Essay: Man, Know Thyself

[Lou Gold]

Man has the animals within his inner nature - aggressiveness, cunningness, timidity, brutality, etc.

WOW! Why the negativity associated with wild animals? And about domestication, there's famous tale of the lion cub raised among sheep who needs a hero's journey to have his inner lion liberated. The Eskimos say that gifts turn wolves into dogs. And on and on and on. I can proceed through your lingo item by item but it would be tedious. I'm not trying to convert you, just wanting you to see the biases embedded in the lingo of your hierarchical directionality.

I do not advocate flipping from human consciousness to dolphin consciousness, which would just be a reverse directionality carrying its own problems. I'm urging or reaching toward a both/and view that opens possibilities not of triumph but of integration. Therefore, I prefer "holding hands" to "standing on each other." These alternative phrases carry very different baggage.

About directionality, here's an image painted by a friend:



May all manner of things be well.
May all manner of people be well.
May there be Peace on the Holy Mountain.

and finally, HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY to you.

[Cleric K]

From what did you infer negativity?
There's no negativity whatsoever. As I've said few times already, the more advanced man becomes, the more he should become responsible for the kingdoms around him. But this does not mean that he should go and allow himself to be eaten alive by alligators.

Everything has its proper place. I guess you have seen an aggressive dog. What's 'negative' about striving to tame aggressiveness within one's character? You have also seen male lion infanticide. Does this mean that man should be hostile to anything that is unrelated to his own bloodline?

These are real things. It is one thing to admire what is good and beautiful in animals but it doesn't make sense to allow ourselves to be ruled by the animal nature, just because we don't want to be discriminatory. You probably don't allow your house to be run over by rats, cockroaches and venomous spiders? And again - I'm not saying at all that we should hate these creatures but everything has its proper place. In the same sense, wild instincts have no place in a soul striving for perfection. I understand your no-higher-or-lower, no-separateness, love-everything attitude but this simply does not work in practical life. Discernment is always necessary. We do choose healthy food over poisonous. We are kind of forced to because the effects are relatively immediate. Why should it be different for our soul life? Every idea and feeling are nutrition for the soul. Just as physical poison, inappropriate soul food can make us sick in the soul. It makes no sense to hold hands with poisonous food, ideas, feelings and wild instincts. There's no need to hate them but we should know how to be safe and love them from distance. We can't hold hands with sin.

Thank you for the colorful merkaba and HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY to you too

[AshvinP]

If you believe whales and dolphins can or do more perfectly reflect love (than humans I presume), then shouldn't you be campaigning day and night to stop any sort of whaling? And, as a corollary, where do you believe the line should be drawn in the non-human animal and plant kingdoms between organisms which do not reflect love 'well enough' to really matter?

Well, actually-factually, I have devoted a great deal of my life to being an environmental campaigner but now that I've entered what my peers laughingly call our "falling apart" zone my surfing is pretty much limited to the internet.

Yet even on the internet you are on a metaphysical forum discussing philosophy with other humans. I'm not questioning the actual essence of whales or dolphins, just the claim that any humans actually believe they reflect some form of morality which is on par with or superior to humans. Our actions speak louder than our words in this regard.

However, I do think that I should qualify in my dialog with Cleric to explain that I don't feel he is privileging Homo sapiens so much as privileging a dominant colonizing category of Homo sapiens whose so-called march of progress basically shunted aside or destroyed the wisdom traditions of the more animist aboriginal and shamanic cultures that treated the animal and plant beings with much more respect. Indeed, to use a currently fashionable phrase, colonizing conquesting civilization may have been the most globally effective "cancel culture".

About drawing some sort of line, I believe that the variations of cultural storylines and dreams within the great diversity of humanity should be accorded greater respect and accorded more co-equal status.

If they destroyed the wisdom traditions, then we wouldn't actually know about them, right? I believe you can find aspects of all the wisdom traditions we know about embedded in Judeo-Christian scripture and traditions, but it takes a bit of effort and a major reversal in thinking to discern them.

You didn't really answer the question about where to draw the line. Are plants worthy of co-equal moral status? Insects? Where do we draw the line and why? Again, I am not asking about what the true moral essence of these living beings are, just about how we view them, in practice, for all intents and purposes, from our human perspective.

[Lou Gold]

From what did you infer negativity?

I inferred it from the fact that you associated "... aggressiveness, cunningness, timidity, brutality, etc." as "Man has the animals within his inner nature." Why do you miss this clear demonstration? Why do you not see that gentle/brutal exist in all beings and that the extremes are often worse in domesticated humans. Can you offer examples of wild animals launching armies of genocidal intent such as humans are presently doing in China and Myanmar? You might consider the different understanding offered by animism. A good modern example would be "Becoming Animal: An Earthly Cosmology" by David Abram.

I am not saying that we should not practice right distance, safe boundaries or defensive behavior. I'm not saying, as in your strawman, that we should eat poison. I'm saying that all beings must learn this, even in the realms of spirit. I know this because I am experienced in mediumship. When a human receives a spirit, both must learn how to cohabit. The human must learn how to hold the spirit and the spirit must learn to conform with the rules of the house. There's a 'taming' in this example but it's a mutually respectful co-creative networking -- a peer-full cooperation rather than a conquering. This is the difference that makes the difference for me.

[Lou Gold]

About drawing some sort of line, I believe that the variations of cultural storylines and dreams within the great diversity of humanity should be accorded greater respect and accorded more co-equal status.

If they destroyed the wisdom traditions, then we wouldn't actually know about them, right? I believe you can find aspects of all the wisdom traditions we know about embedded in Judeo-Christian scripture and traditions, but it takes a bit of effort and a major reversal in thinking to discern them.

You didn't really answer the question about where to draw the line. Are plants worthy of co-equal moral status? Insects? Where do we draw the line and why? Again, I am not asking about what the true moral essence of these living beings are, just about how we view them, in practice, for all intents and purposes, from our human perspective.

It's not my intention to challenge the deep wisdom-revealing qualities embedded in Scriptures of many traditions. At the practical level, it's hard to know the wisdom traditions no longer extant. However, what I'm challenging is, for example, the lack of respect and peer-full relationship. The collateral damage of the march of 'progress' is huge.

About drawing the line, humans do consult with plants about this. This is what disciplined entheogenic practices are about. Plant teachers offer many lessons about healing, morality and more.

[Lou Gold]

Here's a marvelous multi-directional portrayal of a plant-teaching in process by the visionary Lakota artist Oscar Howe.

[AshvinP]

About drawing the line, humans do consult with plants about this. This is what disciplined entheogenic practices are about. Plant teachers offer many lessons about healing, morality and more.

What do they have to say about you eating their pupils?

[Lou Gold]

About drawing the line, humans do consult with plants about this. This is what disciplined entheogenic practices are about. Plant teachers offer many lessons about healing, morality and more.

What do they have to say about you eating their pupils?

I'm not sure who you refer to as "their pupils"?

Basically, they teach balanced relationship or "there a season for all under Heaven."

[AshvinP]

About drawing the line, humans do consult with plants about this. This is what disciplined entheogenic practices are about. Plant teachers offer many lessons about healing, morality and more.

What do they have to say about you eating their pupils?

I'm not sure who you refer to as "their pupils"?

Basically, they teach balanced relationship or "there a season for all under Heaven."

The plants. Are they willfully communicating lessons to you or are you projecting a will onto them, or you are speaking metaphorically?

[Lou Gold]

Cleric,

We can't hold hands with sin.

This is a subject of Jung's lecture, which I posted separately at Ending Your Internal Civil War.