What is the 'Conscience'?

[Adonai One]

Greatest good for greatest number of people has no place in your life?

None. It's disgusting and disconsiders the individual human subject. It advocates the inevitable hatred of man itself by the decree that someone knows how to make ME and EVERYONE ELSE happy by their own will. It claims that knowledge can be held by one institution over man, that one ministry, one rule, one will can dictate how things should be. I believe this is an illusion and will lead to the end of mankind.

[reeay]

lol you're using caps - is that shouting?

[Unbound]

Greatest good for greatest number of people has no place in your life?

None. It's disgusting and disconsiders the individual human subject. It advocates the inevitable hatred of man itself by the decree that someone knows how to make ME and EVERYONE ELSE happy by their own will. It claims that knowledge can be held by one institution over man, that one ministry, one rule, one will can dictate how things should be. I believe this is an illusion and will lead to the end of mankind.

I thought you believed in oneness and disdain separation? Wouldn't oneness of organization be in line with that? Or is oneness only relevant when it pertains to your own personal freedom?

[Adonai One]

Being aware of the rules allows you to simply become who you are in the present, ever-continuing moment.

Denying the rules and creating rules from said denials, tells you that you have to become who you are and that there is something to attain and negate further -- with no attainment in sight. What an illusion that is -- attainment.

One negation will always beget another. How larger do you want the latter to be? How much of this cycle can you bear? This is a question all polarities must answer.

The will negates. It exists by negation. Do you we accept the negation by seeing it for what it is? Or do we negate it and continue a greater mass of negation?

Laws create laws. Theories create theories. Rules create rules. How big do we want our rulebooks to be and do they serve us?

I thought there are no rules except the ones we create ourselves?

There are rules: They are beliefs based on what is held as false. We don't believe in the boogeyman exists under our bed because we have falsified him. He is not there. However, we have also falsified the idea that we are perfect as we are and that the beliefs we have are who we are.

So we create further negations of the beliefs that make our world. When will the cycle end?

[Unbound]

Being aware of the rules allows you to simply become who you are in the present, ever-continuing moment.

Denying the rules and creating rules from said denials, tells you that you have to become who you are and that there is something to attain and negate further -- with no attainment in sight. What an illusion that is -- attainment.

One negation will always beget another. How larger do you want the latter to be? How much of this cycle can you bear? This is a question all polarities must answer.

The will negates. It exists by negation. Do you we accept the negation by seeing it for what it is? Or do we negate it and continue a greater mass of negation?

Laws create laws. Theories create theories. Rules create rules. How big do we want our rulebooks to be and do they serve us?

I thought there are no rules except the ones we create ourselves?

There are rules: They are beliefs based on what is held as false. We don't believe in the boogeyman exists under our bed because we have falsified him. He is not there. However, we have also falsified the idea that we are perfect as we are and that the beliefs we have are who we are.

So we create further negations of the beliefs that make our world. When will the cycle end?

By your own philosophy isn't the cycle already over and it is just our attachment to the cycle that keeps our perception focused upon it?

[Adonai One]

Greatest good for greatest number of people has no place in your life?

None. It's disgusting and disconsiders the individual human subject. It advocates the inevitable hatred of man itself by the decree that someone knows how to make ME and EVERYONE ELSE happy by their own will. It claims that knowledge can be held by one institution over man, that one ministry, one rule, one will can dictate how things should be. I believe this is an illusion and will lead to the end of mankind.

I thought you believed in oneness and disdain separation? Wouldn't oneness of organization be in line with that? Or is oneness only relevant when it pertains to your own personal freedom?

Oneness by separation is indefinite separation. This kind of oneness is illusory and is based on indefinite self-denial by lawful decree.

Conformity is oneness by assimilation. Assimilation is not my ideal of unity.

Unity is inherent even in assimilation. My ideal of unity is seeing as it exists now, not when the world has reached a utopic ideal.

[Unbound]

Greatest good for greatest number of people has no place in your life?

None. It's disgusting and disconsiders the individual human subject. It advocates the inevitable hatred of man itself by the decree that someone knows how to make ME and EVERYONE ELSE happy by their own will. It claims that knowledge can be held by one institution over man, that one ministry, one rule, one will can dictate how things should be. I believe this is an illusion and will lead to the end of mankind.

I thought you believed in oneness and disdain separation? Wouldn't oneness of organization be in line with that? Or is oneness only relevant when it pertains to your own personal freedom?

Oneness by separation is indefinite separation. This kind of oneness is illusory and is based on indefinite self-denial by lawful decree.

Conformity is oneness by assimilation. Assimilation is not my ideal of unity.

Unity is inherent even in assimilation. My ideal of unity is seeing as it exists now, not when the world has reached a utopic ideal.

So then why do you seem to have an issue with all the 'rules' if your ideal already currently exists? If your philosophy is that all is to be accepted and all is good and everything is perfect, then why are you having thoughts of opposition or adversarial-ism?

It seems your ideal of unity is exclusive, which, to me, is very separative.

---

Simply, it does not appear to me that you are practicing what you are preaching.

[Adonai One]

Greatest good for greatest number of people has no place in your life?

None. It's disgusting and disconsiders the individual human subject. It advocates the inevitable hatred of man itself by the decree that someone knows how to make ME and EVERYONE ELSE happy by their own will. It claims that knowledge can be held by one institution over man, that one ministry, one rule, one will can dictate how things should be. I believe this is an illusion and will lead to the end of mankind.

I thought you believed in oneness and disdain separation? Wouldn't oneness of organization be in line with that? Or is oneness only relevant when it pertains to your own personal freedom?

Oneness by separation is indefinite separation. This kind of oneness is illusory and is based on indefinite self-denial by lawful decree.

Conformity is oneness by assimilation. Assimilation is not my ideal of unity.

Unity is inherent even in assimilation. My ideal of unity is seeing as it exists now, not when the world has reached a utopic ideal.

So then why do you seem to have an issue with all the 'rules' if your ideal already currently exists? If your philosophy is that all is to be accepted and all is good and everything is perfect, then why are you having thoughts of opposition or adversarial-ism?

It seems your ideal of unity is exclusive, which, to me, is very separative.

---

Simply, it does not appear to me that you are practicing what you are preaching.

Because this is who I am now and I accept my desires in this regard. They are perhaps attached but I would be happy with any result, even if the world became what I didn't desire.

I am not absolute. I simply allow myself to express emotion without suppression.

I prefer acceptance of all things to a great deal of measure. That entails I will not force people in my ideal but I surely will express it.

I practice my philosophy by not hurting others nor convicting myself towards an absolute end. That is how I practice detachment and I am doing well in that regard. The fact I express myself without suppression shows that I am practicing this quite well.

I genuinely feel everything is in unity in this moment, even if this world was under total tyranny but I certainly would not prefer it.

[Unbound]

None. It's disgusting and disconsiders the individual human subject. It advocates the inevitable hatred of man itself by the decree that someone knows how to make ME and EVERYONE ELSE happy by their own will. It claims that knowledge can be held by one institution over man, that one ministry, one rule, one will can dictate how things should be. I believe this is an illusion and will lead to the end of mankind.

I thought you believed in oneness and disdain separation? Wouldn't oneness of organization be in line with that? Or is oneness only relevant when it pertains to your own personal freedom?

Oneness by separation is indefinite separation. This kind of oneness is illusory and is based on indefinite self-denial by lawful decree.

Conformity is oneness by assimilation. Assimilation is not my ideal of unity.

Unity is inherent even in assimilation. My ideal of unity is seeing as it exists now, not when the world has reached a utopic ideal.

So then why do you seem to have an issue with all the 'rules' if your ideal already currently exists? If your philosophy is that all is to be accepted and all is good and everything is perfect, then why are you having thoughts of opposition or adversarial-ism?

It seems your ideal of unity is exclusive, which, to me, is very separative.

---

Simply, it does not appear to me that you are practicing what you are preaching.

Because this is who I am now and I accept my desires in this regard. They are perhaps attached but I would be happy with any result, even if the world became what I didn't desire.

I am not absolute. I simply allow myself to express emotion without suppression.

I prefer acceptance of all things to a great deal of measure. That entails I will not force people in my ideal but I surely will express it.

I practice my philosophy by not hurting others nor convicting myself towards an absolute end. That is how I practice detachment and I am doing well in that regard. The fact I express myself without suppression shows that I am practicing this quite well.

I genuinely feel everything is in unity in this moment, even if this world was under total tyranny but I certainly would not prefer it.

So, you do indeed have a preference as to the way things are structured?

[Adonai One]

I thought you believed in oneness and disdain separation? Wouldn't oneness of organization be in line with that? Or is oneness only relevant when it pertains to your own personal freedom?

Oneness by separation is indefinite separation. This kind of oneness is illusory and is based on indefinite self-denial by lawful decree.

Conformity is oneness by assimilation. Assimilation is not my ideal of unity.

Unity is inherent even in assimilation. My ideal of unity is seeing as it exists now, not when the world has reached a utopic ideal.

So then why do you seem to have an issue with all the 'rules' if your ideal already currently exists? If your philosophy is that all is to be accepted and all is good and everything is perfect, then why are you having thoughts of opposition or adversarial-ism?

It seems your ideal of unity is exclusive, which, to me, is very separative.

---

Simply, it does not appear to me that you are practicing what you are preaching.

Because this is who I am now and I accept my desires in this regard. They are perhaps attached but I would be happy with any result, even if the world became what I didn't desire.

I am not absolute. I simply allow myself to express emotion without suppression.

I prefer acceptance of all things to a great deal of measure. That entails I will not force people in my ideal but I surely will express it.

I practice my philosophy by not hurting others nor convicting myself towards an absolute end. That is how I practice detachment and I am doing well in that regard. The fact I express myself without suppression shows that I am practicing this quite well.

I genuinely feel everything is in unity in this moment, even if this world was under total tyranny but I certainly would not prefer it.

So, you do indeed have a preference as to the way things are structured?

But I do not believe it is true. I am an Ironist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironism

[Unbound]

Oneness by separation is indefinite separation. This kind of oneness is illusory and is based on indefinite self-denial by lawful decree.

Conformity is oneness by assimilation. Assimilation is not my ideal of unity.

Unity is inherent even in assimilation. My ideal of unity is seeing as it exists now, not when the world has reached a utopic ideal.

So then why do you seem to have an issue with all the 'rules' if your ideal already currently exists? If your philosophy is that all is to be accepted and all is good and everything is perfect, then why are you having thoughts of opposition or adversarial-ism?

It seems your ideal of unity is exclusive, which, to me, is very separative.

---

Simply, it does not appear to me that you are practicing what you are preaching.

Because this is who I am now and I accept my desires in this regard. They are perhaps attached but I would be happy with any result, even if the world became what I didn't desire.

I am not absolute. I simply allow myself to express emotion without suppression.

I prefer acceptance of all things to a great deal of measure. That entails I will not force people in my ideal but I surely will express it.

I practice my philosophy by not hurting others nor convicting myself towards an absolute end. That is how I practice detachment and I am doing well in that regard. The fact I express myself without suppression shows that I am practicing this quite well.

I genuinely feel everything is in unity in this moment, even if this world was under total tyranny but I certainly would not prefer it.

So, you do indeed have a preference as to the way things are structured?

But I do not believe it is true. I am an Ironist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironism

I don't get what you mean by you don't believe it is true. As in you don't believe in your own preference?

[Adonai One]

I don't believe it is a universal truth nor can it be a justified true belief in the epistemological sense.

[Unbound]

I don't believe it is a universal truth nor can it be a justified true belief in the epistemological sense.

I still don't get what you mean, as in you don't see your preference as universal or a true belief? Are you trying to say you have the preference without having the preference?

[Adonai One]

I have no convictions, no commitments, no sense of objective knowledge. I have only beliefs with varying probabilities of consistencies with the world around us. What has been consistent to me is that men with purported truth have faltered after a new series of perceptions and beliefs/doubts change them.

I am not impressed by any doctrine, knowledge or other foundational truth. I believe in what is practical and what works: Not in inevitable attainments that may falter in their predicted form.

This world has been failed by truth that has never panned out, by promises that were never meant to work. What man may believe it needs is the realization that it is inherently coherent with who it is right now and that no matter how much you change the world around you, you will have to look in the mirror and accept all that you have been and everything you've done and potentially will do.

[Unbound]

I have no convictions, no commitments, no sense of objective knowledge. I have only beliefs with varying probabilities of consistencies with the world around us. What has been consistent to me is that men with purported truth have faltered after a new series of perceptions and beliefs/doubts change them.

I am not impressed by any doctrine, knowledge or other foundational truth. I believe in what is practical and what works: Not in inevitable attainments that may falter in their predicted form.

This world has been failed by truth that has never panned out, by promises that were never meant to work. What man may believe it needs is the realization that it is inherently coherent with who it is right now and that no matter how much you change the world around you, you will have to look in the mirror and accept all that you have been and everything you've done and potentially will do.

Yet, that being said, all said "failures" were actually just part of the unified experience of the whole and are not/were not failures but rather procedural development of conscious awareness?

[Adonai One]

But of course. However to consider the universe simply "procedural development" is but a condensation of something that has infinite interpretations that will inevitably be reconciled to another series of experiences and mental vocabularies.

All I advocate is being practical and not just supporting something for the sake of supporting existing beliefs but seeing what actually exists and then acting from the fact that change will always occur and accounting for it, working around it instead of attempting to negate it by creating fortresses for every possible anomaly.

[reeay]

All I advocate is that these concepts be examined a bit closer before critique be made about them.

[Adonai One]

What do I not understand, Rie? Since the age of 12 I've argued against social contract theory.

[Nicholas]

The conscience in my understanding is con (together or with) science (to know).

In other words we operate or are in alliance with what we have come to know as true and correct behaviour.

This is in my view why most peeps do not want to seek as it infringes upon their own distortions (illusions) and modifying their behaviour (attitude) or processing catalyst would result in confronting one's self.

Sometimes people do not want to hear the truth as they don't want their illusions destroyed - Friedrich Nietzsche

[AnthroHeart]

I've always said if the veil was taken away we'd all go mad. The unconditional love would be too much to bear. So we are comfortable in our illusion.

[Karl]

I usually view the conscience as a weakness that has to be overcome.