That's an intriguing reading. To me it suggests that America simply can't survive in its present state. It has to change. And change for the better, otherwise it will continue to be abysmal and, well, encounter the abyss. Of course, the powers-that-shouldn't-be would resist this underlying (and possibly non-human, although humans would feel it) force. So that would explain your suggestion of local level change, as if we have the States vs. Washington.
On a negative level, this suggest a conflict is inevitable. An internal conflict, I mean, although if the bad guys sense this then they would distract the people's energy by creating/escalating a foreign conflict.
But certainly the change means a change of president. And of course, if the 'assassination attempt' was staged, then this suggests they have complete control over Trump and he will do what they want him to do. And like I say, they will resist the forces of change. Somehow, then, I suspect these bad guys already know and sense of all of this, and are already making their plans.
So, all in all, I think this is a very accurate and revealing reading. And as usual, it only speaks indirectly, and expects us/the reader to interpret it with their own wisdom.
Anyhow - those are my thoughts. Were you thinking along the same lines?
Thank you for that response. I pretty much put what I was thinking on the page, but if I had written it today probably it would come out a little different. Real life has many layers and levels and one can never explain them all, even to oneself, so we catch glimpses of kaleidoscopes constantly turning and churning. Those glimpses can be very clear, even revealing, but one never knows.
One perspective that has been growing of late in different contexts is that we live in between, or in the Middle. We comprise both hell and heaven within us and manifest this every day. We are neither all-good nor all-bad, angel or demon, but always a bit of both.
In the modern West we can see our leadership class is in the grip of an almost demonic materialism manifesting no end of greed, deceit and corruption; and yet they themselves probably are highly disciplined, intelligent people who love their families and believe they are making the world a better place. And many who resent them suffer from lack of discipline and often indulge in petty complaint and bitter resentments whilst also caring deeply for truth, justice and decency.
I think I have a different opinion with regards to human beings comprising heaven and hell within them, though. In their normal, natural state/environment, human beings are in fact 'morally good' - simply because it's a better evolutionary survival strategy - over countless generations this trait/behaviour becomes imprinted on the brain's neuroanatomy. It's why the 'conscience' exists (as a pre-emptive function stopping people from doing bad things so as to avoid the pain of feeling guilty and the threat of ostracism).
Of course the key point here is 'natural environment' - obviously the modern world is not that (hence that great line 'it's not healthy to be well-adjusted to a sick society'). Natural means small groups of around 150 individuals, in which 'evil' or 'bad guys' or 'members of the globalist cabal' (the current crop of national 'leaders') simply could not survive, because everyone else would gang up on them and ostracise them. In larger population sizes this fundamental aspect of Dunbar's number can no longer function because these types can conceal themselves and learn to 'mimic' and deceive ('evil always pretends to be good'). And so the bad guys survive. Eventually they band together.
Perhaps my point is that it's not 'every individual human' who has good and bad within them. As a species as a whole, perhaps, but the admixture varies considerably between individuals, with I would say the vast majority not having any genuine evil in them at all (notwithstanding that 'stress' and 'threat' can force a person to adopt a self-defensive posture which could be perceived as evil - ostracism being a case in point). However, it is clear that the minority group of individuals who have very little good, if any, have, over time, formed themselves into cabals mainly for their own group's survival purposes, and today we see them occupying all the positions of power, money and so on. Hence the horrorshow of the modern world.
So I would dispute the idea that they believe they are making the world a better place. Unless that should be supplemented with the words 'for themselves'.
So from this perspective, modern history could be seen as a conflict between the majority who simply want to live free and secure and happy lives (without wanting excess) and that minority who are genuinely demonic and, indeed, have a kind of pathological addiction to inflicting cruelty and suffering on people - perhaps out of bitterness and resentment stemming from an ancient, innate memory of ostracism...
How this plays out in the near future, well, we'll see!
Well, obviously I disagree but I enjoyed reading your rebuttal! I will rebut in a different way: without evil, good cannot develop for it will have nothing to overcome. Because part of what good is involves not succumbing to evil. I have yet to meet someone who has never experienced selfishness, laziness, cowardice, self-doubt, greed, shame and so forth, all of which are aspects of 'evil'.
Also, my view basically comes from the Six Realms cosmology from the Hindu-then-Buddhist tradition which you might enjoy reading for fun:
Ever since I read about them some time in the 70's they have just stuck as an interesting way of viewing both inner emotional states and changes which can happen quite rapidly as well as a description, more or less, of existential realities. Gaza, for example, is a type of hell these days, and many perpetrating atrocities there have the mentality of hell demons.
Ah - I think I understand the difference in what we're both saying here. Those traits you mentioned - selfishness, laziness, cowardice, self-doubt, greed, shame and so on - I would not necessarily categorise those as 'evil'. Negative, certainly, but not evil as such. Perhaps also I'm thinking in quantitative terms. There are entirely different levels, for example, to, say 'selfishness', some of which are trivial and do no harm to others.
if we now contrast that with those perpetrating the genocide in Gaza it's clear we are dealing with something altogether different. And in fact that's not even a quantitative difference, it's a qualitative difference. That's the kind of thing I was really classifying as 'evil' - and I would absolutely argue that the vast majority of human beings are simply incapable of doing such things.
I read an interesting thing about soldiers in ww1 a while ago about how a very significant percentage of them only ever fired their weapons up into the air instead of at the so-called enemy. And the fact they had to be threatened with the firing squad to even be there says something.
So for sure individuals have to sort of battle with their own 'negative' side, but if we're talking 'evil' then that takes a person over completely and its mere existence means it has won the battle and driven 'good' out forever, if it was even there in the first place.
I think it's a volume issue. Above a certain level, you would call it evil but I think evil comes from not promoting the good even if that sometimes includes small, seemingly innocuous ways, like lying. Carry on!
I had another extremely positive thought not long after I replied last time, which is that now I know I am purely good, because I can do all of those negative things you mentioned, like selfishness and greed and such like, but it doesn't corrupt me in the slightest (partly because it is selfish and thus doesn't negatively affect anyone else). If a demon came along and tried to turn me evil I'd laugh at it. Because it's impossible.
I think, without being arrogant (arrogance is a perception from others), that it comes from being a very old and mature soul. Young souls would indeed be corrupted by all those negative things. They would, for example, as you say, start small with a lie here and there, which they would 'get away with', so they continue and it gets reinforced in their neural architecture. Eventually they cross a line without even knowing it, because it seems normal to them.
I think there is an important spiritual point here - the older a soul is, the less corruptible they are. And at some point in their spiritual evolution (over multiple lifetimes) they cross the line where they are no longer corruptible. From then, they can be what others perceive as negative traits, but which in the old soul are transmuted into 'self-love'.
Likewise, all these evil people in the world are simply very young souls, for whom life is a terrifying struggle. They simply can't cope with suddenly incarnating into a human brain with all its infinite faculties. And it's that fear which makes them seek material power, because they think it makes them safe. But of course it doesn't. And so they develop a pathology.
And then take it with them into their next incarnation. At some point, someone wonders where have all the flowers gone.
That's an intriguing reading. To me it suggests that America simply can't survive in its present state. It has to change. And change for the better, otherwise it will continue to be abysmal and, well, encounter the abyss. Of course, the powers-that-shouldn't-be would resist this underlying (and possibly non-human, although humans would feel it) force. So that would explain your suggestion of local level change, as if we have the States vs. Washington.
On a negative level, this suggest a conflict is inevitable. An internal conflict, I mean, although if the bad guys sense this then they would distract the people's energy by creating/escalating a foreign conflict.
But certainly the change means a change of president. And of course, if the 'assassination attempt' was staged, then this suggests they have complete control over Trump and he will do what they want him to do. And like I say, they will resist the forces of change. Somehow, then, I suspect these bad guys already know and sense of all of this, and are already making their plans.
So, all in all, I think this is a very accurate and revealing reading. And as usual, it only speaks indirectly, and expects us/the reader to interpret it with their own wisdom.
Anyhow - those are my thoughts. Were you thinking along the same lines?
Thank you for that response. I pretty much put what I was thinking on the page, but if I had written it today probably it would come out a little different. Real life has many layers and levels and one can never explain them all, even to oneself, so we catch glimpses of kaleidoscopes constantly turning and churning. Those glimpses can be very clear, even revealing, but one never knows.
One perspective that has been growing of late in different contexts is that we live in between, or in the Middle. We comprise both hell and heaven within us and manifest this every day. We are neither all-good nor all-bad, angel or demon, but always a bit of both.
In the modern West we can see our leadership class is in the grip of an almost demonic materialism manifesting no end of greed, deceit and corruption; and yet they themselves probably are highly disciplined, intelligent people who love their families and believe they are making the world a better place. And many who resent them suffer from lack of discipline and often indulge in petty complaint and bitter resentments whilst also caring deeply for truth, justice and decency.
Round and around we go!
Again, glad you enjoyed the Cast & Reading.
I did enjoy the cast & reading - thank you!
I think I have a different opinion with regards to human beings comprising heaven and hell within them, though. In their normal, natural state/environment, human beings are in fact 'morally good' - simply because it's a better evolutionary survival strategy - over countless generations this trait/behaviour becomes imprinted on the brain's neuroanatomy. It's why the 'conscience' exists (as a pre-emptive function stopping people from doing bad things so as to avoid the pain of feeling guilty and the threat of ostracism).
Of course the key point here is 'natural environment' - obviously the modern world is not that (hence that great line 'it's not healthy to be well-adjusted to a sick society'). Natural means small groups of around 150 individuals, in which 'evil' or 'bad guys' or 'members of the globalist cabal' (the current crop of national 'leaders') simply could not survive, because everyone else would gang up on them and ostracise them. In larger population sizes this fundamental aspect of Dunbar's number can no longer function because these types can conceal themselves and learn to 'mimic' and deceive ('evil always pretends to be good'). And so the bad guys survive. Eventually they band together.
Perhaps my point is that it's not 'every individual human' who has good and bad within them. As a species as a whole, perhaps, but the admixture varies considerably between individuals, with I would say the vast majority not having any genuine evil in them at all (notwithstanding that 'stress' and 'threat' can force a person to adopt a self-defensive posture which could be perceived as evil - ostracism being a case in point). However, it is clear that the minority group of individuals who have very little good, if any, have, over time, formed themselves into cabals mainly for their own group's survival purposes, and today we see them occupying all the positions of power, money and so on. Hence the horrorshow of the modern world.
So I would dispute the idea that they believe they are making the world a better place. Unless that should be supplemented with the words 'for themselves'.
So from this perspective, modern history could be seen as a conflict between the majority who simply want to live free and secure and happy lives (without wanting excess) and that minority who are genuinely demonic and, indeed, have a kind of pathological addiction to inflicting cruelty and suffering on people - perhaps out of bitterness and resentment stemming from an ancient, innate memory of ostracism...
How this plays out in the near future, well, we'll see!
Well, obviously I disagree but I enjoyed reading your rebuttal! I will rebut in a different way: without evil, good cannot develop for it will have nothing to overcome. Because part of what good is involves not succumbing to evil. I have yet to meet someone who has never experienced selfishness, laziness, cowardice, self-doubt, greed, shame and so forth, all of which are aspects of 'evil'.
Also, my view basically comes from the Six Realms cosmology from the Hindu-then-Buddhist tradition which you might enjoy reading for fun:
https://ashleyschowes.substack.com/p/of-realms-humans
Ever since I read about them some time in the 70's they have just stuck as an interesting way of viewing both inner emotional states and changes which can happen quite rapidly as well as a description, more or less, of existential realities. Gaza, for example, is a type of hell these days, and many perpetrating atrocities there have the mentality of hell demons.
Ah - I think I understand the difference in what we're both saying here. Those traits you mentioned - selfishness, laziness, cowardice, self-doubt, greed, shame and so on - I would not necessarily categorise those as 'evil'. Negative, certainly, but not evil as such. Perhaps also I'm thinking in quantitative terms. There are entirely different levels, for example, to, say 'selfishness', some of which are trivial and do no harm to others.
if we now contrast that with those perpetrating the genocide in Gaza it's clear we are dealing with something altogether different. And in fact that's not even a quantitative difference, it's a qualitative difference. That's the kind of thing I was really classifying as 'evil' - and I would absolutely argue that the vast majority of human beings are simply incapable of doing such things.
I read an interesting thing about soldiers in ww1 a while ago about how a very significant percentage of them only ever fired their weapons up into the air instead of at the so-called enemy. And the fact they had to be threatened with the firing squad to even be there says something.
So for sure individuals have to sort of battle with their own 'negative' side, but if we're talking 'evil' then that takes a person over completely and its mere existence means it has won the battle and driven 'good' out forever, if it was even there in the first place.
I think it's a volume issue. Above a certain level, you would call it evil but I think evil comes from not promoting the good even if that sometimes includes small, seemingly innocuous ways, like lying. Carry on!
I had another extremely positive thought not long after I replied last time, which is that now I know I am purely good, because I can do all of those negative things you mentioned, like selfishness and greed and such like, but it doesn't corrupt me in the slightest (partly because it is selfish and thus doesn't negatively affect anyone else). If a demon came along and tried to turn me evil I'd laugh at it. Because it's impossible.
I think, without being arrogant (arrogance is a perception from others), that it comes from being a very old and mature soul. Young souls would indeed be corrupted by all those negative things. They would, for example, as you say, start small with a lie here and there, which they would 'get away with', so they continue and it gets reinforced in their neural architecture. Eventually they cross a line without even knowing it, because it seems normal to them.
I think there is an important spiritual point here - the older a soul is, the less corruptible they are. And at some point in their spiritual evolution (over multiple lifetimes) they cross the line where they are no longer corruptible. From then, they can be what others perceive as negative traits, but which in the old soul are transmuted into 'self-love'.
Likewise, all these evil people in the world are simply very young souls, for whom life is a terrifying struggle. They simply can't cope with suddenly incarnating into a human brain with all its infinite faculties. And it's that fear which makes them seek material power, because they think it makes them safe. But of course it doesn't. And so they develop a pathology.
And then take it with them into their next incarnation. At some point, someone wonders where have all the flowers gone.