Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Unenlight'd = evil; eyes opened: und. good/evil; misleading

Expand Messages
  • Michael Hoffman
    ... assumption that each person is a prime mover and metaphysically free agent able to choose and determine their own destiny. ... of opposites and into union?
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 28, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      >>>[in the Transcendent conception of good and evil ... Evil is the deluded
      assumption that each person is a prime mover and metaphysically free
      agent able to choose and determine their own destiny.


      >>How can there be a transcendent conception of good and evil as it moves out
      of opposites and into union? ... The evil above truly means ignorance for any
      one who believes they are a prime mover. And when some one is not aware
      consciously it is not their fault and they can never be considered as evil.


      Jesus said (approx.) "I shall speak in parables so that those on the outside
      do not understand my meaning, lest they turn/convert and their sins be
      forgiven." Jesus told Peter (approx.) "I breathe the spirit on you and give
      you the keys: if you assert that someone sins, sin there is; if you assert
      that someone's sins are cleared, the sins are released."

      'Sin' and 'purity' are deliberately ambiguous, meaning-flipping terms. The
      biggest nothing in the world is egoic-type "sin", "evil", "moral
      culpability" -- because of the egoic framework of interpretation, which is
      founded on the sand of the free-will moral agency assumption, all our personal
      "evil" and "sin" amounts to nothing.

      The moment we repudiate the freewill assumption, *that* type of 'sin' and
      'evil' becomes an impossible, meaningless, deluded chimera, a beastly
      impossibility -- and the demon is cast out, the impurity is healed, the sins
      are forgiven -- they vanish into the ghost-land of Hades, together with one's
      lower self-concept. "My self of long ago, in nature nonexistent -- nowhere to
      go when dead, nothing at all."

      The Bible can be pictured as a 3-phase movement. At first, Adam and Eve are
      in the Garden, knowing God, with no free will. They eat the anti-entheogen,
      so to speak, and fall into the delusion of freewill moral agency. During the
      moralistic-seeming middle of the Bible story, Adam and Eve are under the
      delusion of freewill moral agency.

      When Jesus hands them sacred food (his entheogenic flesh/blood), they
      re-understand good/evil into the higher interpretive framework, and their
      illusory egoic-type 'sins' and 'evil' vanish like a possessing demon -- and
      they reenter the Garden. A great way to picture the apple and "gaining
      knowledge of good/evil" is that the apple is a toggler between two
      meaning-networks built upon the terms 'good' and 'evil'.

      You could say the infant has not yet formed the deluded egoic interpretive
      framework of 'good' and 'evil' as implying freewill moral agency; the infant
      or young child hasn't much formed the paradigm of freewill moral agency and
      its type of 'guilt' and 'praise' and 'blame'. You could say that when the
      infant does so, it is as though they ate a negative entheogen, toggling from
      "not assuming freewill moral agency" to now assuming freewill moral agency.

      Strange as this idea of a "negative entheogen" is, it achieves a certain
      balance and reflects that under it all, unconsciously, we're always in the
      Garden, always operating within the reality of "no-free-will".

      For those who understand the systematic meaning-flipping quality of terms,
      especially 'good' and 'evil', the apple generally is a clear representation of
      the idea "Taking the entheogen toggles the mind's interpretive framework of
      terms that especially include 'good' and 'evil'." To take the entheogen is to
      re-understand the meaning of 'good' and 'evil'.

      You may morally object to the enlightened person deliberate using language in
      such a way as to confuse the unenlightened, but that is the whole "trick"
      behind the Christian mystery-system, and in its day, it was clever and a quite
      standard construct or theme.

      The culture of the time always had heavy quote marks around "good" and "bad"
      and there were debates about whether there was any reality or legitimacy to
      morality, given that morality seems to necessarily imply the animal-like,
      childish-thinking lie of one's possession of the power and associated
      culpability of simple absolute free will.

      The Devil is the father of "the lie" -- the lie is metaphysical freewill, the
      assumption that we are sovereign controllers who set our own fate and destiny.
      The Lie leads to the entire worldmodel based on the metaphysically incorrect
      assumption of freewill moral agency.

      Why would any enlightened person deliberately mislead the unenlightened? To
      kill the egoic thinking of the young prematurely was looked upon as murder of
      children, corrupting the young, and destroying childhood -- even as barbarian,
      like training children in sex and drugs and conspiracies and making them
      soldiers. If we want to preserve the institution of childhood, if we love
      childhood, we must mislead children into the egoic moral thinking framework.

      Also, this deceit may have been considered important for social stability,
      because the convention of responsible agency is necessary lest society
      collapse -- instability of society was a grave perpetual threat. Perhaps the
      slaves were supposed to be deliberately kept deluded, to keep them chained
      under the freewill delusion, lest they become like a sacred king who knows
      no-free-will and is informed by the encounter with divine authority.

      If we enlighten the children, that will prematurely kill their egos and
      childhood; if we enlighten the slaves and masses, they will realize they have
      divine kingly authority, and will rebel, throwing society into barbaric chaos.
      Don't give pearls to swine, or else the swine will become enlightened and
      rebel.

      Anyone who publically reveals the mysteries to the uninitiated -- to the
      underclass and children -- is guilty of endangering societal stability and
      corrupting the young; therefore, the death penalty, which amounts to ostracism
      from society.

      The ignorant person *can* be considered evil by the enlightened person --
      where 'evil' is redefined, systematically with all other terms, to mean
      "ignorance". When the enlightened person utters "Joe is unenlightened,
      therefore evil", that's a mystery code-phrase expressing the fact that "Joe is
      ignorant and deluded about the nature of moral agency".

      When Adam and Eve "understand good and evil", the main point of the story is
      the ambiguous meaning-flipping property, and interpretive-framework
      dependence, of the concepts 'good' and 'evil'.

      The initiated know the meaning of this. Those on the outside are impure and
      know not the meaning -- they need to be healed, they need a demon exorcised,
      they need their sins forgiven and cancelled (the same word carried all 3
      meanings).

      There is meaning-flipping of the term 'good' and the term 'evil' within two
      different conceptual frameworks. Before initiation, we have the egoic
      interpretive framework in which we hold ourselves and others responsible.
      When the egoic mind thinks 'good', the mind interprets that term within an
      entire framework of meaning such that the mind considers oneself as a
      guilt-or-praise agent, and so considers other people to also be
      guilt-or-praise agents.

      The enlightened mind knows that that conception of guilt-or-praise agency is
      deluded, and the enlightened mind then can coherently systematically redefine
      all the terms, retaining the term 'evil' but redefining it to mean ignorance.
      This way, the enlightened mind can play a tricky game of hoaxing the
      uninitiated, saying to them the words "no matter what you do, you cannot but
      do evil -- be initiated, so that you are purified and become good".

      It's a meaning-network game or a terminology-network game.

      When the enlightened trickster says to the unenlightened "you are evil", he
      doesn't mean what the unenlightened person assumes he means, because the two
      people operate in fundamentally different terminology-meaning networks: the
      egoic person operates within a freewill interpretive framework, such that they
      assume the term 'evil' to mean freewill moral badness; while the transcendent
      initiated purified person operates within a no-free-will interpretive
      framework.


      -- Michael Hoffman
      http://www.egodeath.com -- simple theory of the ego-death and rebirth
      experience
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.