, and if you wish to discuss the above, you need to keep it in mind.

Vega · 2021-12-09 20:30:34

(First a disclaimer: I am mostly thinking out loud here, this is thought in progress. I just started writing and haven't thought about what you are saying too deeply, so I may have misunderstood what you are trying to express Happy. If you(or anyone else) are interested and when you find time, you can use this long 'rant' (that is related but also mixes it with with the wholographic topic) to get an idea of my understanding on this and point out where I may have a different understanding on what you are trying to express. )

Well now I am not so sure that the way I understood that sentence is the way you mean it. Maybe another way to put it is "Authority is the right to choose to explain or not explain behavior affecting others"?

What I got when I read that definition of authority is something like a captain of a star-ship that has an authority over the star-ship, or a special ops team leader that has an authority over the mission/operation. Where they make decisions and choices/behaviors that will affect everyone in the ship or the team and don't have to explain their decisions or their behavior.

And in the case of a hierarchical (power over others(poo), other-responsible) group/social structure, instead of explaining, they give an order and the other party obeys the order (or else face some kind of punishment using some kind of force).

Or in the case of non-hierarchical (power-within, self-responsible) group/social structure, instead of explaining, the captain or team leader relies on the other party trusting them and their decision, and the other team members have the right to choose to not follow the team leader's decision without explanation (and without facing any type of punishment).

And the captain or team leader will trust their choice and decision. So this is based on trust, instead of on force. All members of the team mutually trust all other team members' decisions and behavior, without them having to communicate the reasons behind it. No matter what team role they have assumed responsibility for, and even if a team member has assumed responsibility for being a team leader.

And if there is time, they can have a meeting and through communication find a decision that they all can get on board with. Or if it is a time critical matter the team members that disagree can stay out of it or if they are needed for the operation then the operation is cancelled if they can't be replaced. And they can have a team meeting afterwards and conclude who was responsible for the failure of the operation. If it was the captain or team leader then they will face the proper consequences (not punishment)of their decision, if it was the team member(s) that disagreed with the team leader, then they will face the proper consequences (not punishment) of that decision.

So in a way in this type of non-hierarchical group structure, it's not the captain or team leader that has authority over the star-ship or the operation, but all the members of the team have equal co-authority and assume equal co-responsibility over the star-ship or over the operation. Each through their unique specialization.

And since the only real type of authority is the natural personal authority, the imposed/imposing type of authority is an illusion created and maintained using the real natural personal authority. A shared illusion by both parties, where one of them believes they have authority over the other, and the other one believes that someone can have an authority over them. The person giving away their authority is still using their natural personal authority to choose to obey the other person. And the other person is using their natural personal authority to assume authority over others using some type of force or leverage or some way to apply pressure to others to force them to willingly submit to their authority.

The type 2 authority requires 2 or more people to agree on some level(mostly on a subconscious level) to play that co-dependent "3rd/4th density" game of giving your authority away/having authority over others.

And also in the spirit of "BOTH this -AND- that"(as opposed to "ONLY this -OR- ONLY that") there could be a third type of authority, type 3 (type 1+2=3 ), and we could call that co-authority. Or wholographic authority where every member of the group is a wholographic member.

Meaning that if you "cut" the group (or the 'collective consciousness of the group') in two or more parts, you get two or more parts of the whole group and not one half of the group and another half of the group as in non-wholographic groups. Every member of the wholographic group is a unique version of the entire group and contains the entire group in them and not just a piece of the group.

So they can speak both for themselves and for the entire group(their own unique version of it). S/he is BOTH an individual member of the group AND at the same time the entire group too. And [BOTH an individual AND the entire group] = every member is a unique version of the group and they are not all the same version of the group.

Anyway, there are two main ideas in this post:

-- the one is the idea of co-authority or wholographic authority (non-hierarchical, power-within, self-responsible)

-- and the other one is the idea that the type 2 imposed/imposing authority is only an illusion and is built by both sides using their real natural personal authority and a hidden subconsious belief that it is possible for our natural personal authority can be given away or to be taken or that it is possible for one "child"/fractal of Source to have an authority or power over another "child"/fractal of Source.

Anyway (inside anyway lol ). These are just some initial thoughts on this subject and if something is not clear feel free to ask about it and I'll try to clarify what I am trying to say or maybe become more clear myself about what I am trying to say, cause I am mostly thinking out loud and these ideas are a work in progress.

PS
And as a side-note and an example, I think I have understood correctly, that even Alenym doesn't have the sole authority and responsibility over this operation regarding Earth, but she has equal co-authority and co-responsibility of this project with the rest of the crew members. And in this operation/project she has assumed the responsibility of the tasks that the Queen of Taygeta and people of royal bloodline specialize in.

PS2
I am not sure I fully understand this definition of moral and ethics but maybe a third "BOTH this -AND- that" version of an integration of morality and ethics is "you communicate the standard of behavior you follow yourself"?

PS3
One reason I am spending so much time in writing this is because this authority discussion is related to the forum group structure and especially the relationship between regular members and the members that have assumed the responsibility of moderating the forum and also related to the authority type between any other member. And if someone wants to discern if a member is behaving in an authoritarian type 2 way towards another member, you can pay attention to whether they are behaving(not what they are saying) in a way that shows that they recognize and respect the natural personal authority of the other member. (And as a side-note to Happy: I don't fully understand why "the most reliable discernment is whether you find reason to question the behavior or not." do you mean "whether you find reason to question the intent/motive of their behavior or not"?

And another reason I am spending so much time writing this is cause it is also related to sth that has been on my mind for quite sometime that I initially wrote here but decided to move it to it's own thread, cause it's related but another topic.

Last edited by Vega (2021-12-09 20:51:37)

Happy · 2021-12-10 02:19:13

Vega wrote:

(First a disclaimer: I am mostly thinking out loud here, this is thought in progress. I just started writing and haven't thought about what you are saying too deeply, so I may have misunderstood what you are trying to express Happy. If you(or anyone else) are interested and when you find time, you can use this long 'rant' (that is related but also mixes it with with the wholographic topic) to get an idea of my understanding on this and point out where I may have a different understanding on what you are trying to express. )

Thank you, Vega! I believe the phrasing of our thoughts may help us to get a better grip on what we call “reality.” – and also find some firm ground whenever we take our first steps – which all steps really are, when we think of it.

My own disclaimer would be that I’m not a philosopher, and just find it rewarding to puzzle with these things. And I am really glad you find reason to approach the matters, too.

Being far too attracted towards abstractions, I also suck at giving good examples.

And with all humbleness, I cannot wrestle myself away from using the same linguistic tool as Yazhi Swaruu explains in the beginning of the recent second Metaphysical video from Gosia. It’s an approach that easily lends itself to scrutiny, since the phrasing becomes sharper or more bare-to-the-bone that way, it makes any weaknesses in logic more available for adjustment, I’ve found. And I’ve noticed several other members of the forum are using this, too. It requires that the reader can see through the obstacles it may present, though.

Vega wrote:

Well now I am not so sure that the way I understood that sentence is the way you mean it. Maybe another way to put it is "Authority is the right to choose to explain or not explain behavior affecting others"?

Yes, this would be another way to say it – maybe even a better way: Any behavior you exhibit is a matter of choice for you to explain.

In this, it’s almost better to switch out the term “behavior” with “choices.” If our choice of behavior is the result of social agreements, then we most likely have a pre-disposition – a conditioning or ”learned lesson” – to follow the agreements. But what happens when there is reason to question the choice of behavior? (This is so tightly connected to moral and ethics, that I am tempted to present some isolated thoughts on those concepts, too.).

If the kind of authority you wield is of the natural personal type, then explanation is hardly necessary, because your choices will almost always be self-explanatory, even if this is relative to the situation you find yourself in, as well.

The reason why I chose “explanation” as a main entry into the concept, is that I recognize that the imposing type of authority is secondary – or a derivation - to the natural personal type. It’s almost of intuitive clarity. This doesn’t mean that imposed/imposing authority has no function. On the contrary; when a lack of explanation is combined with discordant relationship between moral and ethics, we’re talking about behavior with a potential for abuse, and worse. And if a hierarchical social structure is the way to manage things, say in a struggle-for-survival-situation, then there could be a place even for utilitarian philosophies.

So who is affected by your choices/behavior? And who is asking for an explanation?

It boils down to either: a) explaining your own behavior affecting others when others ask; or b) explaining your own behavior affecting yourself when you ask yourself. And yes... there are two other alternatives in this.

The first points to the ranking aspects of behavior, while the latter engages your truth-forming processes.

Truth and belief are in many ways synonymous, as I understand them, and is a huge matter in our motivation for personal development. The reason I see the truth-forming process as a skill, is that they are decisive for what choices we find relevant.

Vega wrote:

What I got when I read that definition of authority is something like a captain of a star-ship that has an authority over the star-ship, or a special ops team leader that has an authority over the mission/operation. Where they make decisions and choices/behaviors that will affect everyone in the ship or the team and don't have to explain their decisions or their behavior.

Even if everybody on the ship has the skills and knowledge to enter a captain’s function, there’s only one captain at any given time. Everybody understands why s/he makes decisions, whenever s/he makes them. Nobody needs to relate to any punishment by not following the orders, however.

If somebody don’t follow orders, there’s most likely some good reason for it. And at that point, the ship becomes one big learning operation; the situation could be extraordinary; it could be a matter of training/learning; or maybe even a general symptom of the state of communications on board.

And if the captain was in their shoes, maybe even s/he would disobey the orders, as well. Like when Swaruu disregarded the regulations/guidelines when Suriko was saved. (She probably wasn’t captain at the time, but the example serves the point.).

Vega wrote:

And since the only real type of authority is the natural personal authority, the imposed/imposing type of authority is an illusion created and maintained using the real natural personal authority. A shared illusion by both parties, where one of them believes they have authority over the other, and the other one believes that someone can have an authority over them. The person giving away their authority is still using their natural personal authority to choose to obey the other person. And the other person is using their natural personal authority to assume authority over others using some type of force or leverage or some way to apply pressure to others to force them to willingly submit to their authority.
The type 2 authority requires 2 or more people to agree on some level(mostly on a subconscious level) to play that co-dependent "3rd/4th density" game of giving your authority away/having authority over others.
And also in the spirit of "BOTH this -AND- that"(as opposed to "ONLY this -OR- ONLY that") there could be a third type of authority, type 3 (type 1+2=3 ), and we could call that co-authority. Or wholographic authority where every member of the group is a wholographic member.
Meaning that if you "cut" the group (or the 'collective consciousness of the group') in two or more parts, you get two or more parts of the whole group and not one half of the group and another half of the group as in non-wholographic groups. Every member of the wholographic group is a unique version of the entire group and contains the entire group in them and not just a piece of the group.
So they can speak both for themselves and for the entire group(their own unique version of it). S/he is BOTH an individual member of the group AND at the same time the entire group too. And [BOTH an individual AND the entire group] = every member is a unique version of the group and they are not all the same version of the group.

I like this line of thinking. It is an approach toward holographic dynamics. My own approach is more of getting there from here, though. Then the difference in communication within and between the groups seems to become an important topic.

Vega wrote:

Anyway, there are two main ideas in this post:
-- the one is the idea of co-authority or wholographic authority (non-hierarchical, power-within, self-responsible)

I think this is good description of how most of us visualize a holographic social structure.

Vega wrote:

-- and the other one is the idea that the type 2 imposed/imposing authority is only an illusion and is built by both sides using their real natural personal authority and a hidden subconsious belief that it is possible for our natural personal authority can be given away or to be taken or that it is possible for one "child"/fractal of Source to have an authority or power over another "child"/fractal of Source.

In this I see the subconscious as the repository for automatic behavior. It is subject to manipulation and control, and also what we need to work with in so called “shadow-work.” The goal is to leave this place fully conscious, so that we don’t fall for any tricks to be reinstated into an experience not benefitting anyone.

Vega wrote:

PS2
I am not sure I fully understand this definition of moral and ethics but maybe a third "BOTH this -AND- that" version of an integration of morality and ethics is "you communicate the standard of behavior you follow yourself"?

------------------------------

Below are some conceptual thoughts I wrote a while ago on moral and ethics. It's not comprehensive, but presents what I consider key-points of the concepts. I don't actually expect anyone to agree with this way of seeing it, as the attempts I have made to present it have failed every time. It's important that your own resonance is the deciding element if you choose to take it in.

Moral and Ethics
Both moral and ethics are standards of behavior in the widest sense. 'Standard' in this means they are used in ranking the behavior, like a 'measuring stick', which is the main function of the concepts. 'Behavior' means anything that can be perceived and interpreted in any way or form by an observer or a receiver of communication. The standards are usually consciously adopted, but may become second nature in one's thinking, i.e. subconscious and automatic. Then habit of thinking – which also activates topics like 'stubbornness' and 'addiction' – may become a major topic in this.
There are those who find the topic of moral and ethics quite preposterous. Some are even offended when it is brought forward, which may be justified – sometimes. It is surprisingly easy to be perceived as moralizing when one brings the topic up for debate. This may be because some form of condemnation and judgment of the individual is perceived. People usually put a lot of energy into being perceived as socially agreeable, and can therefore be very sensitive to any hints of being socially condemned for moral reasons.
Moral;
– is the standard of behavior you communicate. It touches upon all social agreements that make our communities work with an underlying expectation of compliance. And it contains all the ‘should’s’ and ‘ought-to’s’ that you can imagine. As such it fathoms almost all interacting (social) aspects of our standards of behavior.
Moral can be communicated in every conceivable manner, as communication is a defining aspect of it. And since it can be considered the foundation for any conventions, agreements and custom interactions, it is critically important that the individual is open to the learning of it, and not the least allowed and free to learn of it. – which includes the option of rejecting it, too, if it is considered of a lesser value within the individual's own ethical standard.
Ethics;
– is the standard of behavior you follow yourself. The moment it is communicated it becomes ‘moral’. ‘Teaching of ethics’ is hence a contradiction in terms, except for the learning-mode of ‘modeling’, where the observer is the sole determining factor for the transfer of such knowledge; ethics can therefore only be shown in practice.
Ethics is hence also a strictly personal property. As mentioned, the moment it is intentionally communicated, it becomes moralizing. Note that ‘to moralize’ is a verb. There is no equivalent verb for ethics, and the reason is explained by the mentioned learning-mode of ‘modeling’.

To use standards as a basis for choice of behavior means effectively the conscious exclusion of different options in one's behavior, before one makes the choice. This exclusion is due to the realization that some behaviors have unwanted consequences – we get wise from experience. Choice is therefore considered a matter of judgment. And judgment becomes equal to the choice made from the ranking of possible outcomes of behavior, whether the standard used is learned from communication or experience.
When a perceived difference between moral and ethics in an individual’s behavior is observed, it basically means that there is a difference between what the individual says and what s/he does. In other words, walking and talking are not the same. Hence, it can be a tell-tale for personal corruption. This is not important in every aspect of life, though; usually it is recognized in matters of imposed authority. And differences may also appear in situations of learning, where the underlying intent is not immediately apparent in the behavior.
Everybody of sound mind usually acts according to their own experiences and maturity, which means everybody has their own ethics. To be unethical means to act contrary to this personal knowledge, which again can be the case in situations of learning. To point this out with another individual's behaviour indicates foreknowledge about the individual's standards. What is usually meant by pointing out somebody's 'unethical behavior' is that they display an immoral behavior, which then is contrary to what is socially accepted or expected.

Our ranked values form our standards
We make big and small choices all the time while living life. The expected results of a choice decide its rank among the alternatives. When a choice is decided on, it is because it gained the top rank among the alternatives before the choice was made. The choice can therefore be referred to as the top value on the scale where all the alternatives were ranked against each other.
The collection of all choices made can as such be considered the sum of the individual 'values' – given on the scale described by all the alteratives related, and the choices made from them. If we generalize this over the population – the society, it is justified to designate them as the human values, mentioned above [edit: elsewhere]. And it is also worth noting that the transfer of this knowledge between individuals in a society happens either via moralizing, i.e. communicating the standards of behavior, or via applied ethics, where the individuals model each other. So, designating something as a "human value" may not necessarily describe an external thing or a situation, be it of a quantitative or qualitative nature, but could instead refer to a choice among ranked alternatives.
Situations are compared and are sometimes considered similar, and sometimes different from each other. As the individual perceives the available alternatives, the resulting choices become expressions of the ethical standard of the individual. But we make a lot of choices over a lifetime. And because we adapt and learn, we may also change our preferences in similar situations, which become indications of the individual development.

Moral standards are integrated by the individual
– and it has both positive and negative effects on the individual's ethics. Integration of the collective moral may actually imply a reduction in the individual's own ethical standard. If this is not conscious and voluntary, and then not conserving comprehension of the differences in perspectives, it can be understood as a rejection of self-integrity. Then the individual doesn't have deeper knowledge, while the collective dictates the options for behavior to varying degrees, irrespective of how this is understood by the individual.
The individual's perspective and understanding of this – or lack of it – activate as a topic the barriers against communication, and the nuances in how such barriers conserve the collective's integrity. This may not be abstract knowledge, like presented here, but effectively grasped as active "social antennae."
There are stabilizing and destabilizing forces activated when populations change. The function of moral typically has stabilizing effects on the collective, while impulsive behavior, as an example, is often seen as destabilizing. Both individual integration of external standards and communication within and between collectives are important in this dynamic, however, and lack of individual comprehension can directly lead to the mentioned rejection of self-integrity by the individual – understood as a reduction of the ethical standard.
If such inhibiting effects become the general trend in a collective, it establishes a massive block against the development of the collective as a whole. It will vitrify social structures and eventually lead to collapse of the flexible stability necessary for natural development, both for the individual and the collective.
This doesn't only apply to advanced ethics, where development is propagated on a collective level. It is also seen in situations of individual learning. From a very young age, individuals test the limits for socially acceptable behavior, and this can be seen continuing until full maturation as 'grown-ups'. Even Socrates complained about the "unruly youngsters," and the saying goes that this was held against him as an accusation in his final trial. It seems to be a legacy not fully comprehended by our 'modern world' cultures.

Robert369 · 2021-12-10 02:45:11

In my view authority by being "boss" or other titles (like "doctor") represents the regressive fail system that is all about power and useless titles, while true authority creates "leaders" in their respective fields which lead by example and skill.

Happy · 2021-12-10 02:55:58

Robert369 wrote:

In my view authority by being "boss" or other titles (like "doctor") represents the regressive fail system that is all about power and useless titles, while true authority creates "leaders" in their respective fields which lead by example and skill.

I couldn't agree more, Robert! And the wielding of that kind of authority is a premise for hierarchies, which again is difficult to perceive otherwise than a massive barrier against any approach towards a holographic society.

Happy · 2021-12-10 03:11:35

Hello JimiPickle. Thank you for commenting!

Yes, trust is a very underestimated trait. And somewhat difficult to analyze, I find, because it can enable behavior, which is completely unexplained. How deep it goes is a matter of individual resonance, I guess.

And you mention deception. I believe our ability to discern our own self-deceptions is a necessary skill in forming our truths and integration/expanding comprehension.

You also touch upon a moral dilemma there. Sometimes I see the condition of society as a self-defining "normal," where the "standard deviation" defines what is normal. In this light, the deviants are the ones that define the normal. It is possible to imagine a completely uniform society, where it becomes absurd to talk about a "standard deviation." In nature, populations without internal differences or "diversity" are the populations most vulnerable to changes in environmental parameters. The analogy could perhaps be stretched to the rise and fall of civilizations.

Good comments, JimiPickle. Thank you again!

mitkobs · 2021-12-10 11:36:27

Authority for example of the cabal is based entirely on violence. It is based on a simple threat. "I'm right because I can kill you. My orders are the law. I have better weapons than you and I can impose whatever I like on you. If you do not comply I will use all my available force to make you comply."
Authority is the energy of fear. It declares some who are the authority and others who are subjected to their authority. It creates itself an enemy by making itself a threat.
In holographic society there is no need of authority because everything valuable, wanted and needed is shared equally between everyone and everyone have equal rights. If there is somehting like an hierarchy it is only functional based on the skills and specialization of different people and what needs to be done in such society to function. It is never about force or imposition in any way. The right is based on what is accepted in such society as right and that is based on observed natural and universal principles.

Happy · 2021-12-10 19:06:30

Very good points there, mitkobs. Thank you! We are all too familiar with the threat of violent force, which is the "inbuilt promise" in any hierarchical society based on imposed/imposing authority. Wasn't this quite thoroughly described by Mark Passio's lectures some years ago? Are they still around?

mitkobs · 2021-12-11 05:53:33

The cabal nowadays is more refined and insidious in threating. The threat of killing is done by many pre-established venues of power. The most used and powerful venue today are economics, the economical threat. By making people dependent in every way on money. We have to give the time of our life in slave labor in order to make money and to provide for our basic needs and the needs of our families. This is the ultimate authority, to make us completely dependent on something that they hold like a carrot or stick and we are oblige to play the game according to their rules in order to have some kind of civilized social life. Of course we can make ourselves independent from the establishment, off the grid, off the radar and to live in the fringe or out of the social norms.

Last edited by mitkobs (2021-12-11 05:58:45)

Happy · 2021-12-12 17:04:36

JimiPickle wrote:

As to leadership and accepting into agreement who will be the leader…know there will always be a willing participant that is there to learn from you…Every. Time.

I take that as a complement and recognize the good intent in it. Thank you. But if you seek a leader, there is one obvious choice for you, which you didn't mention: Yourself. You actually don't need a leader if you find the core values within yourself. Then your path will show itself.

As we wake up to the on-goings in this world, and find how we - as a fellowship, a society, or as individuals - have failed to preserve the beauty of it all, both in our environment and within ourselves, we also find that we have work to do. This work must be done on several levels, both within our communities and within ourselves. This is why many find the tasks daunting, myself included.

I am still reeling in my head after the second metaphysical video by Gosia, because - even if I should have seen it and been prepared for it - Yazhi is dealing it out with a teaspoon for us there. She takes it all out: What defines us is what we think we are not. And we are infinitely more than what we think we are...

Happy · 2021-12-12 17:30:07

Genoveva wrote:

This is beautiful and sincere, Happy! I appreciate your words!

...and I appreciate you saying that. Thank you, Genoveva!

Robert369 · 2021-12-12 21:27:39

JimiPickle wrote:

A collective agreement of personal responsibility and accountability in all affairs, doing no harm to another as a start point, should and must be explored. It would be a new experience coming out of of long journey of following others we have experienced.

Sadly, Humanity has been there in the past, but it was artificially/violently degenerated into a bunch of sheepish followers, while everyone who remembers that there's more to one's (incarnated) existence than being a working meatbag for one's masters, was silenced.

Luckily this ends now, so that the time for remembrance of the true self-empowered way of life can be re-discovered. Which surely will be an interesting experience for which many from "higher ways of existence" come here, because "being there" over time might have become boring.

Robert369 · 2021-12-12 22:11:07

JimiPickle wrote:

I would like to hear more about your perception of the “true self empowered way of life”.

This obviously is a vast topic that is too much to cover here, and most of it is not suitable for an unsecure platform really, hence I/we are teaching this and more on our cabal-free private server.

If you are true to that desire, I happily invite you to check my profile to join up. Not wanting to advertise too much, but raising our consciousness abilities is what Humanity needs at this time - insofar I'd say that this place and ours work on the same goal.

Crystal Dragon · 2021-12-13 05:25:33

Genoveva wrote:

Hmm, I wonder... if freedom and expansion of consciousness must be cultivated other than freely and expansively in plain view of the whole world, does it really resonate with freedom and boundlessness?
Out with the cabal tactics of hiding, I say! I do not consent to cabal distortions!
Jimmy, you are an extraordinary human being!

Good point. Is living a hermit life and detaching oneself from desires and outcomes really freedom, or is it simply a fanciful and optimistic spin on acceptance of failure and tyranny? Is such a life really being one's own authority, or just a softer form of cynicism, enslavement and dullness, being powerless to achieve one's true happiness in the face of oppression and inhumanity? Gentle undeath. Zombification Lite, if you will.

Last edited by Crystal Dragon (2021-12-13 05:29:58)

mitkobs · 2021-12-13 06:39:18

The “true self empowered way of life” - we are the Absolute Source, the most magnificent beingness there is and there will be, forever and ever. It is the greatest power that generates fully functional worlds with a single thought. Have to come to our senses and imagine ourselves this way, like this being of infinite power, Love and perfection. We are everything, we are the resolution that we are waiting for, we are the cause and effect of everything. We let the fear to be something part of our experience and we can say enough of it. Now is the time to unite in consciousness and in action. To use our minds to make magic and wonder, to bring peace and joy to the world.

Last edited by mitkobs (2021-12-13 06:43:13)

Happy · 2021-12-13 06:42:54

Please forgive me my sentimentality. I wrote the following poem many years ago (- it's supposed to be centered, but I couldn't find the code for that...).

Recognition

Your recognition of beauty will
– reveal a sudden vision, of what you carry –
within yourself.
As you love beauty, there you finally will
– find the ability to love your own –
as well.
With it, you have the ability to
– heal the fragile parts, that make your world –
complete.
So, when you are searching for
– beauty, you are searching the essence –
of yourself.
The greatest search of all, will be for
– what beauty of life you carry for everyone –
to behold.
We are all One.

...and it almost brought me to tears when Yazhi went into the topic of "We are all One" in Gosia's second video on metaphysics:

Yazhi wrote:

[06:39] The New Age concept that says we are all connected, and that we are all one, stretches and falls short in extreme simplicity, and pales with how it really is.
Meaning that all beings, living or not, all there is, again with the most expanded meaning of the word ALL, are parts or particles of consciousness that not only form what from one point of view or another is a more complex being, but are in itself the ALL, and the Original Source itself.
From a grain of sand, or an electron, to an entire galaxy, or more, they are, and I affirm it, holographic fragments of the Original Source that contain all its attributes by right.
And this again remains as one more way of explaining the inexplicable.

Crystal Dragon · 2021-12-14 05:20:50

Authority is like fire. It can provide a light in the right hands, but it usually just ends up burning shit down for no good reason. No amount of training or discipline can teach an unworthy soul to wield it. Even in the hands of the right soul, it can be a hard thing to tame, but at least with the right level of intrinsic integrity, there is hope that it can be used as a light instead of an engine of destruction and pain. Souls who have that capacity are pitifully few, but they are a sacred blessing.

Last edited by Crystal Dragon (2021-12-14 05:21:16)

Happy · 2021-12-14 17:48:42

Crystal Dragon wrote:

[...] there is hope that it can be used as a light [...]

Yes. People usually have no trouble in seeing the disabling properties of authority - we're all familiar with that. What is often ignored is the equally enabling potential. Thank you, Crystal Dragon.

#1 2021-12-07 21:38:38

On Authority

#2 2021-12-09 20:30:34

Re: On Authority

#3 2021-12-10 02:19:13

Re: On Authority

#4 2021-12-10 02:45:11

Re: On Authority

#5 2021-12-10 02:55:58

Re: On Authority

#6 2021-12-10 03:11:35

Re: On Authority

#7 2021-12-10 11:36:27

Re: On Authority

#8 2021-12-10 19:06:30

Re: On Authority

#9 2021-12-11 05:53:33

Re: On Authority

#10 2021-12-12 17:04:36

Re: On Authority

#11 2021-12-12 17:30:07

Re: On Authority

#12 2021-12-12 21:27:39

Re: On Authority

#13 2021-12-12 22:11:07

Re: On Authority

#14 2021-12-13 05:25:33

Re: On Authority

#15 2021-12-13 06:39:18

Re: On Authority

#16 2021-12-13 06:42:54

Re: On Authority

#17 2021-12-14 05:20:50

Re: On Authority

#18 2021-12-14 17:48:42

Re: On Authority

Board footer