human nature - inherently good or evil?

[IowaGuy]

You are incorrect, we are not social by nature, we are social by necessity.

Same thing. Without social ties you would be dead. We have evolved to be social creatures.

Conforming is the opposite of individualism, and if your emphasis is too uch on conformity, ultimately you give up the individual and become just a persona, only personality, a character.

I totally agree. That's why I stress temporary conformity. If you could see me now at home in lounge mode, you would barely recognize me at the next public hearing I present at when I'm in professional mode. I am still an individual in both circumstances, with the same inner character.

You are assuming that all people are crude and obnoxious, is this really your perception of me though? I am blunt and direct, but rarely outright rude. I am unwilling to waver on that, and if it causes my will to not be done, if I am having to compromise in any way, my will has not been done. Do not place on the other anything you would not carry yourself, but why will you be burdened by another being direct and completely honest? It is only possible because my words have damaged your ego, yet this is exactly what I attempt to point out every time I do so: You exist as a fragile ego, let your being break through.

I have a pretty thick skin, thicker than most. But many people on this earth don't have a thick skin and their egos can be easily damaged. Sometimes you are too blunt, IMHO. Especially when you use words such as stupid, fool, etc.

You could accomplish more, and people would be more receptive to your message (parts of which I personally agree with), if you learned to polish your presentation a little more with regards to your audience.

When Jesus and Buddha were trying to convince someone of the truth of their message, how many times did they preface their message of truth with "you're stupid" or "shut up" or "you're a fool". They didn't do that because it's not very effective. Shocking, yes. Effective agent of social change, no.

 

[IowaGuy]

if your idea is truly beneficial to your community, why will it be rejected simply because of how it is delivered?

Because that's how human sociology and psychology works. The messenger and how the message is delivered can be more important than the message itself. You might not like this or agree, but it has been my experience in life, and a large part of my job is dealing with the public every day so I've had lots of practice experimenting with different techniques.

I try to always consider how best to deliver my message/idea, so that it can be heard for what it is, and so that folks aren't instead distracted by the messenger or the delivery of the message.

Here's an example for you to think about: someone dies. Who should tell their loved ones and how should they tell them, does it matter? Why does it matter how they're told and who tells them?

 

[Lunitik]

Same thing. Without social ties you would be dead. We have evolved to be social creatures.

Life is easier with a society to support you, but it is not a necessity at all.

I have a pretty thick skin, thicker than most. But many people on this earth don't have a thick skin and their egos can be easily damaged. Sometimes you are too blunt, IMHO. Especially when you use words such as stupid, fool, etc.

I want to destroy ego's, not simply damage them.

You could accomplish more, and people would be more receptive to your message (parts of which I personally agree with), if you learned to polish your presentation a little more with regards to your audience.

You do not realize that you are suggesting I would accomplish more by accomplishing nothing. See my last statement...

When Jesus and Buddha were trying to convince someone of the truth of their message, how many times did they preface their message of truth with "you're stupid" or "shut up" or "you're a fool". They didn't do that because it's not very effective. Shocking, yes. Effective agent of social change, no.

I might bring up the situation in the Temple in the case of Jesus, and any number of statements by Buddha about the Brahmin beliefs. You will likely try to justify it in some way though, it is exactly why they have not been widely accepted during the their life, why Buddha has been poisoned and Jesus crucified - the audience was deeply offended by their words.

Yet, who in history has effected the whole of society more than these men? Buddha has influenced every "mystic" school in human history while Christianity has 2.5 billion members - no one has caused as much change. It is almost certain that Jesus has been influenced by Buddha, even, yet he is the more offensive of the two to the status quo.

 

[Lunitik]

Because that's how human sociology and psychology works. The messenger and how the message is delivered can be more important than the message itself. You might not like this or agree, but it has been my experience in life, and a large part of my job is dealing with the public every day so I've had lots of practice experimenting with different techniques.

I try to always consider how best to deliver my message/idea, so that it can be heard for what it is, and so that folks aren't instead distracted by the messenger or the delivery of the message.

Here's an example for you to think about: someone dies. Who should tell their loved ones and how should they tell them, does it matter? Why does it matter how they're told and who tells them?

Again, then it harms them, it is perfectly fine.

As for the family death, I am the wrong person to ask. For me, death is a beautiful thing and it is utter selfishness that we mourn instead of celebrate it. People fear death, and someone dying close to them brings it more close to home. Now you have to deliver the message delicately and pretend you are sad about it. It is an absurd way to treat death, but you will be offended by this statement because it is so much against what society wants us to feel.

Certainly, you should not ask me to deliver the message...

 

[IowaGuy]

I propose a little experiment to highlight the points we've been talking about:

Pick two different public meetings in your community (City Council meeting, School Board meeting, County Officials meeting, Board of Health meeting, etc).

Pick an issue for each meaning that you think needs addressed or improvement, something that would truly make your community a better place.

At the first meeting, show up just like you are when you're typing on this forum. For me right now that's unshaven, unshowered, sweat pants, bad breath, barefoot. To preface your presentation at the meeting, be sure to tell them about any "foolish" ideas they have and feel free to tell anyone to "shut up" that you don't agree with. Be brash, shocking, whatever is your true character; make sure not to conform one bit to their expectations. Make your presentation and see how you're received.

At the second meeting, do a little research beforehand on what the common etiquette is. Do presenters show up in suit/tie, business casual, or casual clothes? How is the meeting run, is there a standard agenda, or can audience members comment when they want to. At the second meeting, use the best manners you know of: speak when it's your turn, say please/thanks, Sir/Maam, shave and shower, brush your teeth, and wear whatever attire is appropriate for the meeting. Try to tailor your message as best your can for your audience, so that you're talking neither under nor over their intellect. Make your presentation and see how you're received.

After you've conducted both of these experiments let me know at which meeting your message has a better chance of being accepted, and as a result "my will be done."

 

[Lunitik]

You have not judged my character correctly because I have no character at all, I simply respond to whatsoever is presented. I am not interested in any form of politics because it simply effects no change at all, it just lets people think they have any say in matters. If you truly want to get something done, you will have to go into the community and gain support from actually citizens, you will have to collect funds yourself and organize it all yourself. Every time you bring in the government you will simply be ground to a halt waiting for them to decide something.

What you see as my being offensive is merely a mirroring of the others statement, they have, in their way, stated my comment is idiotic. I simply show them why their disagreement is idiotic, but in reality if we disagree the whole conversation is idiotic - nothing can come of it other than compromise, and then neither are being authentic anymore, from two authentic stances, you have none because they have listened to each other too much and stupidity has happened.

 

[Etu Malku]

I agree with you here. But our "self" and social conduct are intertwined, are they not?, as humans are by nature social creatures.




Your drive for uncompromising individualness/nonconformity is in contrast to your creed of "my will be done", IMHO.

If you truly want your will to be done in society, you have to, on occasion, temporarily conform to society's etiquette and requirements. Otherwise, you will be dismissed as a Lunitik.

I see your point, and it is a valid one.
As a Luciferian our need to be a sovereign is very important. The highest sovereign in most religions is the concept of god/nature, here His/Its Word is taken as the rule and usually not questioned being this god is in a high authority - His Will is being done here. So is it with a sovereign in our own community, city/town, government, scholar establishment, etc. Let me explain.

For many of us the insights and deductions which come from say professors of science will be questioned less because we understand they have done the work proper, which we can't or won't.

Included are the Laws Makers and Keepers, for instance non of us can change the Constitution per se, but a Law Maker can, therefore it would behoove those wishing for the Laws to conform to there Will to become Law Makers (though it is all but impossible for say a Church of Satan member to make it far into government), if you want to be above the Law you become a police officer, etc.

What I am saying simply is, yes you are right in that the 'game' needs to be played by the rules of others sometimes in order for you to influence them at some time. Deception? Yes.

During my time in the Temple of Set I had access to many great minds from all walks of life, they did the work proper, they held esteemed positions, they provided substantial evidence for their claims, etc. It was evident to me that in order to make any difference, no matter how puny, it was necessary to become a sovereign.

 

[IowaGuy]

Again, what does acceptance of my message do?

You tell me. You seem to be frustrated that more on this forum do not receive or accept your true message. I'm trying to share a few observations that I've had that might improve your message delivery in the future. It could be that they are open to your message they just don't like the delivery or the messenger.

 

[seattlegal]

We individuals make up society. It is our duty to question authority, not only for our own understanding, but also for the understanding of those holding authority. Requiring "obedience without question" to be the norm will lead to a general "dumbing down" or "confusion" within society and abuse of power by those who are not allowed to be questioned. Going after power for the sake of power in such a confused or deluded state is not an optimal scenario, imo.

I have no problem with most "solid" societal norms that make sense. On the other hand, the "fluff" I freely ignore--like the silly notion of not wearing black after Easter (or whatever day it is) and not wearing white after Labor Day (or whatever day it is.) I mean, how silly and superficial can you get? I'll show no qualms about wearing a black swimsuit in July or a white ski parka in January if I like to.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Fluff of the norm isn't very important to me, I have always been a weird kid, a freak if you prefer the term. Social games have never served me so they have little value for myself, but I have always observed and I am very well aware of the rules. It's good to know them in this world even if you don't intend to live by them, they provide stability when interacting with others and good measurements when sizing up people. And also endless entertainment when people-watching.

I prefer solitude or the company of one or two close friends or family. I don't act the same with them all and different social interaction fulfil different social needs. I still have the same values every minute of every day no matter what I do, but they might be more or less relevant in any given relationship.

I just wanted to point out that, for me, it isn't just about authorities but any relationship, from my mother to the cashier, they are all fluent. The cloths I ware, the hair on my head, the words I use, the meaning of the words can all be as different as the people I interact with. They serve my purpose to express, that which is set like stone, my soul.

 

[Lunitik]

You tell me. You seem to be frustrated that more on this forum do not receive or accept your true message. I'm trying to share a few observations that I've had that might improve your message delivery in the future. It could be that they are open to your message they just don't like the delivery or the messenger.

Oh, I want them to receive it, but they cannot receive fully if the accept. I know what I'm doing, but thank you for your advice?

 

[Lunitik]

We individuals make up society. It is our duty to question authority, not only for our own understanding, but also for the understanding of those holding authority. Requiring "obedience without question" to be the norm will lead to a general "dumbing down" or "confusion" within society and abuse of power by those who are not allowed to be questioned. Going after power for the sake of power in such a confused or deluded state is not an optimal scenario, imo.

I have no problem with most "solid" societal norms that make sense. On the other hand, the "fluff" I freely ignore--like the silly notion of not wearing black after Easter (or whatever day it is) and not wearing white after Labor Day (or whatever day it is.) I mean, how silly and superficial can you get? I'll show no qualms about wearing a black swimsuit in July or a white ski parka in January if I like to.

I would go so far as to say that society simply doesn't exist, it is merely a collection of individuals - as such societal norms become irrelevant, and they go much too far in places like the whole "politically correct" debacle.

Otherwise:

 

[Lunitik]

Fluff of the norm isn't very important to me, I have always been a weird kid, a freak if you prefer the term. Social games have never served me so they have little value for myself, but I have always observed and I am very well aware of the rules. It's good to know them in this world even if you don't intend to live by them, they provide stability when interacting with others and good measurements when sizing up people. And also endless entertainment when people-watching.

I prefer solitude or the company of one or two close friends or family. I don't act the same with them all and different social interaction fulfil different social needs. I still have the same values every minute of every day no matter what I do, but they might be more or less relevant in any given relationship.

I just wanted to point out that, for me, it isn't just about authorities but any relationship, from my mother to the cashier, they are all fluent. The cloths I ware, the hair on my head, the words I use, the meaning of the words can all be as different as the people I interact with. They serve my purpose to express, that which is set like stone, my soul.

This is quite sad actually.

It is one thing to share only a certain amount with each person, relationships grow in different ways. To assign them each a role in your "social needs" though? It sounds dangerously like you are using them...

I might recommend you try viewing others as merely travelers going the same way. Try to see it more as a gift, and that you are to allow each other to grow and share this experience. Do not expect anything, do not feel there is any expectation on you, merely enjoy their company. Whatsoever comes up is perfectly good, perhaps it is leading to a point that will provide insight. Do not view them as an object though, they are people.

I was a rather popular child, the class clown and maintained friendships across all the groups in school. Never have I held back, although since I began my spiritual journey there has been a different quality. Always, I found it best to be myself, and if they didn't like it then it was no big deal - I have to live with myself forever, they will come and go. Now, my conversations and activities tend to be more out of love, whereas before I was just trying to have fun and cause mischief.

This, above all, to thine own self be true.

 

[luecy7]

It is certainly an exercise in aloneness, you have still not explained your problem with this.

You presume I have a problem with it? It only takes one person to toy with themselves and their surroundings. Religion, by your definition, involves at least two.

Then I simply say you have no idea what love is. For you, love is something targeted, there must be something there to direct it on. It only shows a deep dependence and fear of being alone in you. Without the capacity to love without an object, what you call love is merely infatuation and as such it will dry up. You will still cling and try to possess the other, but it is only because you view them as your property. It is impossible for a relationship to be healthy when both are dependent on the other, and if only one is independent they will simply leave because no one wants to be with such a person - everyone wants time to themselves, too much time together and you simply become sick of each other, it is inevitable.

You fabricate and project yourself onto the intentions of other people. I see that as you reference myself and my intentions. I think you will find relationships difficult as a result.

Even on a site directed at religion, no one is actually interested in religion, they are interested in scholarly discussion about religion and fulfilling their curiosity but they are just wasting their time because there is nothing better they can come up with to do.

Interesting accusation.

I have come to an interfaith forum because what I wish to share cannot be pinned to a particular faith, I assumed wrongly that people here would be open to something which embarrasses all spiritual paths. It is simply wrong on my part, and it is about time the experiment be terminated.

While an experiment is a search for information, it looks to me like you are looking for people who will accept and follow you. I believe you will continue to find that you simply can't make other people like you, and I mean that in every sense of the word.

You have appreciated it, I have felt I am utterly wasting my time consistently because nothing is changing, no one is experiencing anything through my words.

There is change and experience everywhere, but perhaps not exactly what you want.

It is exactly because all here stay within the confines of their mediocre puny minds.

 

[Lunitik]

Religion, by your definition, involves at least two.

I have spent 6 months on this site saying that ultimately there is an overall oneness to existence, and you deem my message as being necessarily requiring two? My whole message is about realizing this fact, I have given devices which allow you to experience it.

How is it possible for someone to lack comprehension so utterly?

 

[luecy7]

I have spent 6 months on this site saying that ultimately there is an overall oneness to existence, and you deem my message as being necessarily requiring two? My whole message is about realizing this fact, I have given devices which allow you to experience it.

How is it possible for someone to lack comprehension so utterly?

Maybe you should try keeping a secret diary, writing about your beliefs there for 6 months, never showing anyone else, just to try proving the statement wrong.

 

[IowaGuy]

As for the family death, I am the wrong person to ask. For me, death is a beautiful thing and it is utter selfishness that we mourn instead of celebrate it.

Would you say the same about the death of a young child in your close family? I know you don't have kids of your own, but how about a young nephew or cousin? You would celebrate their death instead of mourning it? Imagine you had a child of your own that died at a young age, you would celebrate their death?

Life is easier with a society to support you, but it is not a necessity at all.

Are you, Lunitik, completely self-sustaining? Do you grow all your own food and make all your own clothes and shelter?

I would go so far as to say that society simply doesn't exist, it is merely a collection of individuals - as such societal norms become irrelevant

You are demonstrating that you indeed are a "solo" type and perhaps don't make it out into the "real world" very often. You might wish that society was made up purely of individuals and therefore societal norms are irrelevant, but that is not the case in my life experience.

Are you arguing that any of the following groups are just collections of random individuals?

families
church families
Republicans
Jews
high school classmates
parents whose kids attend the same school
residents of a common taxing district (city, county, state, country)

Even the animal world has many examples of societies. Apes, wolves, dolphins, bees, etc.

Being a member of society has proven to be an evolutionary advantage over the millenia. Members of a society had a greater chance for survival than individuals acting on their own accord.

I agree with Luecy, life is much richer as part of a larger society than as a loner (even though I value solitude and spend large amounts of time by myself). I propose embracing the advantages of being a part of society while discarding or guarding against the disadvantages.

You, Lunitik, are receiving numerous benefits from your society (I'm not sure where you live, but this statement applies to most countries) even though you badmouth society. Who pays for the roads you drive/bike on? Who provides you protection against criminals? Who protects your drinking water from contaminants? Who educates the youth in your community? Who provides parks and recreation? Who pays for the libraries?

These are examples where, to paraphrase Aristotle, the whole of society is greater than the sum of the individual parts. Do you disagree?

 

[Etu Malku]

OK, just to clarify, you're saying "wearing a mask" is the same thing as conforming to society? i.e. not a physical mask such as shaven/unshaven; suit & tie vs. sweatpants; but instead a mask of our true character?

So, if you're "on your best behaviour" when at your mother-in-law's house, or you watch your language to not curse while meeting with your kid's teacher, are these examples of "masks", conforming to meet the "requirements and opinions of society"?

I agree with your individualism/nonconformist views. But I also think it's possible and indeed beneficial (from a "my will be done" standpoint) to be able to temporarily conform to the requirements and opinions of soceity, yet keep our true individualist character.

As a Luciferian without a mask, would your boss/wife/child/in-law/friend/grandma all describe your character with equal accuracy?

Jung believed that, to be psychologically healthy, one must strike a balance between the demands of society and what we really are.

To be oblivious to one's persona is to underestimate the importance of society, but to be unaware of one's deep individuality is to become society's puppet.

 

[Lunitik]

Would you say the same about the death of a young child in your close family? I know you don't have kids of your own, but how about a young nephew or cousin? You would celebrate their death instead of mourning it? Imagine you had a child of your own that died at a young age, you would celebrate their death?

For me, separation from the ultimate is more depressing, in death the child has returned to that state of oneness. That is what I would still celebrate, yes.

Are you, Lunitik, completely self-sustaining? Do you grow all your own food and make all your own clothes and shelter?

Irrelevant, I am saying it is possible to be.

You are demonstrating that you indeed are a "solo" type and perhaps don't make it out into the "real world" very often. You might wish that society was made up purely of individuals and therefore societal norms are irrelevant, but that is not the case in my life experience.

I spend time socially almost every day, and in fact am about to head out in a bit... I simply don't see a society, I see a collection of individuals sharing a portion of their particular experience of life.

You are perfectly correct that living in close quarters allows for many benefits, I am not arguing against that at all, I am saying that identifying with the group is utterly poisonous and results eventually and inevitably in losing your own individuality. An extreme case of this is the Muslims that were raping reporters in the Middle East during the recent uprisings, but it is very common that when in a group setting we will become utterly unconscious to our true being, we become part of a mindless collective. THAT is what I am arguing against, I do not think humans should become like ants, where essentially each nest functions as one and there are no individuals at all. We are dangerously close to that though, we have had experiments which essentially turn entire countries into ant nests. We have called it Communism, Socialism, but it is nothing of the sort because the individual simply doesn't matter here. Then, ultimately the individual doesn't matter anyway, but without the individual a community or society is utterly impossible.

You cannot point at somewhere and say "this is a society" or "this is a community" and not see it is simply a group of individuals, the collective is non-existential, only the individual is real... yet what is the individual? Indivisible authenticity, you go on dividing into this group and that group and this value and that value and you cannot say you are an individual anymore. Everything I have said speaks to discovering that indivisible aspect of your being, that is all I speak about. In reply, many here decide to justify how dividing themselves into the situation or into religion or whatever is maintaining that, but it is exactly against the individual.

If you choose this over that, if you identify with this but reject that, you are dividing your being in pieces, it is a great violence against your fundamental self. This is the insanity that society creates in each of us, and it is what I wish to terminate or at least make more recognized in the people around me.

 

[luecy7]

Love, faith, honesty, trust, confession, forgiving, patience, prayer... these may be done individually, but do involve and require at least one other.

If someone can meditate their neighbor, then I'll add it to the list of activities that require at least two people.