From: "Ravi Mohan" <magesmail@...>
Reply-To: BardonPraxis@yahoogroups.com
To: BardonPraxis@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BardonPraxis] Re: What does it mean to become noble concerning passions?
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:06:30 -0000
Rawn A few questions if i may, just to make sure i have understood this right ..
you said > The process of transformation begins with and hinges upon the Soul > Mirror *self* analysis of the *present* character.
also,
> Self-honesty means that *every* valuation you make about your character > must be based solely upon how *you* *feel* emotionally and what *you* > *think* about *your own* actions, emotional habits and habits of > thinking (i.e., your manifest character).
ok. but does this not mean that there is a possibility of our own "ideals" being out of whack with social/cultural norms ? For eg a person could think it is "ok" to dominate others for example, because he (a) "feels" and thinks that it is right (he could have a world view in which domination of the weaker by the stronger is the "right thing")
As a thought experiment let us take someone like say Caesar or Genghis Khan , who have immense leadership and martial qualities and are brought up in a culture of conquest(classical Rome or the stepes of Monglia a particular periods in time).If such a person would do a soul mirror exercise would he not put down the "ability to dominate others and bend them to my will" as a *positive* virtue ?and when he postivizes his soul mirror would he not try to maximise these qualities ?
On the other hand if a person with such an ability had a "everyone is equal irrespective of strength" ethic(which would be the case in modern societies with "equality before law" etc ) the the "will to dominate" characteristic would be "negative" and something to turn away from him or use "constructively " (quotes because what is"constructive" would also vary socially/culturally and situationally)
>This requires an > absolute or "radical" honesty with oneself and here is where the > perennial analogy of the murderer or "black magician" is absurd. > By > definition such an individual would be constitutionally incapable of > this degree of self-honesty. >
> Self-honesty means that *every* valuation you make about your character > must be based solely upon how *you* *feel* emotionally and what *you* > *think* about *your own* actions, emotional habits and habits of > thinking (i.e., your manifest character).
ok i am confused here . why would someone be unable to look into himself just because he kills (say, a soldier or a spy) or practices occultism without understanding all the nuances of what he does (this would be the meaning of "black magic" from abrdonian pov rght?) and believes that invoking spirits and making pacts with them is the *right way* ?
> When you begin interjecting > what others think or feel or do then you are not reaching all the way > down to what *you* are thinking or feeling. *Your* thoughts and > feelings may very well agree with what others *say* they are thinking > and feeling, and that's perfectly "okay" so long as they are *your* > feelings and thoughts. And likewise, *your* thoughts and feelings may > very well disagree with what others *say* they are thinking and feeling, > and that *also* is perfectly "okay" for *you*, even if no one else > agrees. *All* that matters in *this* process is what *you* think and > feel about *you*.
yes my concern here is that by this standard if a person always does what is right acording to your own "feelings" and "thoughts" , he could still end up doing very destructive things as viewed from the outside .
Is this still "balanced" ? Is a person whose thoughts emotions and actions are in harmony balanced if he finds the consequences of his actions "aceptable" within his examined and accepted world view?
> And of course (I assume this goes without saying but figure I might as > well say it anyway just to be sure I'm clear enough), the way that our > actions, thoughts and feelings effect others and our environment are > important reflections of self that must be considered in any > self-evaluation. If we feel really great about ourselves but are > alienating every one around us then something is amiss and way out of > any sort of *functional* balance.
considered yes . but the decisions to be taken after that consideration would still seem to be very uniquely individual and could range from very "positive" (by a particular set of beliefs) or "negative" , Are you saying that if the person doing the self analysis is satisfied emotianally and logicaly about the rightness of his actions then that is "balanced" ?
what about if you are alienating some people and gaining the approval of others ? Do you have to gain the approval of everyone /not alienbate a single soul in order to be balanced ? just to restate the point one more time , what if a person feels that a negative behaiour like killing or domination is a)emotionally "right" b)and logically "right" as per his world view ?
So would "balance" be culturally dependent ? (i have found a large part of what seems "right" is very culture dependent .As an extreme exmple whether one is a "terrorist" "soldier" or "freedom fighter" and whether the victims of a terrorist attack/military strike are "innocent victims" or "collateral damage" would depend very much on cultural/social assumptions on the rights of the individual, the nature of war etc .
Any thoughts are greatly appreciated .
Regds, NKKA