Are those who don't honor logic deceitful egomaniacs?

[369Epsilon89/99]

Logic is like math or language. It is a measure and a tool for relating to the creation, for engaging in co-creation, and for deriving and expressing meaning within the creation. As with everything else, logic detached from the heart has no intrinsic value. Without the guidance of the heart, brainstem instinct, ego, and shadow impulses are capable of using logic in and of itself to justify distortion.

[369Epsilon89/99]

accidental double post

[Sacred Fool]

How interesting that, as I skim through this thread, I find no mention of the perspective of Confederation sources.  Maybe that stuff doesn't matter?  Who can say?

Q'uo, Hatton, others say repeatedly that the rational mind is useful within the illusion and not so helpful beyond that.  So, maybe this offers some perspective on the chatter here thus far?  Who can say?

Ra says the mind must be known (if one has spiritual interests) and silence is the key.  But why not just take a course in logic, he asked rhetorically?  Because understanding the surface illusion may come through logic, but understanding self comes through inward exploration, and there mind-chatter (including logic most of the time) is a big distraction.

So, what's the big deal, anyhow, he asked sardonically?  Well, wanderers putatively incarnate here to help raise the vibration of the planet and they do so very efficiently by raising their own personal vibration and this is done, not through mentation, but through the process of embracing the true heart of self.

Ergo, if you sense you have incarnated here as a wanderer, then let up on the mental emphasis and find that place in your heart where all converges as ALL in spacious delight.  You'll be glad that you did, I promise you.

Q.E.D.

[flofrog]

ALL in spacious delight.  

 .   reverence for life, Sacred Fool ?

[flofrog]

lol I went just reading Quan and the Daily quote thread,  and one of  the daily quotes  was this one, from Q'uo, January 6th, 1991

We begin now with your question upon the nature of the spirit complex and its relation to the entity you have called soul. We would begin by asking each to move in consciousness from the cerebral patterns of intellectual knowledge into the open heart and the wisdom that lies therein, for that wisdom is deeper, though conceptual and illogical rather than the ideation and ratiocination of the conscious mind, for much of the question which you ask is best answered by the wisdom of the heart rather than by strictly logical means.

[tadeus]

A late answer to the question of the thread, without stating to the other posts:

Logic is a great gift that comes with the brains - in opposite with the Ego.
The Ego can be seen as source for an deceitful egomaniacs - not the logic or the absence of it.

You will find any combination of deceitful egomaniacs out there - with and without logic thinking.

[Infinite Unity]

Ever since my teens, I've been torn between spiritual and skeptical thought, the main (or at least early main) reason for liking skeptical thought being the inconsistency and often dishonesty in the popular "alternative" stuff. The skeptics have the basic honesty and decency to at least try to make things add up, while "alternative" people very often lack that, indeed the majority of alternative "experts" seem to.

Well, "honesty and decency" is a rather moralizing way of putting it, and that's why I'm torn about the way I'm torn, the moralizing flavor of which has grown over the years, especially after waking up from having been sucked into a cult for a period of years.

I'm going to draw a simple and firm line between personal mysticism and the advancing of claims about stuff in which others and their lives are concerned. "Alternative" people tend to sell ideas above other things, but in doing it, they are often very dishonest in the sales-pitches. Here, there's however a distinction to be made between basic human errors which people deal with in various ways, including cognitive biases which all have, on the one hand, and choices people make related to that, in how to relate to the world and everything beyond the self, on the other hand.

Cognitive biases have been extensively described, and you can search and find plenty about them. For example, many "alternative" explanations rely on the Texas sharpshooter fallacy; more generally, studies have found that people go wrong in judging and deciding in formulaic ways wired into the human brain, automatically filtering information to end up with subjective conclusions sometimes at odds with what's actually there, sometimes merely unsupported by the data. Some think sloppier than others, though, and in large part (no idea exactly how large), effort and caring about accuracy also makes a difference, which however requires a basic willingness for self-questioning. When it really matters, any rigor less than the scientific methodology which "alternative" people often diss is guaranteed to lead to errors time and time again. Regarding that, willful ignorance makes intellectual honesty impossible.

Those who decide that their personal inner authority is greater than logic (including people who decide to believe something external as their "personal truth", when contrary to logic, on their inner whim), are basically placing the ego above all else in the entire creation. Recognition that logic is a greater authority than any and all individuals who exist is key to recognizing something greater than the personal self in terms of truth actually existing, without making it a matter of hierarchical order and authoritarianism. Without that recognition, intellectual maturity is left at the infantile level.

Some people simply prefer to play very fast and loose with claims about facts, despite having the "hardware" to easily be able to do better; it's quicker and easier to BS-think than to actually care about the quality of the thinking, something which always slows people down. People who mainly care about making others agree with things invest their energies into manipulation. I think that mainstream politicians, PR people, marketers, etc., tend to be just as slimy and repulsive in such things as quacks and spiritual charlatans.

Actually, in having a big soft spot for mystics and fringe thinkers who actually care instead of just generating or forwarding deceitful noise at maximum speed, here's a heuristic which may be controversial. Whenever someone "sells" something and there's a systematic pattern of dodging inconsistencies, or using impression management tactics to make people ignore that the inconsistencies are there, then the skeptical debunkers are basically right about that person unless strong evidence to the contrary is found.

Sometimes I want to leave the "alternative" worlds behind simply because of the festering mess of dishonesty which so often forms the core of its fabric. Skeptics, by contrast, acknowledge that humans are flawed and science is messy and unfinished business. I usually find the atheists and skeptical humanists to be better people, simply put, because they have more in the way of basic honesty. But at the same time I'm always inwardly a mystic, and it sucks when there's little good exchange related to that.

I believe confusion arises when we seek for answers outside ourselves. What your really doing is just harmonizing or relating to those that already fit your internal paradigm. Then rehash, maybe in new nuances, the same old thoughts. 

The Trust or worthiness or purity we find/see in others is directly connected to ourselves. It has large impacts. When we see an other self doing something ‘wrong’ we know it is from a place of pain, being wounded and is actually in need of healing/love.

[flofrog]

beautiful, l Infinite Unity

[Asolsutsesvyl]

How interesting that, as I skim through this thread, I find no mention of the perspective of Confederation sources.  Maybe that stuff doesn't matter?  Who can say?

Q'uo, Hatton, others say repeatedly that the rational mind is useful within the illusion and not so helpful beyond that.  [...] Ra says the mind must be known (if one has spiritual interests) and silence is the key.  [...]  Well, wanderers putatively incarnate here to help raise the vibration of the planet and they do so very efficiently by raising their own personal vibration and this is done, not through mentation, but through the process of embracing the true heart of self.

It may be good to ask some questions, rather than simply copy such answers from teachings as the final ones. That's especially relevant if you already have some questions, perhaps rooted in personal experience, and find in relation to them that standard answers in spiritual teachings are missing something. But it may work better for those who either don't have such personal burning questions or troubling experiences, or who shove it all aside in order to accept a few very simple answers.

Some good questions may be able to lead to something interesting. For a start... What does it mean to raise vibration? How well is that really done by people on this planet? What is it that wanderers do that really counts? What things genuinely help and genuinely hurt others?

If positivity is viewed purely as a passively radiated thing, and that simply "being a wanderer" is enough, then sure, there's no problem to be solved. But if not, then complexity explodes at once...

To show, in a more dramatic and somewhat darkly humorous way, the idea of why love is not enough, and why love in the absence of light can lead to horrible results, I've written a little short story, The big-hearted nuker.

Of course, the idea in that story is that deception is not countered by love, but instead it makes love its tool, making it serve destructive ends. In the intentionally ridiculous example, everyone involved may possibly enjoy themselves in pure bliss until nuclear annihilation becomes complete. However, ignorance is often enough, when combined with good intentions, to lead to bad results. Perfectly loving people can bring suffering and darkness without even having been deceived, simply because they didn't learn something.

But we do know that this is a world historically filled with deception and ignorance, and that there's plenty left of that to go around for the forseeable future, particularly in the self-replenishing area of deception.

What is the light? I think this must be answered unless love is to be limited in scope to a little bubble, which grows for a small time and then pops. But I don't think it's tricky to answer. Scientists work on it all the time. The light is the mapping of reality, making it viewable and graspable in a more complete and accurate way. If that is done well enough, then all that is left for good results is to also have good intentions.

Unfortunately, I think the "Confederation sources" are limited, perhaps filtered through the human minds which received them, in such a way that almost only love is covered well enough. From mainsteam science and philosophy, meanwhile, it is possible to extract a good enough covering of what the light is. Supposedly, there is also a possible synthesis, a type of unity, but... if so, maybe it does not belong to this age.

Even more unfortunately, current New Age spirituality follows the historical patterns of its predecessors. Here and there, something I can highly respect, a few who understand such teachings well can grow, in a way. You could call them unusually good at the love part, perhaps. But if you zoom out a little and look at the masses of people involved, you see confusion, and a culture in which many grifters exploit as many as they can. The sad truth is that the world of spiritual teachings largely teaches people to be slaves to those who want to fleece them, influential wolves in sheep's clothing among them. To be slaves by believing things which restrict and shape patterns of choices in self-reinforcing ways. I see a great sadness in all those who walk around in such mental chains.

What if there are people in this world who could do a lot to help others, but they don't, because they've been told some things which, when believed, cut them off from their true potential? And if you take a broader view at what people may be in this world to do than merely "spiritual activity", then a great deal of well-intentioned spiritual advice may fall into this category of potential straitjackets for wanderers.

Here, consider how Ra describes many scientists as very positive in orientation. And what did they do? Often it had nothing to do with spiritual teachings. But it shaped the future.

[Sacred Fool]

Raising one's vibratory rate is, I would suggest, a fairly simple concept.  A human is heir to 1st, 2nd & 3rd density vibrations and has an option to become sensitive to 4th density vibrations.  The pivot point is between 3rd--concern for the social reality--and 4th--concern for the spiritual reality.  Your happy nuker story is only concerned with the social reality, for example.  Prayer, devotion and communion with the heart of self are far beyond the scope your tale, in my view.  To move towards 4D is to find and work with spirit within self in order to begin to work with 4D light.

And light is not physical light which illumines from without.  Light is the light of spirit which illumines from within.  This is another excellent example of how 3D is concerned with illusion-based phenomena while the 4D sensitive person also embraces the way of spirit.
But the unfortunate situation is that one immersed in 3D cannot see the things of spirit and so conversation is very, very difficult.  And yet, as noted above, the option to move towards 4D remains.