![]() |
STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - Printable Version +- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums) +-- Forum: Bring4th Studies (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Strictly Law of One Material (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2) +--- Thread: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery (/showthread.php?tid=3850) Pages:
1
2
|
STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - Plenum - 01-03-2012 this little interplay here from Session 83 has always fascinated me: Ra: I am Ra. It was our understanding that your query concerned conditions before the veiling. There was no unconscious slavery, as you call this condition, at that period. At the present space/time the conditions of well-meant and unintentional slavery are so numerous that it beggars our ability to enumerate them. 83.12 Questioner: Then for a service-to-others oriented entity at this time meditation upon the nature of these little-expected forms of slavery might be productive in polarization I would think. Am I correct? Ra: I am Ra. You are quite correct. any idea what these might be? RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - Namaste - 01-03-2012 This one caught my interest a while back. A few examples of what I understand 'unintentional slavery' to be: - Emotional attachments - specifically dependence - to another person - A parent 'lovingly' enforcing a child do what they think 'is the right thing' - Refusing to acknowledge catalyst/truth with regard to one's time (profession - i.e. hating one's job, but persisting due to supporting others) In many cases, I would equate the term to one 'unintentionally' pushing the will of another in a specific direction, usually from a place of attempted 'help'. RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - βαθμιαίος - 01-03-2012 (01-03-2012, 11:38 AM)plenum Wrote: any idea what these might be? I think Don's follow-up question brought out a vast area of well-meant slavery: Quote:83.13 Questioner: I would say that a very high percentage of the laws and restrictions within what we call our legal system are of a nature of enslavement of which I just spoke. Would you agree with this? RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - native - 01-03-2012 I imagine they're referring to the condition of the mind which does not recognize the love/acceptance required in any moment, thus not reflecting unity through the integration of wholeness. That can apply to everything, and Namaste gave some good examples. Don's questions in that session refer to social structure, so rather than making attempts at community which involves cooperation, we place barriers between us and conditions are created in which each has to "earn their keep." Slavery to the modern life. Recognition of unity solves all paradoxes! Quote:71.17 Questioner: The change in consciousness should result in a greater distortion towards service-to-others, towards unity with all, and towards knowing in order to serve. Is this correct, and are there any other desired results? RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - Tenet Nosce - 01-03-2012 Quote:Ra: I am Ra. It was our understanding that your query concerned conditions before the veiling. There was no unconscious slavery, as you call this condition, at that period. At the present space/time the conditions of well-meant and unintentional slavery are so numerous that it beggars our ability to enumerate them. Consider what would happen if you: 1. Refuse to pay your taxes. Or mortgage. 2. Attempt to bypass your mobile carrier's signal with your smartphone. 3. Choose not to have children against your spouse's wishes. 4. Dis-enroll your children from school. 5. Send gold in the U.S. mail in payment to a debt collector. 6. Drive your vehicle without a license, and get pulled over. 7. Get caught sending or receiving copyrighted information over the Internet. 8. Accidentally harm another person's body with your vehicle. 9. Attempt to cross a border without identification. 10. Attempt to commit suicide. In my somewhat ludicrous opinion, we are all slaves. To the degree we agree to live "under law" is to the degree we literally make ourselves out to be hypo-crites, or slaves. As Ra suggested, it is well to ponder upon this, for one who is unwilling to acknowledge the reality of their own slavery cannot perceive what it truly means to be free. In other words, that we are all slaves is one thing. That some of us believe we are free, is quite another. RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - drifting pages - 01-03-2012 law and codes are imposed on ourselves from our ignorance of our true nature, in another word: fear of ourselves causes us to try to balance the ~external~ reality that we think we are separate of. The eternal struggle of separation tinged consciousness. Nothing wrong with it in itself when the purpose is to explore it. I am moving away from it though and towards self realization and awareness. There are many vibratory levels to explore. RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - Tenet Nosce - 01-03-2012 (01-03-2012, 12:39 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: I think Don's follow-up question brought out a vast area of well-meant slavery: According to my scant understanding of history, the first known "codification of response" is called The Precepts of Ptah-Hotep, and was written in Egypt during the 5th Dynasty by a feudal lord. Further according to my stunted awareness, this first known written codification followed shortly after the withdrawal of Ra from 3D physicality following the pyramid building phase described here: 23.6 Wrote:The first, the Great Pyramid, was formed approximately 6,000 of your years ago. Then, in sequence, after this performing by thought of the building or architecture of the Great Pyramid using the more, shall we say, local or earthly material rather than thought-form material to build other pyramidal structures. This continued for approximately 1,500 of your years. I wonder: if this were true, might that confer additional meaning to Ra's use of the word hypocritical, as in, to be under oath or to be under law. An interesting, but possibly irrelevant point is that when laws were first invented, I don't believe they were imposed on the people at large. According to my read, it appears that the laws may have only been voluntarily taken upon by those who wished it of their own free will. For example, as a healer/physician one might swear to an oath to abide by a certain sort of conduct. By taking this oath, it might grant a certain protection to the people against charlatanism, for example. But I know this is highly speculative and purely conjectural. 1.4 Wrote:Questioner: Could you give me a little more detail about your role with the Egyptians? 6.4 Wrote:Questioner: I think this might be an appropriate time to include a little more background on yourself, possibly information having to do with where you came from prior to your involvement with planet Earth, if this is possible. RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - Peregrinus - 01-04-2012 Quote:in the hypocritical position of being acclaimed as other than your other-selves. What Ra meant by this was that they were acclaimed by the Egyptians to be "God's", but because they aren't, they saw themselves in a hypocritical position. Because of their prominent and obviously awe inspiring visual (think pyramids) work with intelligent infinity and intelligent energy (very Godlike), the Egyptians would not, in no uncertain terms, believe Ra were what they said they were, simply other-selves. As for slaves, anyone that depends upon society or other-self for anything is a slave. Quote:Buddha: The whole secret of existence is to have no fear. Never fear what will become of you, depend on no one. Only the moment you reject all help are you freed. RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - kycahi - 01-04-2012 (01-04-2012, 01:16 AM)Peregrinus Wrote: As for slaves, anyone that depends upon society or other-self for anything is a slave. I recall from somewhere that 3D humans were made so physically weak that they had no choice but to depend on each other. This carries tons of catalyst to chew on. ![]() RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - Lavazza - 01-04-2012 [quote='Tenet Nosce' pid='67315' dateline='1325623893'] [quote] Consider what would happen if you: 1. Refuse to pay your taxes. Or mortgage. 2. Attempt to bypass your mobile carrier's signal with your smartphone. 3. Choose not to have children against your spouse's wishes. 4. Dis-enroll your children from school. 5. Send gold in the U.S. mail in payment to a debt collector. 6. Drive your vehicle without a license, and get pulled over. 7. Get caught sending or receiving copyrighted information over the Internet. 8. Accidentally harm another person's body with your vehicle. 9. Attempt to cross a border without identification. 10. Attempt to commit suicide. In my somewhat ludicrous opinion, we are all slaves. [/quote] I agree with your 10 examples- they are exactly such things that would elicit codified responses, as Ra would say. However so I do not agree that we are all slaves. I would say we are less than entirely free, as it were. Perhaps I am walking a fine line but I believe that one can be not-free and not a slave simultaneously, when living under a set of genuinely well intended laws, and when there exists a form a government with some degree of citizenry participation (elections, etc). RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - Namaste - 01-04-2012 (01-04-2012, 01:16 AM)Peregrinus Wrote:Quote:Buddha: The whole secret of existence is to have no fear. Never fear what will become of you, depend on no one. Only the moment you reject all help are you freed. I love that quote. But, I do not ever reading that the Buddha grew his own food. He walked from town to town and depended upon the generosity if others. Is that not dependence? There is a fine line, I think, between fear based dependence and genuine acceptance of help from others. They are not one and the same. This is a harmonic universe, moving towards unity, after all :¬) RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - _X7 - 01-04-2012 (01-03-2012, 11:38 AM)plenum Wrote: this little interplay here from Session 83 has always fascinated me: My take of the moment, (only scratched out in the sand).... Engagement with 3d including all covert and overt acts of cause and effect enslave the enactor who invests therein. To the limited extent of the personal free will. Also for the duration of that will to stay there. RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - βαθμιαίος - 01-04-2012 (01-04-2012, 02:54 AM)kycahi Wrote: I recall from somewhere that 3D humans were made so physically weak that they had no choice but to depend on each other. This carries tons of catalyst to chew on. Yeah, Ra said that, too: "Thus, the weakening of the physical vehicle, as you call it, was designed to distort entities towards a predisposition to deal with each other. Thus, the lessons which approach a knowing of love can be begun." (01-03-2012, 11:32 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: According to my scant understanding of history, the first known "codification of response" is called The Precepts of Ptah-Hotep, and was written in Egypt during the 5th Dynasty by a feudal lord. Ra said there were governmental structures even before the veil (83.9), as well as in Atlantis (22.23). Would it be fair to assume that there is codification of response wherever there is a governmental structure? RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - AnthroHeart - 01-04-2012 Being a slave is part of the experience. I understand that we knew we'd be in this form of societal slavery before we even came here. When in 4D, I don't think slavery will really be as prevalent. Though it might still exist in an unintentional manner. but maybe without the veil in 4D it's possible that no slavery will exist any longer. After all, it appears to be perfectly harmonious. RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - Oceania - 01-04-2012 if you tro to commit suicide, you might end up locked up, or they don't care. if you don't pay your taxes, the irs comes and shoots you. i'd say that slavery. RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - Tenet Nosce - 01-04-2012 (01-04-2012, 01:16 AM)Peregrinus Wrote:Quote:in the hypocritical position of being acclaimed as other than your other-selves. Yes, this appears to be true. I was only speculating that perhaps Ra chose the word with multiple meanings in mind. There is a quote I recently came across that supports the idea of use of double entendre by Ra... but I don't remember where. If I find it again I will put it here. At any rate, I was just imagining the scene where this idea of living "under law" was spreading... how might that have impacted 6D beings like Ra? Knowing what we know about humanity today, I could see how there may have been calls for those "others" of Ra to live under the same laws as the humans. How would those of Ra have responded to such a request? Also, how would some humans have responded if they declined such an offer? I imagine there would have been the inevitable cries and accusations of "elitism". "Look! Ra thinks they are better than us and do not require codes and laws to live by!" And so on... But again, this is all speculation. RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - Meerie - 01-04-2012 is unintentional slavery also unconscious slavery? like when some people, in relationships for example, are slaves to each other. Totally dependent but without realizing it. RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - Tenet Nosce - 01-04-2012 (01-04-2012, 02:54 AM)kycahi Wrote: I recall from somewhere that 3D humans were made so physically weak that they had no choice but to depend on each other. This carries tons of catalyst to chew on. βαθμιαίος Wrote:Yeah, Ra said that, too: "Thus, the weakening of the physical vehicle, as you call it, was designed to distort entities towards a predisposition to deal with each other. Thus, the lessons which approach a knowing of love can be begun." Ra also mentions that humans were genetically manipulated by Yahweh in order to be "larger and stronger": 18.20 Wrote:Questioner: When did Yahweh act to perform the genetic changes? Note that this particular period of genetic engineering occurred around 1600 BCE- this is roughly concurrent with the life of Noah's son Shem (also thought to have been called Melchizedek). This time period also roughly corresponds to the rule of Egypt by the Hyksos and of Mesopotamia by the Hittites, and the fall of the Indus Valley civilization. In Asia, we see the rise of the Shang Dynasty, and in the Americas we have the rise of the Olmecs. There also appears to have been a global shift toward the use of burial mounds during this time period. I just offer this for some historical context, which may or may not be relevant. Here are some other likely irrelevant quotes on this topic: 24.3 Wrote:Questioner: Thank you. Then I assume that the Confederation stayed away from Earth for a period of time. What condition created the next contact that the Confederation made? 24.5 Wrote:Questioner: Then Yahweh, in an attempt to correct what I might call a mistake (I know you don’t want to call it that), started 3,300 years ago a positive philosophy. Were the Orion and Yahweh philosophies impressed telepathically, or were there other techniques used? (01-03-2012, 11:32 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: According to my scant understanding of history, the first known "codification of response" is called The Precepts of Ptah-Hotep, and was written in Egypt during the 5th Dynasty by a feudal lord. βαθμιαίος Wrote:Ra said there were governmental structures even before the veil (83.9), as well as in Atlantis (22.23). Would it be fair to assume that there is codification of response wherever there is a governmental structure? I'm not sure that would be considered fair. We have very scant written records of anything which preceded the Arian Age (roughly 2150BC - 1 AD). If I may be so bold, it appears to me that 83.9 directly refutes your conjecture: 83.9 Wrote:Questioner: Was there any uniformity or like functions of societies or social organizations prior to the veil? Perhaps my read is a bit obtuse- but if "all are seen as one" what would be the purpose of "codification of response"? Wouldn't one be considered free to respond to oneself as one desires? As regards Atlantis- I don't really know. Are you aware of any other resources on Atlantis that speak directly to this? In my rather naive view, it is entirely possible to have a "governmental structure" without a set of codified behaviors known as "law". In a certain sense, I would imagine that laws were promulgated and promoted in order to "ease the burden" of those assigned the roles of adjudicators. If I may further press my ridiculous notion- it seems to me that wherever we see the origins of codified laws- The Precepts of Ptah-Hotep, the Code of Hammurabi, Mosaic Law, etc., we also have evidence for influence by negatively-oriented entities seeking to control humanity. I observe that my irrational, intuitive mind, sees this as more than "mere coincidence". (01-04-2012, 11:03 AM)Gemini Wolf Wrote: Being a slave is part of the experience. I understand that we knew we'd be in this form of societal slavery before we even came here. When in 4D, I don't think slavery will really be as prevalent. Though it might still exist in an unintentional manner. but maybe without the veil in 4D it's possible that no slavery will exist any longer. After all, it appears to be perfectly harmonious. I wonder: In a 4D-negative environment- do the inhabitants openly acknowledge their enslavement? Or do they continue to operate under the illusion of freedom? (01-04-2012, 11:12 AM)Meerie Wrote: is unintentional slavery also unconscious slavery? The Aaron/Q’uo Dialogues, Session 10 Quote:January 17, 1993 RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - Steppingfeet - 01-04-2012 Quote:83.13 Questioner: I would say that a very high percentage of the laws and restrictions within what we call our legal system are of a nature of enslavement of which I just spoke. Would you agree with this? Here Ra states the the "intention of law" is to protect. To protect something, I presume, in genera, involves the stoppage of one entities free will in order to preserve another entity's free will. -------------------------- Off-the-cuff examples: --An entity makes a unique product. They wish to have their work protected from infringement. They receive a patent prohibiting the will of other entities who may wish to duplicate the product for their own gain. The inventor's free will is protected, the will of the entity intending infringement is stopped. --Entity A wishes to live. Entity B wishes that Entity A not live. A law, or codified set of rules on acceptable and non-acceptable actions, is created to protect Entity A against murder, making it a crime to kill Entity A. Entity A's free will is protected, the will of the would-be murderer is limited. ---------------------------- I recognize that this is simplistic, and that those creating (and influencing the creation of) laws intend not always the protection of an other-self for the maximum use of the other's free will, but rather protection of their own interest, namely the increase of power and profit at the expense of others. It would seem however that this protection of one entity, or many entities - be it protection of their physical vehicles, their activities, the fruits of their labor, i.e., protection of some form of their free will - necessarily involves what Ra called "an equal distortion towards imprisonment", because to protect one entity is to put a limit on the free will of another. Perhaps in a pre-veil society, or 4th-density positively oriented society, there is no desire to infringe on the free will of another, so no institutions need be established to create and enforce and review law. No rulebook need be made for how individuals and groups ought to properly relate to one another, because individuals/groups in pre-veil and post-veil societies are not separated from oneness by a veiled conscious mind. They naturally act in accord with the first distortion, honoring it fully because there is no possibility to do otherwise. With the veil, and subsequent confusion regarding the true nature of the self, inevitably follows law, it would seem, because entities in their confusion seek to infringe upon the free will of others. At base then the spirit of the law is to protect from infringement. Much love, GLB RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - Diana - 01-04-2012 In my opinion, we are only slaves to what we are attached to. Examples: -You can participate in society, without needing to, just being. At a party for instance, just talking with people about what enlivens them, and enjoying their happiness in a subject without judging it as inane or irrelevant. Once you judge it, you are emotionally attached. -You can have a mortgage, but lose your house for whatever reason. If you are emotionally attached to the situation, you will cling to the house and the event, which makes you a slave to it. Another choice is to say, Okay, this is what is, now. And put your energy into moving on. -You can participate in a corrupt election without being attached to the outcome. By participating you stand in your integrity to be responsible, send a message, etc., but you do not have to get embroiled in the drama or the outcome (which all may be illusionary anyway). -You can participate in the exchange of goods with money, without anger. That doesn't mean you don't recognize corruption or put your head in the sand, or fail to discern that the system needs changing. But while it is in place, you can use money without being emotionally attached to it. If your energy is: rich people suck, or, money is evil, you are essentially telling the "universe" that abundance is bad and becoming a slave to the corrupt system. You can maintain detachment by recognizing that money is nothing but choices; and a corrupt government and banking system is nothing but drama. I don't pretend to be able to do this as well as I would like, but here is an example in my own life: A publisher, whom I had been with for a long time, stole an idea from me after I proposed it. This is a huge infraction in the business. I could have sued. But I decided not to. It would have attached me to the event, for a long time. I chose to use my energy to start a new business instead, putting my focus on something positive and forward. In this way, you also continue to create on a consistent basis the reality you want to be in, rather than reinforcing the reality you dislike. RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - βαθμιαίος - 01-04-2012 (01-04-2012, 11:48 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: If I may be so bold, it appears to me that 83.9 directly refutes your conjecture: Not necessarily -- that's referring to intentional enslavement, while we're discussing unintentional. (01-04-2012, 11:48 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Perhaps my read is a bit obtuse- but if "all are seen as one" what would be the purpose of "codification of response"? Wouldn't one be considered free to respond to oneself as one desires? By the same token, what would the purpose of governmental structures be? Ra said they were produced by disharmony. It seems to me that attempts to codify response are a logical consequence of attempts to deal with disharmony in a structural way. That could be just my own presumptions speaking, though. (01-04-2012, 11:48 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: As regards Atlantis- I don't really know. Are you aware of any other resources on Atlantis that speak directly to this? No. RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - Tenet Nosce - 01-04-2012 (01-04-2012, 01:09 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: Not necessarily -- that's referring to intentional enslavement, while we're discussing unintentional. I appear to be struggling with how "unintentional slavery" could exist in a society without the veil. Can you think of any possible scenarios? βαθμιαίος Wrote:By the same token, what would the purpose of governmental structures be? Ra said they were produced by disharmony. It seems to me that attempts to codify response are a logical consequence of attempts to deal with disharmony in a structural way. That could be just my own presumptions speaking, though. Here is an example: Let's say a given society were to agree to the existence of a common store of foodstuffs, such as a granary. A governmental structure may be put in place to attend to the administration and distribution of said foodstuffs to the populace. The notion that one must adhere to a codified behavioral system in order to access said foodstuffs need not necessarily apply. I can see the possibility for one, and not the other. A given society could choose that all people have the right/ability to draw from common resource pools irrespective of their behavior and/or social status. Though, according to our historical record, these two concepts appear to have gone hand-in-hand. (01-04-2012, 11:10 AM)Oceania Wrote: if you don't pay your taxes, the irs comes and shoots you. Oh, come now, the IRS wouldn't shoot ya! That would result in the dissolution of your slave status. ![]() (01-04-2012, 12:29 PM)Diana Wrote: In my opinion, we are only slaves to what we are attached to. An interesting thought. I observe there are many similar, but fundamentally different, words which are used to describe one's relationship to law. Besides attachment, one might use adherence or accordance. For example, an individual (or sovereign) might choose to live in accordance with a given set of laws. However this would not subject them to retribution should their actions appear as discordant to others. I find these particularly fascinating: The Precepts of Ptah-Hotep Wrote:Beginning of the arrangement of the good sayings, spoken by the noble lord, the divine father, beloved of Ptah, the son of the king, the first-born of his race, the prefect and feudal lord Ptah-hotep, so as to instruct the ignorant in the knowledge of the arguments of the good sayings. It is profitable for him who hears them, it is a loss to him who shall transgress them. The Precepts of Ptah-Hotep Wrote:But good words are more difficult to find than the emerald, for it is by slaves that that is discovered among the rocks of pegmatite. The Precepts of Ptah-Hotep Wrote:If you abase yourself in obeying a superior, your conduct is entirely good before Ptah. Knowing who you ought to obey and who you ought to command, do not lift up your heart against him. As you know that in him is authority, be respectful toward him as belonging to him. Wealth comes only at Ptah's own good-will, and his caprice only is the law; as for him who . . Ptah, who has created his superiority, turns himself from him and he is overthrown. RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - Oceania - 01-04-2012 they would to make an example. ![]() RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - Tenet Nosce - 01-04-2012 Some additional possibly unconnected information: http://www.thenileandegypt.com/deities.html Quote:Ra was also closely connected to the Pharaoh, Egypt's king. While the king ruled earth, Ra was the master of the universe so they were of the same nature and were in effect a mirror image of each other. Interestingly, up until the 2nd Dynasty [ca. 2900 - 2700 BCE], there is an absence of references on Ra, but his development began in the late 2nd Dynasty and matured through the 5th Dynasty [ca. 2500 - 2350 BCE]. Ra became more and more associated with the king, who was both human and a god at once, embodied in the falcon named Horus and by the 4th Dynasty, referred to as the son of Ra. Hence, a relationship also developed between Horus and Ra as they were merged in the symbol of a winged sun disk, an icon that remained constant in Temples and religious monuments through the end of Egyptian history. (01-04-2012, 12:18 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: Here Ra states the the "intention of law" is to protect. To protect something, I presume, in genera, involves the stoppage of one entities free will in order to preserve another entity's free will. What if said protection was originally intended by the self toward the other, rather than the reverse? For example, as a healer/physician one might swear to an oath to abide by a certain sort of conduct. By taking this oath, it might grant a certain protection to the people against charlatanism. Bring4th_GLB Wrote:Off-the-cuff examples: Some off-the-cuff responses: Bring4th_GLB Wrote:--An entity makes a unique product. They wish to have their work protected from infringement. They receive a patent prohibiting the will of other entities who may wish to duplicate the product for their own gain. Why would said entity feel that it is an infringement to have their work duplicated by others? And why would said entity feel they have an exclusive right to gain from such a contribution? Bring4th_GLB Wrote:--Entity A wishes to live. Entity B wishes that Entity A not live. A law, or codified set of rules on acceptable and non-acceptable actions, is created to protect Entity A against murder, making it a crime to kill Entity A. Doesn't Entity A continue to live despite what actions Entity B may take toward their body? Bring4th_GLB Wrote:It would seem however that this protection of one entity, or many entities - be it protection of their physical vehicles, their activities, the fruits of their labor, i.e., protection of some form of their free will - necessarily involves what Ra called "an equal distortion towards imprisonment", because to protect one entity is to put a limit on the free will of another. I wonder: If there were no veil, would the whole notion of "protecting" the self from other-self make any sense? I also wonder: Even if we allow for the defense of one's own body or intentions against the actions of another- by what principle does it make sense to assign the responsibility for self-protection to a third party? I also wonder: By what standard do we discern whose intention takes precedence, with respect to the form and purpose of the law? Could we possibly dissociate the concept of "law" from "protection"? Is that desirable? If so, how might we accomplish this? Bring4th_GLB Wrote:They naturally act in accord with the first distortion, honoring it fully because there is no possibility to do otherwise. I also imagine such accordance to be the case. Bring4th_GLB Wrote:With the veil, and subsequent confusion regarding the true nature of the self, inevitably follows law, it would seem, because entities in their confusion seek to infringe upon the free will of others. At base then the spirit of the law is to protect from infringement. I wonder if- in a very literal sense- the law is a physical manifestation of the veil. I don't seem to be able to identify a legal concept which is not predicated upon the separation of self and other. RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - Tenet Nosce - 01-04-2012 (01-03-2012, 04:51 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Consider what would happen if you: (01-04-2012, 03:18 AM)Eric Wrote: I agree with your 10 examples- they are exactly such things that would elicit codified responses, as Ra would say. However so I do not agree that we are all slaves. I would say we are less than entirely free, as it were. Perhaps I am walking a fine line but I believe that one can be not-free and not a slave simultaneously, when living under a set of genuinely well intended laws, and when there exists a form a government with some degree of citizenry participation (elections, etc). What would you say it means to be a slave? I have been framing it in terms of forced response, which would appear to be by definition a violation of free will. RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - Plenum - 01-04-2012 (01-04-2012, 04:15 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: What would you say it means to be a slave? I have been framing it in terms of forced response, which would appear to be by definition a violation of free will.What does it mean to be a slave? funny. I was pondering just the EXACT same thing a few moments ago. we have to begin with some sort of common understanding of the terms involved. I would phrase it thus: in a STS organisation/society/relationship/family, the Free Will of one individual is IMPOSED on the others by the use of Threats. If you 'don't do this, then this will happen'. It can be blackmail, the threat of physical force (I'll smash your head in), you'll lose your job, etc. It is based on fear. And so a STS outcome is achieved because the Free Will of the underlings is 'enslaved' to the Master. Much like a military organisation (which I think Ra mentions as one of the best examples of a STS group). Strictly hierarchical, do what your superior tells you to. in a STO group, people achieve an outcome because they 'want to'. In an ideal world, they are free to come and go if they 'disagree' with the direction or activities of the group. They are not 'forced' to participate. Free Will of all participants is preserved. unintentional slavery in a STO sense might be something like peer pressure, wanting to create 'standards' for the group (a set level of mimimum contributions or you get kicked out), and I can't think of anything else atm. the application of the Veil has created some very intriguing and subtle situations. RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - βαθμιαίος - 01-04-2012 (01-04-2012, 01:38 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: I appear to be struggling with how "unintentional slavery" could exist in a society without the veil. Can you think of any possible scenarios? Here's an example that I was just thinking about in our own society: homework. We assign it to children because we think, basically, that it's good for them, but isn't it really forcing them to do something whether they want to or not? I could envision a pre-veil society where children are given tasks to do because it's considered good for them. (01-04-2012, 01:38 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Here is an example: Let's say a given society were to agree to the existence of a common store of foodstuffs, such as a granary. A governmental structure may be put in place to attend to the administration and distribution of said foodstuffs to the populace. Would there be rules about how much people had to contribute and how much they could receive? If so, that could easily lead to well-intentioned slavery. Ra said that the introduction of government structures pre-veil were results of disharmony. It just seems likely to me that a structural response to disharmony would involve creating rules about what type of actions were considered to induce disharmony and hence should be controlled. RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - Tenet Nosce - 01-05-2012 (01-04-2012, 09:34 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: Here's an example that I was just thinking about in our own society: homework. We assign it to children because we think, basically, that it's good for them, but isn't it really forcing them to do something whether they want to or not? I could envision a pre-veil society where children are given tasks to do because it's considered good for them. What if a child could choose from among a whole panoply of skills and academic interests and be trusted to act under their own inner guidance? Why must it be "assigned" to them by some other who thinks they know better what is the appropriate sequence for learning lessons? βαθμιαίος Wrote:Would there be rules about how much people had to contribute and how much they could receive? If so, that could easily lead to well-intentioned slavery. Yes, I see how it could lead to that. Though if such a system were truly transparent, it might be exceedingly difficult to manipulate. I would conjecture that if it were clear for all to see who was making the largest net contribution, and who was making the largest net withdrawal, behavior control through law wouldn't be necessary. βαθμιαίος Wrote:It just seems likely to me that a structural response to disharmony would involve creating rules about what type of actions were considered to induce disharmony and hence should be controlled. Well that certainly appears to be what happened! RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - βαθμιαίος - 01-05-2012 (01-05-2012, 01:10 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: What if a child could choose from among a whole panoply of skills and academic interests and be trusted to act under their own inner guidance? Why must it be "assigned" to them by some other who thinks they know better what is the appropriate sequence for learning lessons? Exactly! RE: STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery - Oceania - 01-05-2012 in lemuria they let the kids choose for themselves. |