The August 1, 2005 Dinner and a Dead Guy Session called "Rose Colored Glasses" started out with Janie in Oregon talking about a concept taken from the Lazarus material on 'the negative ego'.

As the evening unfolded, the conversation grew from a discussion into a very heated and 'Passionate' debate with a few of us becoming quite voisterous.

From what I gather, the session started around 4:30 / 5 o'clock-ish (California time) and the debate and conversation lasted until around 11 PM.

This discussion even overflowed into the Aug.15th DAADG Session, but I won't get into that one just yet.

As I go through the transcript I will pull tidbits out and post them here for your enjoyment, as I always do.

quote:

---

However, as we have hinted, personal and collective convictions are one of several determining factors in the behavior of the individual or the group, or even the entire collective. It becomes important to identify these items and specifically that the ego is a psychological construct and it holds no definite actions that are labeled negative or positive. And it is also important to recognize that the responsibility is with the individual that chooses to engage various conviction patterns. Without that recognition, the individual or the collective acts by default.

The individual or the collective will feel swayed and influenced and even controlled by forces it would consider outside of itself, foreign to it. And if the individual, and ultimately the collective, are to recognize their own divine origins, then there is a much, and long overdue need to examine what factors influence the lives of the individual or the collective. [q]Without such an examination, you will continue living your lives as if there is a force outside of your self that ultimately can nullify whom and what you are.[/b]

---

quote:

---

The individual is an amalgamation of all of these factors. The individuality is composed of many, many factors, and only by understanding the individual - YOUR individuality - can you come to the conclusion that you can indeed transform consciousness, YOUR consciousness. It is not sufficient to say: "Today I am thinking pretty thoughts, and therefore my entire day will be pretty" at the expense of everything else you will feel during the course of your day. Does that make any sense to any of you?

---

quote:

---

Your own neurological structure is so sophisticated, that even with all of their hard-earned knowledge, your best scientific minds can marvel at the wonders of your brain and neurological system and make concerted efforts to explain some of it, but are at a loss to how and why it works. And the determining factor is YOU - the individual. Without your individuality, animating the imagery of your body, there is no reality as you understand it.

---

quote:

---

Your most precious and lovely individuality is what separates you from what you call the "dead body." That spark of energy or of life is often unrecognized even by your lovely selves. And yet the energy encapsulated within that one spark of individuality is such that all of the reality and the worlds that you know are instantaneously manifested from one leap to another, from one blink to another. That spark of individuality contains more energy than a billion suns put together because the suns, the planets, the solar systems, the entire spectrum of reality is projected FROM that spark of individuality. Such is its creative power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaust:
Hey Mark, From these excerpts, it is difficult to see what the controversy was...
Anyway, waiting for the transcript, Kaust.

---

I haven't gotten to the controversy yet, but I suspect that I will tease everyone by making them read the transcript to discover what it was anyway.

quote:

---

KRIS: Indeed, now we have briefly touched upon this in discussions in the past, about the great global disaster that was manmade. A great war followed by disturbances in the weather patterns and so on, and so forth. If you notice all of the major religions today, those that were founded 2500 to 3000 years past, all have a common thread: that the individual is tainted and flawed, that the individual, even before his or her birth has already seen that there is a spark of what you refer to as evil within the person. And that flaw, that stain -- what is in the Judeo-Christian view called the original sin -- is feared, and therefore the major world religions are set up in such a way as to try and mitigate the evil that that stain or flaw can unleash onto the world. Do you understand?

---

quote:

---

It is individuals like yourselves, by your deeds, and your words, and your actions, and your authenticity, and your integrity, that can indeed show others that it is possible to experience a different kind of reality altogether. And you still do this with the full knowledge and awareness that there are those in your societies that have become far too fearful of that inner reality and must therefore strongly adhere to the dogmas and principles of orthodox religious teachings; and therefore live in their own pretty bubble until they eventually recognize that what they considered to be a Divine Being outside of their own realm, is merely a projection of their own beliefs about their iniquity.

What they fear the most is projected outwardly into their god, a god that would be vengeful, merciless -- even though they will try to speak of that Being as simultaneously being merciful -- but they cannot reconcile it until and unless they reconcile their own knowledge of self. And that knowledge of self is that you are the Divine Being in question. You are basically then, rediscovering your own divinity. And we are not speaking here at the superficial, infantile level, where anyone may think that they can do anything they want, and everything is fine. That is also narcissistic. Does that answer the question somehow?

---

quote:

---

Indeed, one should take appropriate action, but overall, pathological behavior of such nature - destructive behavior of such nature - is also a communication. Just as your thoughts are communicating to you the realities and the beliefs that you hold, so do such individuals communicate to the society what that society is neglecting to address. Often society as a whole will stick its head in the sand thinking there is nothing going on. Do you understand?

(Yes)

The longer the collective head is buried in the sand denying there is anything in need of addressing, then the stronger that cancer becomes because it is not being addressed. It is a social cancer in the same manner that symptoms and diseases in the body are a last ditch attempt to communicate that you have avoided your responsibility to your body and your emotions. So those pathologies at the social level are a communication that the society, the culture, has neglected its responsibilities and has acted like a collective ostrich sticking its head in the psychological sand.

---

quote:

---

KRIS: It comes about as a result of a lack of fulfillment and you have, especially in North America, two kinds of existences. There is the existence that the consumption, the consummation of goods and services will bring about happiness; but the flip side of the coin is that people are not specifically any happier. In fact, they are even unhappier than they were. And though we are making a generalization, the statistics will show that there is an increase in the usage of dangerous drugs in your societies and very much so with even the younger crowds. This leads to a specific dilemma. It is a symptom and a communication, and like a cancer it can spread as it already is, and as a result, the society is crippled.

This hinders the society's abilities to unfold toward its objectives and simultaneously the challenge that is taken upon by the individual incorporates the challenge itself. So it is a very difficult quest that your culture, globally and locally, is seeking to bring about with Balance and Harmony. It is indeed GREATER than any of the challenges have been attempted in many, many decades, because this time you cannot use a bomb and blow them away. This time there is a global awareness that literally demands better, more carefully thought out solutions be utilized and in a pro-active manner.

But you are not yet there. It will take time still, but the potentials are great because the efforts are quite great to bring about an acknowledgement and addressing and accepting of the situation. So it is indeed a tremendous challenge, one that demands that the individual dig deep within and use all of his or her resources to bring about change, to bring about a new reality. But just like the birthing process - of which there is nothing pretty about - the end result gives a pretty infant. Do you follow?

---

Hi Rob,

What Drew was saying is that Kris is WRONG because there is no RIGHT or WRONG, but if Kris is WRONG then there is a RIGHT and WRONG. Do you see the oxymoron? Both statements can not be true.

By saying that there is no right or wrong, you are ultimately saying that it is okay to KILL anyone who does not share your beliefs.

Please remember that Kris was talking to PEOPLE, to FOCUS personalities, to EXPRESSIONS of ESSENCE and down here in the physical world there sure is right and wrong.

That is where dualism comes into play. We are Essence and we are simultaneously Expressions of Essence. From the perspective of Essence there is no right or wrong, good or bad, just different experiences. From the perspective of the Focus Personality there is right and wrong. Our very existance is a paradox.

When the ghosts talk about there being no right and wrong, what they are attempting to do is tear down the walls of the Judeo-Christian beliefs in heaven and hell and of judgement in the afterlife.

Hi Rob..

Yes I agree with your last statement: terrorist bombings is something we will get thru, which Kris was talking about I think and that we must look at what we are doing and not stick our heads in the sand.

That was the gist of his presentation, however, I must also partially disagree with your other statement even wen i agree with part of it as well: there is no right or wrong just things we created as a play, a game, as experience.

I agree that at some Essence level there is no right and wrong, but while we are physical is it a violation to take another life, even if at some OTHER level (ESSENCE) there is no right or wrong. In fact that IS what Elias is trying to present in the link below.

At some "OTHER" layer or level of our being that may be true, but remember that Kris' audience is not limited to people sitting in Paul and Jo's living room, we get about 2 thousand visits on the website a week... that is also his larger audience at the moment.

That said, we must also realize that we live in a temporal, duplicity filled world of everday events. For instance, it would not be suitable or even agreeable for you to have your baby snatched from its crib, killed outright and then tell the judge: "But your Honor, there is no right and wrong, we are all here for the play, the game and the experience"!

I'm almost certain the judge would not smile and nod in agreement, and neither would you.

We must keep things in context.

What IS of importance, and I think in the larger scheme of what Kris is trying to approach, even if with some controversy, is the issue of VIOLATIONS!!!!

In fact.. in some of the 1998 sessions from Elias (http://www.eliasforum.org/digests/victims_perpetrators.html) there is a curiously interesting and very "deja-vue" discussion between a couple of people and Elias, and one of these people is Drew, holding onto the same argument with Elias from 1998 as he had with Kris in 2005. That is a period of 7 years on the same issue.

Even though this is a VERY complex issue, involving belief systems left right and centre, it is evident that many people would rather just have it watered down to only a couple of lines of text and little else, perhaps because it is too challenging and complex, and we'd rather it be swept under the carpet so we can put on our rose colored glasses.

Another aspect of this as it appears in both Kris' and Elias' discussions on the topic is the mention of people holding specific beliefs, in this case about violations of one kind or another.

There is a very clever dance around the subject of beliefs from those challenging both Kris now and Elias in the 1998 sessions on this subject. From what I gather from ALL the sources (Seth, Elias, Kris, Abraham, Bashar to name a few), we come to physical life with ALL the belief systems in place and our intention and desire would in some way activate those beliefs needed to bring about the reality, whatever it is at that moment.

What is this talk of some not holding the beliefs? More to the point, why would the person asking the question act like "they" do not hold such beliefs, exactly as Elias is asking?! Somewhere in all the Kris transcripts Kris does address this very issue.

More to the point, why would anyone think that because they are not "CONSCIOUSLY" aware of a set of beliefs, they do not hold the beliefs, whatever they are??!! It is quite clear that in terms of subjective awareness, we are not consciously aware of ALL the beliefs we hold, so why claim that because we don't have immediate awareness of a set of beliefs, that we do not have those beliefs?

Kris once pointed out that physical reality itself is a complex set of convictions which means that those who participate in it hold all the beliefs necessary to make physical reality happen, each one filed with all the blueprints needed.

Upon a closer read of that session, it is evident that Drew is also trying to put words into Elias' mouth so to speak, even when Elias is trying to broaden the topic as well as bring in the realism of the situation, Drew won't have any of it... its either black or white for Drew even when Elias is trying to bring in the shades of grey!

What makes this even more interesting is that we do tend to think that because we don't have certain situations in this life, then we are free of the beliefs that may plague others. Are we so sure? There may well be other focusses in other 'places and times' that experiences some of the beliefs we may not be able to handle in this probability.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sergegrandbois:

That said, we must also realize that we live in a temporal, duplicity filled world of everday events. For instance, it would not be suitable or even agreeable for you to have your baby snatched from its crib, killed outright and then tell the judge: "But your Honor, there is no right and wrong, we are all here for the play, the game and the experience"!

I'm almost certain the judge would not smile and nod in agreement, and neither would you.

We must keep things in context.

---

What is your context?

You do not create your reality?

You do not draw people and events to you according to what beliefs you are choosing to express and the direction that you are choosing to move?

You are a victim?

Just curious,

Sailer,

Please stick to the topic at hand. You have this nasty tendancy to take a quote out of context and twist it into something that doesn't really make any sense.

We were talking about dualism. Do you have any comments regarding dualism? Do you have any comments as to whether there is such a thing as right and wrong?

Interesting that Drew has been battling over this same issue for so many years. The phrase, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink," comes to mind.

I've always thought, when hearing that axiom, "True, but the fact is the horse WILL get thirsty sooner or later."

Drew is drawn back, again and again, to these sessions. It seems he is VERY thirsty, but he judges the water to be unsatisfactory, so he refuses to drink. In the meantime, he's becoming quite parched and dehydrated.

The water is love, compassion, understanding, and the wisdom of the heart; which, as Paul said, is where Kris wrapped up the discussion, and where Drew and others who insist upon that relativistic point of view ultimately MUST drink from.

Drew's position keeps him in a place where he hopes he doesn't have to contend with the messiness of having to deal with love and hate and fear, with pain and loss and anger, with grief and tears, or even with joy and ecstasy.

Drew doesn't want to have to feel, but that's what the game is here in physicality. And the fact is, we've all been right where Drew is at one time or another. Sometimes I find myself going there again, just wanting to get 'above' it all so I don't have to indulge in painful feelings of angst, or remorse, or sympathy, or even overwhelming love, because it seems oh so very COMPLICATED, it's all so very MESSY and it just completely throws off my well-planned day, can't I just stick my head back in the nice dark and quiet sand here, where I won't have to look at or think about these awful things? And maybe then it will all go away......

But Drew DOES feel! He shows it all through the session, but he displaces his feelings, he projects his feelings onto others, like the London bombers: "Oh, surely they had a 'good' reason to do what they did? Surely in their way, they were fighting the 'evil' as they saw fit? Do they not merely wish to express their pain and anger? How can they be then judged 'wrong' or 'evil'? Are they not just like us, just like me?"

About a year or so back, there was an Elias group session where he talked about intrusiveness. Several people were a bit distressed by this session, as it seemed that Elias was taking on a more "chiding" and judgmental approach than he had in the past. He described intrusiveness as "unacceptable", and definitely made it seem as though he were taking back the whole "there is no right or wrong in Essence" concept.

But what I got out of it was that in OUR society, there most definitely is right and wrong, and there are actions that people take with the clear intention to cause harm to another person or group of people. When he described this as "unacceptable", I took it to mean that it was an ineffective means to accomplish whatever underlying goal one may have, and that in most cases, it serves to accomplish the opposite of our true intentions. In harming others, we are ultimately harming ourselves, and there is no situation for which it can be said that the most effective or efficient course of action is an intrusive or intentionally harmful one.

I think that's what the Dead Guys are getting at, but that's just my interpretation. The "cancer" that Kris describes seems to be the overall mentality that our goals and aspirations can be met through the pain and suffering of others.

For anyone who's interested, here's the Elias session about intrusiveness. http://www.eliasforum.org/transcripts/E1532_032004.html

Hi Steve.. yes.. it is a controversial subject, but one we can learn to take in, even in small doses till its full impact is absorbed.

Seth often said that "the ends do not justify the means", and he also often asked that people do not violate.

Kris has often also mentioned that if you must have a certain code of conduct, it should be "Do no harm to others".

Otherwise it can get nasty and into interpretations and distortions that somehow justify that it is OK to intrude, violate, because after all, its just a play.

Mark and I were toying with the extremes of the distortions that are so readily engaged last night. For instance, it is so easy to put a scalpel or other weapon to someone's jugular and say: "Our actions right now tell me you WANT me to slice your throat and kill you, so I will indulge the play".

That is not Essence or play. That is a criminal act and has nothing to do with this concept. Even if "someone" comes along and adds: "You do not draw people and events to you according to what beliefs you are choosing to express and the direction that you are choosing to move?"

Beliefs notwithstanding, there are no excuses that can justify such criminal acts.

I am FULLY aware of the Essence POV (point of view), as well as the focus pov, and we can't just willy nilly interchange them to suit our goals and moods (the ends do NOT justify the means).

There is a big difference for instance in understanding the harmful and severe dramas that unfold in cases of domestic violence, and understanding that there are heavey duty beliefs of duplicity and victimhood at play.

To tell a woman that is being abused that its just a play and there is no right or wrong, just beliefs, thus no harm being done and then just walk away leaving her to continue receiving physical or other abuses just because we might think we are superior and elevated above the struggles of the flesh, well it is itself a gross violation of human nature and disrespect for another's well being, and we are ourselves no better than the man who is abusing her.

As for being on the RECORD here, I abhor domestic violence to the max. I grew up in it, watche dmy mother be so often severely beaten till she had to be hospitalised. Back then the police would not interfere, considering it just a family dispute.

IT IS PLAIN WRONG!! Even if I understand all the intricate details of reality creation and belief engeneering involved.

Now if "someone" wants to make a federal Essence case out of that and still claim it is wrong to consider abuses as wrong.. hey, just put on the rose colored glasses!

Cheers,

Originally posted by Marky Mark:
"Hi Rob,

What Drew was saying is that Kris is WRONG because there is no RIGHT or WRONG, but if Kris is WRONG then there is a RIGHT and WRONG. Do you see the oxymoron? Both statements can not be true."

Thats right.

"By saying that there is no right or wrong, you are ultimately saying that it is okay to KILL anyone who does not share your beliefs."

No no, I'm not saying it is okay to kill someone, you are saying is not not right or wrong, it is something that is choosen by all parties involved in acknoledgement whit you beliefs.

"Please remember that Kris was talking to PEOPLE, to FOCUS personalities, to EXPRESSIONS of ESSENCE and down here in the physical world there sure is right and wrong."

Yep I agree that it is the reality currently.

"That is where dualism comes into play. We are Essence and we are simultaneously Expressions of Essence. From the perspective of Essence there is no right or wrong, good or bad, just different experiences. From the perspective of the Focus Personality there is right and wrong. Our very existance is a paradox."

I agree whit that, yet I feel more comfertable if Kris when he talks about right and wrong would lay more emphasis on the fact that it is the belief system of duplicity at work and that we have to accept that this is a belief system and that it influences our opinions, and that those opinions are not ultimatly the "truth".

I can understand drew when he says those bombers are doing what THEY think is right, and no that doesnt make it right what they do, but really doesnt make it wrong either in a wider sense, because it is what we, WE together create as an reality!

As for the situation as a whole, yet again it is what WE create, for a purpuse! So to call something that is purpusely created a cancer is kind of strange I think.

I think the point of this information is to accept that we create our reality and create it with our belief systems and that we have to accept them so that we are not bound by them. When passing judgement in the way that happend in the transcript I kind of feel your not accepting the belief system.

"When the ghosts talk about there being no right and wrong, what they are attempting to do is tear down the walls of the Judeo-Christian beliefs in heaven and hell and of judgement in the afterlife.

- Mark -"[/b]

I think it's relevant to point out one very important concept that both Kris and Elias keep reiterating and goes largely overlooked. The idea is that beliefs are very much a part of this reality. We incorporate beliefs, and therefore they are our reality. The point of the Shift in Consciousness is NOT to eliminate beliefs, but rather to suspend judgment in relation to those beliefs. Even after the Shift, we will continue to believe that one expression is right and another expression is wrong. Our ability to do that is part of our very existence in this reality.

The idea of "There is no right and wrong in Essence" ignores the reality that right now, most people, including myself, are largely unaware of the freedom they hold in the moment to not be a victim, and to not have any experience that they don't wish to have. Therefore, being unaware of my choices, I would fall into the role of a victim if someone tries to harm me. My response would be automatic, and I would translate the perpetrator's energy in a way similar to the manner in which is was intended, causing harm to me. If we were all more aware of the choices we held in the moment, and of the freedom we have to choose our experiences, I feel that intrusiveness and hurtful expressions would diminish greatly, and even be eliminated because we would find that sort of behavior unnecessary.

Originally posted by sergegrandbois:
"Hi Rob..

Yes I agree with your last statement: "terrorist bombings is something we will get thru, which Kris was talking about I think and that we must look at what we are doing and not stick our heads in the sand."

That was the gist of his presentation, however, I must also partially disagree with your other statement even wen i agree with part of it as well: "there is no right or wrong just things we created as a play, a game, as experience."

I agree that at some Essence level there is no right and wrong, but while we are physical is it a violation to take another life, even if at some OTHER level (ESSENCE) there is no right or wrong. In fact that IS what Elias is trying to present in the link below.

At some "OTHER" layer or level of our being that may be true, but remember that Kris' audience is not limited to people sitting in Paul and Jo's living room, we get about 2 thousand visits on the website a week... that is also his larger audience at the moment.

That said, we must also realize that we live in a temporal, duplicity filled world of everday events. For instance, it would not be suitable or even agreeable for you to have your baby snatched from its crib, killed outright and then tell the judge: "But your Honor, there is no right and wrong, we are all here for the play, the game and the experience"!

I'm almost certain the judge would not smile and nod in agreement, and neither would you.

We must keep things in context.

Yes and that is that we hold belief system and that things are not outright wrong or right!

"What IS of importance, and I think in the larger scheme of what Kris is trying to approach, even if with some controversy, is the issue of VIOLATIONS!!!!

In fact.. in some of the 1998 sessions from Elias (http://www.eliasforum.org/digests/victims_perpetrators.html) there is a curiously interesting and very "deja-vue" discussion between a couple of people and Elias, and one of these people is Drew, holding onto the same argument with Elias from 1998 as he had with Kris in 2005. That is a period of 7 years on the same issue.

Even though this is a VERY complex issue, involving belief systems left right and centre, it is evident that many people would rather just have it watered down to only a couple of lines of text and little else, perhaps because it is too challenging and complex, and we'd rather it be swept under the carpet so we can put on our rose colored glasses.

Another aspect of this as it appears in both Kris' and Elias' discussions on the topic is the mention of people holding specific beliefs, in this case about violations of one kind or another.

There is a very clever dance around the subject of beliefs from those challenging both Kris now and Elias in the 1998 sessions on this subject. From what I gather from ALL the sources (Seth, Elias, Kris, Abraham, Bashar to name a few), we come to physical life with ALL the belief systems in place and our intention and desire would in some way activate those beliefs needed to bring about the reality, whatever it is at that moment.

What is this talk of some not holding the beliefs? More to the point, why would the person asking the question act like "they" do not hold such beliefs, exactly as Elias is asking?! Somewhere in all the Kris transcripts Kris does address this very issue."

No no, it is not acting like you don't hold beliefs (thats not my view anyway) it is knowing you do, and that those beliefs are there and infuence what you create. We have to accept those beliefs and know they are not the truth, if we do this we we hold more choices in what we create and less conflict in what we create.

So in the case of the bombers we can not just say it is wrong what they do, because we are as much resposible (on a level) as they, and the situation is [Edit= NOT] a cancer either to my view as it is an expirience WE CREATE FOR OURSELFS. Does this mean we shouldnt try to solve it, NO, we should try, but not blame anyone for the problem, not even ourselfs and realise it is what we desires on some levels of Self.

To solve the problem is also something we desire I believe, but we want to process of solving it, not just *pling* and it is gone, soplease don't misunderstand me that we should try to solve it.

"More to the point, why would anyone think that because they are not "CONSCIOUSLY" aware of a set of beliefs, they do not hold the beliefs, whatever they are??!! It is quite clear that in terms of subjective awareness, we are not consciously aware of ALL the beliefs we hold, so why claim that because we don't have immediate awareness of a set of beliefs, that we do not have those beliefs?

Kris once pointed out that physical reality itself is a complex set of convictions which means that those who participate in it hold all the beliefs necessary to make physical reality happen, each one filed with all the blueprints needed.

Upon a closer read of that session, it is evident that Drew is also trying to put words into Elias' mouth so to speak, even when Elias is trying to broaden the topic as well as bring in the realism of the situation, Drew won't have any of it... its either black or white for Drew even when Elias is trying to bring in the shades of grey!

What makes this even more interesting is that we do tend to think that because we don't have certain situations in this life, then we are free of the beliefs that may plague others. Are we so sure? There may well be other focusses in other 'places and times' that experiences some of the beliefs we may not be able to handle in this probability.

So many permutations, so many avenues, yet a few lines seem sufficient to make conclusions that may themselves be most inaccurate. Kris has demonstrated in the past on numerous occasions that he is at his best when there is controversy. That means that the very next transcript will (and does) hold surprises on the issue, since it is not over and done with."

Greetings,
Rob

Hi All,

Glad to see this topic develop. My position is clear in the Aug. 1, 2005 transcript, and my further comments here and on DAS.

I am glad to see folks trying to integrate Elias into Kris' and Seth's positions, too. It is a slippery slope, but it seems like we're making some collective progress (i.e. growth on this important issue).

Elias talks about ten foundational belief systems inherent in the blueprints for our dimension. Duplicity is one of the ten, and THIS is the area of moral and ethical values, beliefs, memes, schemas, etc. So Elias has been very clear about the fact that an innate sense of right/wrong, good/bad, health/pathology is hardwired into our experience here.

Now Elias also goes on about NIRAAing our belief systems, as Steve pointed out, they are not being eliminated! Duplicity WILL REMAIN in some form after the shift is completed ca. 2075, according to Elias. (Seth's version of 2075 has to do with a spiritual reformation and the Christ Entity, which dovetails into Elias' nine children of Rose mythos. I point this out to help connect the dots between Kris, Elias, and Seth in particular).

NIRAA is simply the method Elias has presented to notice, identify/recognize, address to, and accept (neutralize) belief systems. Sounds good in theory, but in practice there's more. Elias also talks about holding preferences and opinions AFTER having accepted and neutralized, NOT eliminated. This is the key.

So if neutralize does NOT mean eliminate, and acceptance does NOT mean eliminate, then what is his point? I believe it has to do with our overall development, as individuals AND the collective. That is, there IS an evolutionary path we've taken, and that includes ever increasing complexity. Put another way, we develop in stages of increasing embrace and widening.

So what does Elias really mean by widening awareness and engaging the remembrance of essence?

While physical, developmental psychologists have shown to my satisfaction over the past 100 years that we grow and develop in STAGES, from narrow to wider. This is universal to all humans on the planet, the research has been done in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th world countries and societies.

Simply put, humans develop from acorn to sapling to trees, not acorn to butterfly to pig. These are clearly discernable stages of growth all around us, not just limited to humans, but involving all physical, biological, and mental life forms in our dimension. Thus, we also have a moral or ethical stage of development, which in terms of Elias simply means that the belief system of duplicity actually unfolds in stages, which according to Lawrence Kohlberg and Ken Wilber extend from egocentric (me) to ethnocentric (us) to worldcentric (all of us) to consciousnesscentric (all focuses of essence AND essence).

When applied to the London bombings we can clearly see an ethnocentric moral stance. Kill the infidel, love myself, my family, and mosque members.

To confuse THAT with a consciousnesscentric perspective taken by Seth, Elias, and Kris is fatal and actually perpetuates the cycles of violence and violation. And this is exactly what Drew and now Rob are doing in their comments.

Therefore, there IS a value hierarchy very much underlying Elias' words and intent. THERE IS NARROWER AND WIDER, whcih is a form of BETTER OR WORSE. In other words, duplicity!

And while Elias has said there are no absolutes, which is a self-contradictory universal statement that there are no universals, he ALSO points out that he is at least aware of the logical contradiction, which is a limit of our present stages of cognitive and linguistic development. Drew and Rob's statements still are riddled with this kind of pretzel logic, but they are NOT yet aware of it.

For example, Rob's last post stated:

"Yes and that is that we hold belief systems and that things are not outright wrong or right!"

This is a universal statement that there are no universals. It is NOT logical at all because it is self-contradictory AND there is no qualification that Rob is self-aware of the contradiction. That's the difference between Elias and Drew and Rob right now.

In Drew's case we would also invoke Elias' hamster wheel, which is a metaphor for being arrested or stuck on a particular issue, going furiously round and round and getting KNOWHERE in terms of personal growth and development. Sure it's still an experience for the experience, but it's one that is stuck.

Now having said that, I will also mention that both Rob and Drew's comments come from a very sophisticated and highly developed worldview space, so make no mistake you guys are in the ballpark, and make lots of good and valid points elsewhere. My comments are not intended to marginalize you completely, just the pretzel logic in relation to extreme moral relativism. You still refuse to acknowledge your own HIDDEN or STEALTH value hierarchies of better and worse!

THAT IS MY MAIN POINT HERE! Let's acknowledge that we hold the belief system of duplicity and let's properly situate our value hierarchies of right and wrong and move FORWARD from there.

Therefore, it's healthier in collective terms to deligitimize, discredit, and dismantle the terrorist cells responsible for the bombings in London (note that I am still focusing on this issue here, and need to take other's on a case by case basis).

My concern is that claiming Seth, Elias, and Kris say ABSOLUTELY that there is no absolute good or bad perpetuates the cycle of violence and violation. For if we do not take a stand and condemn this bombing as a brutal act and instead say, "it's not wrong," then we lend energy to those who would get up one morning, put a knapsack bomb on and detonate it in a subway full of "enemies."

This is NOT a worldcentric worldview like Seth, Kris, and Elias promote, but a tribal, ethnocentric worldview limited to me, my family, and tribal affiliates. The rest can go to hell. We need to situate these various value hierarchies. JUST THAT is a HEALTHY form of moral relativism. So I'm not saying we need to eliminate moral relativism, just combat its extreme forms that are riddled with performative contradictions and pretzel logic, and ACTUALLY perpetuate the cycles of violence and violation by sugar coating them and making them OK.

Again, Seth offers two moral imperatives to us all, the first is from The Nature of Personal Reality = "thou shalt not violate." The second is from The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events = "the ends do not justify the means."

Seth is clear that murder is wrong. But Seth doesn't comment about euthanasia, medical abortion when the mother's life is in jeopardy, and on and on. Again, we need to apply these concepts on a case by case basis, they don't universally cover every situation. Moral relativism is viable in my view, but it must be properly situated within stages of moral and cognitive development so we can see what worldviews we are actually dealing with.

So where does that leave us? Again, my main point is to STOP using stealth and hidden value judgments that all judgments are BAD. Accept the fact that we discern, judge, and value different things according to our overall acorn, sapling, or tree development.

That situates the relative values of good/bad, right/wrong, and healthy/pathological into different stages, and we can take it from there. The bottom line in any moral theory is to promote value fulfillment, the innate quality of Consciousness that seeks to fulfill its own potential in all possible variations in such a way that furthers the creative potentials of every other aspect of All-That-Is. And when we factor in HOW moral stages of development, or HOW the belief system of duplicity develops in people over time, then will can discern, value, and judge according to our preferences and opinions from a more worldcentric worldview. Anything less, will perpetuate the cycles of violence and violation.

And this shift will accomplish JUST THAT, namely, large percentages of the global population will widen awareness toward worldcentric forms of duplicity that will nurture collective value fulfillment and take the species to the next evolutionary plateau.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob:
[QB]
it is not acting like you don't hold beliefs (thats not my view anyway) it is knowing you do, and that those beliefs are there and infuence what you create. We have to accept those beliefs and know they are not the truth, if we do this we we hold more choices in what we create and less conflict in what we create.

So in the case of the bombers we can not just say it is wrong what they do, because we are as much resposible (on a level) as they, and the situation is a cancer either to my view as it is an expirience WE CREATE FOR OURSELFS. Does this mean we shouldnt try to solve it, NO, we should try, but not blame anyone for the problem, not even ourselfs and realise it is what we desires on some levels of Self.

To solve the problem is also something we desire I believe, but we want to process of solving it, not just *pling* and it is gone, soplease don't misunderstand me that we should try to solve it.

QB]

---

Yes! The point IS that we do create our realities individually and it is not possible to create the realities of other individuals. So the transformation or reconfiguration of energy must come withing ones own perception!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul M. Helfrich:
My concern is that claiming Seth, Elias, and Kris say ABSOLUTELY that there is no absolute good or bad perpetuates the cycle of violence and violation. For if we do not take a stand and condemn this bombing as a brutal act and instead say, "it's not wrong," then we lend energy to those who would get up one morning, put a knapsack bomb on and detonate it in a subway full of "enemies."

---

On a fundamental level of essence, it can be argued that those individuals involved chose that experience and the event was exactly that, a choice, or an agreement. However, there are many levels of interpretation and implication to the statement "it's not wrong". Let's look at some of them.

One interpretation is, "It's not wrong. Therefore, people can hurt me if they want, because that's their choice". This is a dangerous line of thinking, because it validates the other person creating their reality, and invalidates my own ability to choose.

Another is, "It's not wrong. Therefore, the people getting hurt are choosing that experience and I needn't help them." I know this sounds like how I started this message, but remember that I made that statement speaking in terms of Essence, and not in terms of this reality, which as I said before, is based upon beliefs. Anyway, this mentality is also dangerous. It's an attitude of indifference. By helping others, I help myself by creating supportiveness and harmony in my own personal reality. That in turn reflects positively on my own self, and back out toward others, and so on. An attitude of indifference implies a certain lack of interest in changing my reality for the better. Even if the harm is being inflicted upon someone else, if I am observing it, I am creating it, and therefore it's my reality.

Another is, "It's not wrong. Therefore, I can hurt someone if I want to!". This is dangerous, for obvious reasons. As I said before, paraphrasing Seth, Kris, and Elias, if we harm someone else, we harm ourselves and ultimately act against our own true value fulfillment. There is no situation or circumstance for which it can be said that the only, or even the best, course of action is one that harms another against their will with the intention to do harm.

Just as quick note here, the "Rose Colored Glasses" session was immediately followed up by the "Being Passionate" session which is a continuation of the debate. I will endeavor to get this second one posted online this weekend, if at all possible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob:

I think the point of this information is to accept that we create our reality and create it with our belief systems and that we have to accept them so that we are not bound by them. When passing judgement in the way that happend in the transcript I kind of feel your not accepting the belief system.

Greetings,
Rob[/QB]

---

If that were the case, then we are simply pawns to our belief systems and we do not have the ability to change anything in this physical world.

Elias talks about noticing and identifying beliefs. Kris talks about identifying beliefs as well. WHY? So that we can CHANGE them, we can replace them with beliefs that bring about more desirable solutions to our conflicts and our challenges.

I do NOT accept terrorism. I do NOT believe that terrorism is GOOD. I do NOT accept murder. I do NOT believe that disagreements should be settled through bloodshed. That is what I believe.

Terrorism is a BAD thing, HOWEVER it may cause us to identify that we have these beliefs that are inhibiting us, that are preventing us from creating Joy and by noticing and identifying them, we can CHANGE them and bring about a GOOD state where are not violating each other.

The plague is another example of unconscious collective creating an undesirable series of events in order to bring about a global change. Living conditions prior to the plague were the worst that were ever experienced on this planet and as a result of the plague, no one will ever have to live in such squalor again. It is a case of the ends justifying the means.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul M. Helfrich:
....a long story....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marky Mark:
Just as quick note here, the "Rose Colored Glasses" session was immediately followed up by the "Being Passionate" session which is a continuation of the debate. I will endeavor to get this second one posted online this weekend, if at all possible.

- Mark -

---

Originally posted by Marky Mark:

"If that were the case, then we are simply pawns to our belief systems and we do not have the ability to change anything in this physical world."

No thats not what it means at all!

"Elias talks about noticing and identifying beliefs. Kris talks about identifying beliefs as well. WHY? So that we can CHANGE them, we can replace them with beliefs that bring about more desirable solutions to our conflicts and our challenges."

Not only change, but also accept, else we just keep changing things around, not that I would be againsed that, it just not what I think the shift is about.

"I do NOT accept terrorism. I do NOT believe that terrorism is GOOD. I do NOT accept murder. I do NOT believe that disagreements should be settled through bloodshed. That is what I believe."

Listen I don't think it is good either, but I also know this is a belief, and not a truth, and I also know I'm creating this, and we are creating this, and it is an experience, not a good or bad experience in any absolute way (the view of essence), and a bad experience in a human way, and something we want to get thru, and also there for good reason, and also those people are not bad, and in a way what they are doing is not bad - atleast not from their point of view. I feel that a wider view should include all these things, not just new beliefs, but a new understanding!!

"Terrorism is a BAD thing, HOWEVER it may cause us to identify that we have these beliefs that are inhibiting us, that are preventing us from creating Joy and by noticing and identifying them, we can CHANGE them and bring about a GOOD state where are not violating each other."

And accepting them ALSO! I feel that is very important too, not just chnaging things, but accepting them!

"The plague is another example of unconscious collective creating an undesirable series of events in order to bring about a global change. Living conditions prior to the plague were the worst that were ever experienced on this planet and as a result of the plague, no one will ever have to live in such squalor again. It is a case of the ends justifying the means.

- Mark -"

So then was the plague a bad thing?

Greetings,
Rob

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob:
It seems you have not understood what I was saying at all (have you even tried?) and you also come of to me as a knowitbetter I'm afraid. No hard feelings though!

---

Hi Rob,

Oh I understand what you are saying, and challenging the pretzel logic portions throughout.

Do you feel like commenting on any of my points on moral relativism besides the obfuscating "knowitbetter" comment?

Originally posted by Paul M. Helfrich:

"Hi Rob,

Oh I understand what you are saying, and challenging the pretzel logic portions throughout."

No I really think your not understanding me and I don't like you condescendingly call it pretzel logic, have a little respect for my opinion please. (even if you do disagree)

"Do you feel like commenting on any of my points on moral relativism besides the obfuscating "knowitbetter" comment?

Paul"

Im kind of feeling I told you everything I believe already, but you keep rejecting it whit - I feel - not good reason, but I will try one more time, after that Ill let it rest.

ps. You sound a bit angry, I hope that is not true.

Greetings,
Rob

from pauls post: "For example, Rob's last post stated:

"Yes and that is that we hold belief systems and that things are not outright wrong or right!"

This is a universal statement that there are no universals. It is NOT logical at all because it is self-contradictory AND there is no qualification that Rob is self-aware of the contradiction. That's the