Why do you think Carlos went nuts with power?

[Guest]

and in this technological age, the 'book' can be an online forum...

[mocomoracho]

Power is a point of view

[quantumshaman]

Hawkeye Crow wrote:
Anne  Rice did a good job of making us empathize with predators and parasites. Sometimes they have their blessings. But evil, as such, is not just a point of view, unless one thinks that, to coin a phrase, despoiling the nest, is a good idea.  Maybe not evil, perhaps, just stupid and foul.
Why would a sane being **** in its bed and try to sleep in it? That has been the way of humanity since the beginning. I'd throw them out of Eden , too.
To say evil is a point of view is not just an off-the-cuff statement.  Think about it.  To the POV of the rabbit, surely the coyote who eats him is evil.  But to the coyote's POV, he's just doing what nature designed him to do.  Ergo... evil is a point of view.
When examined from the humanform perspective, most things that humans call "evil" fall under the heading of something they themselves do not agree with.  To a Christian, the "devil" is evil.  To an anarchist, government is evil.  And so it goes.  The thing itself (devil or government - heh - perhaps the same thing) is neither good nor evil, but will be labeled according to one's experience/perception of it.
Does evil exist in and of itself, as a force of nature?  I've seen no evidence of it.  Sure, Man can do evil but that is evidence of Man's nature, not proof of "evil".
So... point being... in the article which was referenced, the writer referred to Castaneda as "evil."  To me, that's using a lame argument to say you yourself don't like the guy or don't agree with his teachings, but instead of making a LOGICAL argument, the writer degenerates into saying, simply, that CC was "evil."  This triggers an emotional response in the reader rather than a rational one... and statistically speaking, most readers will automatically shy away from that person (Castaneda in this case) from that moment forward.  Another good example... people like to say Aleister Crowley was "evil", but 99.999% of those who would AGREE with that statement have probably never read even a single paragraph of his actual work.
Man may choose to DO evil.  Sheeple may choose to BELIEVE something is evil based on what they have heard.
But what IS evil in and of itself?  Was Charles Manson evil?  Some would say so.  But the way I see it is that "evil" didn't possess good ol' Chuck.  Chuck CHOSE to do "evil" because he was a twisted ***.  *shrugs*  In fact, if I were to say... "Charles Manson was just evil," that lets him off the hook in a lot of ways, because it implies that he couldn't help himself, and again it is an emotional argument rather than a logical one.  
Just some additional thoughts on the actuality of "evil" and why that kind of labeling just doesn't work for me.

[Hawkeye Crow]

When examined from the humanform perspective, most things that humans call "evil" fall under the heading of something they themselves do not agree with.  To a Christian, the "devil" is evil.  To an anarchist, government is evil.  And so it goes.  The thing itself (devil or government - heh - perhaps the same thing) is neither good nor evil, but will be labeled according to one's experience/perception of it.
or this:



Power is a point of view.
Well, what can I say, quantums
It is true that the Nagual supports what has been said here, and it is a good lesson, yet, I don't see it as an approach to survival.
If , for instance, someone is applying electic current to my genitals, I doubt if  I can be dispassionate. Perhaps it is foolish to think about 'evil' in such a case, but, I will surely be thinking about the ENEMY!
Don Juan most specifically noted the 'Flyers' as an enemy, a predator  to be avoided at all costs.
So, morality?
We all, whatever our orientations, have a sense of morality; we know that the sociopath has such a sense that allows him to harm innocents who get in his way. His morality is completely self-centered. Objectivism is destructive.
Maybe you won't agree with me. My purpose is to align the best of all behaviors to the well-being and progress of human beings. My prophecy is that without doing so, to come to some major agreements about purpose and living on this planet, which, don Juan praised over and over again, according to Castaneda, we will dissapear.
So maybe it's a big so what. Death is death, I'm gone, not my problem.
But, if the Nagual exists, there is more to existence than this life, and action/reaction still takes it's toll, whatever the AP.
One false step, and one finds himself in an alien, threatening world
Take care here, in 2012, The choices are narrowing.

[Hawkeye Crow]

We have one single issue left. Sorcerers call it the secret of the luminous beings, and that is the fact that we are perceivers. We men and all the other luminous beings on earth are perceivers. That is our bubble, the bubble of perception. Our mistake is to believe that the only perception worthy of acknowledgment is what goes through our reason. Sorcerers believe that reason is only one center and that it shouldn't take so much for granted."
- Tales of Power
I add to this, that scientific research that has shown,  eyewitness observers in criminal cases are unreliable. Our prejudices, our backgrounds, our upbringing, and more, all distort what our eyes see. That is an example of the perceptual bubble'.
Oh, and don Juan was so on target here. Reason, and rationality are so overrated. They can't always help you survive. Indigenous peoples, in the bygone era, acted from the Nagual, and performed feats inexplicable to modern man.  Some of it is there in Castaneda's books.
What say we lure a big cat and see what happens? 
How about a Wolf?
All around America, regular folks want wolves dead. They don't understand that these creatures share a space with us, and have a right to live, and have a purpose. Ask, what created them, and why? Not you and I.
Here is a point of consideration about good vs evil. The wolf is not evil, it simply is. For a human being to be in the way of such is the coice of Power. Better to know how to stay out of the way, and survive

[mocomoracho]

"quan·ti·fy (kwnt-f)

tr.v. quan·ti·fied, quan·ti·fy·ing, quan·ti·fies

1. To determine or express the quantity of.

2. Logic To limit the variables of (a proposition) by prefixing an operator such as all or some."





reflection is supported by the mirror and the eyes viewing it . so what 'eyes' are viewing .

every thing can bounce back to that proposition that everything cancels itself out , i enjoy creation , and "I" .

And am yet to experience 'one' without an "I" to exist within existence .

"Personally" I " will try to do the right thing .

there are no tangents , only what is . and what is not , and what is yielded .

If everyone is on the task of truth , then there can be no arguments for "I" , many contradictions .

only superceeded facets and movement . Is this what they call light and information then .

Actions do seem to have consequences , continuom's.

[quantumshaman]

Hawkeye Crow wrote:
When examined from the humanform perspective, most things that humans call "evil" fall under the heading of something they themselves do not agree with.  To a Christian, the "devil" is evil.  To an anarchist, government is evil.  And so it goes.  The thing itself (devil or government - heh - perhaps the same thing) is neither good nor evil, but will be labeled according to one's experience/perception of it.
or this:



Power is a point of view.
Well, what can I say, quantums
It is true that the Nagual supports what has been said here, and it is a good lesson, yet, I don't see it as an approach to survival.
If , for instance, someone is applying electic current to my genitals, I doubt if  I can be dispassionate. Perhaps it is foolish to think about 'evil' in such a case, but, I will surely be thinking about the ENEMY!
Don Juan most specifically noted the 'Flyers' as an enemy, a predator  to be avoided at all costs.
So, morality?
We all, whatever our orientations, have a sense of morality; we know that the sociopath has such a sense that allows him to harm innocents who get in his way. His morality is completely self-centered. Objectivism is destructive.
Maybe you won't agree with me. My purpose is to align the best of all behaviors to the well-being and progress of human beings. My prophecy is that without doing so, to come to some major agreements about purpose and living on this planet, which, don Juan praised over and over again, according to Castaneda, we will dissapear.
So maybe it's a big so what. Death is death, I'm gone, not my problem.
But, if the Nagual exists, there is more to existence than this life, and action/reaction still takes it's toll, whatever the AP.
One false step, and one finds himself in an alien, threatening world
Take care here, in 2012, The choices are narrowing.

Hawkeye...
I actually do agree in principle with most of what you're saying.  I think "morality" is an unfortunate word, because so much of what *Society* considers "morality" is nothing more than man-made rules, arbitrary and transient.  However... there is a "sense" within every human being that tells us "right" from "wrong".  Again, unfortunate words, because they come with so much baggage attached.  But CC talked about "the right way to live" - and if we can all get past the words themselves, the concept of that is worthy of examination and practice.  Another way of looking at is to say... "As it harms none, do as you Will."  Key phrase there being... "as it harms none."  Second key phrase being "do as you Will".  Many people take that to mean "Do whatever you want," but that's not how I've interpreted it.  Instead, I have come to see the word "will" as a substitute for the word "intend".  In other words:  intent and will are not willy-nilly, but focused and directed.  But no matter... another subject for another day...
Within that context, the fellow applying electrical shocks to your junk is certainly not practicing "the right way to live", and he is certainly not "harming none," so whatEVER reaction you have to him is probably going to be "appropriate".  Meaning - if you break loose and tear his head off... you are practicing the right to survival, and I would applaud your efforts.  It's not about being "dispassionate" - at least not in my book! 
The reason I might argue against words like "evil" is because the word itself is rife with baggage which immediately triggers the fear response.  If you automatically see your tormentor as "evil", it gives him a false sense of inflated power - which obviously he doesn't really possess.  But if you are overcome with fear of evil, you have less capacity for working on your own escape/survival.  Put another way:  fear debilitates, and may cause the warrior to give away his own power, thereby causing him to defeat himself before the battle ever begins. 
My point was only that "evil" in and of itself is a byproduct of human intent, and not a force of nature.  The sociopath is actively CHOOSING not to practice "the right way to live" - either because something is inherently missing or damaged in his personal matrix, or because he has lost his connection to spirit (reasons for this could be infinitely complex).
Anyway - just wanted to say that I agree with you for the most part.

[Hawkeye Crow]

Hi quantumshuman
Thank for the kudos
Referring to a post other than yours, I have moved beyond reflecting' myself.
I see ethical sensibilities in historic Indigenous culture. They reflected' the natural world around them. While not ideal , many of these people were in harmony with their environment, generally healthy, and mentally sane.  They sure as hell had clean water and food!  Obviously, I do not mean Aztecs, as an example. They were of high civilization and religion, and, in my opinion, cut off from original intent. They were a society of human sacrifice, but, so is Western civilization , in it's own way, for many of the same reasons.
Every modern war always mentions the sacrifice of the dead who died for the preservation of their culture. What difference is this from throwing virgin maidens down the volcano, to placate the gods?
Hah!
This is the short of it, and there is more to examine concerning alternate realities, but it's the best I can do, today.
I return to work tomorrow, and will have to disappear for a while.

[1ofthe3rd]

I always have disliked the word evil...but then again I dislike all words. They never define anything except for a persons syntax. I have changed points on what is what so many times I get lost and have to shut down. Lately I have reflected on the tonal/nagual, light/dark, within every truth there is a lie, when something good happens it triggers something bad to happen. I like Don Juan's explanation that in the universe duality exists together. One is not better than the other. Hence the new seers found the third point. An understanding of both sides in order to disregard them. I don't know....I am new here.

[quantumshaman]

1ofthe3rd wrote:
I always have disliked the word evil...but then again I dislike all words. They never define anything except for a persons syntax. I have changed points on what is what so many times I get lost and have to shut down. Lately I have reflected on the tonal/nagual, light/dark, within every truth there is a lie, when something good happens it triggers something bad to happen. I like Don Juan's explanation that in the universe duality exists together. One is not better than the other. Hence the new seers found the third point. An understanding of both sides in order to disregard them. I don't know....I am new here. 
Words are the hooks that hold us prisoner to the tonal.  *winks*
This is from my own website - basically my synthesis on duality, dualism, and words in general.  Nice to make your acquaintance.
DUALITY - Meaning, literally, "two things simultaneously". This is not the same thing as dualism, which implies perception through opposites (i.e., dualism is the human propensity for perceiving black/white, good/evil, god/devil, male/female, etc) Duality implies the evolving perception which enables us to see that past and future, just for example, are no different, but only different perceptions according to our location in time. Duality further allows for two seemingly contradictory conditions to exist simultaneously, without either obliterating or in any way usurping the other.  Example:  "a love/hate relationship".  Another example:  We exist as mortal human beings in the Now, and simultaneously as eternal beings through the energy body of the double.  Duality can be studied in the statement, "You must be immortal before you will know how to become immortal." As long as we are locked into a linear, static perception of reality, we are prisoners of dualism. 
Back to the silence.

[Guest]

Welcome here 1ofthe3rd!

[Guest]

Evil is a feeling, I think. Just like anger, sadness, hate etc. All feelings we have given names to. The key with what feels evil is to not be afraid of it, which changes the quality of how it feels.

[Gonzo]

Richard Bach in "Illusions":
We just see one little fleck of the whole that is life, and that one fleck is fake.  Everything balances, and nobody suffers and nobody dies without their consent.  Nobody does what they don't want to do. There is no good and there is no evil, outside of what makes us happy and what makes us unhappy.

[quantumshaman]

Gonzo wrote:
Richard Bach in "Illusions":
We just see one little fleck of the whole that is life, and that one fleck is fake.  Everything balances, and nobody suffers and nobody dies without their consent.  Nobody does what they don't want to do. There is no good and there is no evil, outside of what makes us happy and what makes us unhappy.

Exactly.  As an extant "force", neither good nor evil even exists.  Knowing that is the first step to losing self-importance.

[Guest]

Absolute goodness does not exist? If so how do you know that for sure?

[AVGEMAN]

What do you see when you gaze into this collage of paintings?

[Gonzo]

Diamond Unicorn wrote:Absolute goodness does not exist? If so how do you know that for sure?
Perhaps you could define "absolute goodness" for me.

[Gonzo]

AVGEMAN wrote:What do you see when you gaze into this collage of paintings? ...and this is relevant to?

[Nagual LoneWolf]

I believe evil and absolute goodness are assemblage points enuff said.

[Guest]

Gonzo wroteerhaps you could define "absolute goodness" for me.

Perhaps something along these lines:
Plato(B.C.427-347) said that there were absolute justice, absolute beauty
and absolute goodness, and there were absolute greatness(as the essence or
nature of everything), health and power. The above-mentioned absolute
justice, absolute beauty and absolute goodness can be considered absolute
values, but at the present time truth in logic, goodness in morality,
beauty in art and holiness in religion are generally considered absolute
values. Thus it can be said that absolute truth, absolute goodness,
absolute beauty and absolute holiness constitute the system of absolute
values as the highest values.
On the highest goodness or absolute goodness, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
said that the highest goodness as the inevitable highest goal of the will
as morally prescribed was the genuine object of practical reason. He also
said that the highest absolute goodness could be found in the will of the
rational being. It would be difficult to realize absolute goodness, which
could be found only in the will of the rational being. Absolute truth,
absolute beauty and absolute holiness could be found in the will or the
mind of the wise, artistic or noble being.
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Valu/ValuMin.htm
---



Maybe absolute goodness can be defined or thought of as that which is
before or beyond the duality of good and evil, ie. the eternal
'goodness' that exists before the potential of evil manifests (thereby creating the relative duality of good and evil).

The whole Platonic teaching is based upon the concept of Absolute
Goodness. Plato was vividly conscious of the immense profundity of the
subject. "To discover the Creator and Father of this universe, as well
as his operation, is indeed difficult; and when discovered it is
impossible to reveal him." In him Truth, Justice and the Beautiful are
eternally one. Hence the idea of the Good is the highest branch of
study.
http://www.theosociety.or...8_teachings-of-plato.htm

[Guest]

Nagual LoneWolf wrote:I believe evil and absolute goodness are assemblage points enuff said.
But what does that actually mean?

[Guest]

Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882 A.D.) coined the word OVER-SOUL while a
divinity student at Harvard University. The word comes from the Greek
word, Psyche, meaning "the Soul" and Huper, meaning "over" or "hyper."
This name was readily acceptable to global students, of all faiths, as a
generic, non-sectarian term meaning "over abiding presence" i.e., the
Creator. The philosophical concept was developed by the Greek
philosopher Plato (427-347 B.C.). He affirmed the existence of absolute
goodness, which he characterized as something beyond description and as
knowable ultimately only through intuition. Religious philosophers
applied this concept of transcendence to Divinity, maintaining that God
can be neither described nor understood in terms that are taken from
human experience.
http://www.hi-des-website.com/oversoul/oversoulI.htm

[BarefootInTheSand]

Things are. Nothing is better than anything else...nothing is any worse either.



However, there is that feeling when you are right within yourself...when you are aligned perfectly with your nagual. Years ago we used to call it the god light. Sometimes a person would shine so much with the god light that everyone around would gravitate towards them. And then there is a purity that comes from being aligned always to your nagual that allows the god light to shine through.



However, I wouldn't call it absolute goodness...it just is. And like moths to a candleflame we are drawn by a force that we scarcely understand.

[quantumshaman]

Diamond Unicorn wrote:
Nagual LoneWolf wrote:
I believe evil and absolute goodness are assemblage points enuff said.
But what does that actually mean?

I don't speak for Wolf, but I do agree with his  statement here.  In fact, it's the only "rational" answer that is possible.  What it means to Wolf... I dunno.
What it means to me is that "good" and "evil" are experienced by a willful movement of the AP.  You can choose to experience ecstasy or agony (good or evil).  It's within YOU, in other words, not extant.

[Guest]

Diamond Unicorn wrote:Nagual LoneWolf wrote:I believe evil and absolute goodness are assemblage points enuff said.
But what does that actually mean?


To me it means you can experience either one, or neither one depending on your AP in a given moment. Besides these two, beings experience many other ap points. For example, curiosity, it feels neither like goodness or evil, yes? But its a sensation that one feels. So its as real as any other feeling (perception) but unique in its quality. So, there is no singular perceptual view, all exisit, and AP points are infinite - could never count them all and why try, they are what they are and we can and do experience many of them in our lifetimes. If we see this is all we are doing, it gives us an edge, a warriors freedom. Then we become more often like observers of our environments rather then entrenched in it. This position of observing, its an ap point too.