Sacred Cows

Today I will list some of your sacred cows so you can slaughter them.

Deservedness

Nobody deserves anything. The concept of deservedness has no connection to how the world actually works. It is a lie created by the ego to rationalize the non-manifestation of something it wants. Thinking you are owed something is practically guaranteed to cause you to lack that thing forever.

Let’s say you work five years at a job, coming in on time every day, working overtime, and giving 110%. You deserve a pay rise, right? You have shown the company your value and you ought to be rewarded for it. However, all you really showed is that you’re willing to work five years, doing an excellent job, at your existing level of pay. Your deservedness exists only in your mind and if they say yes or no you can almost be certain that your sense of deservedness had nothing to do with their decision. There is zero correlation between your sense of deservedness and the actual outcome. Thus, deservedness is not only an unreliable compass, but actually serves the status quo.

I’m not offering some alternative wisdom here. Rather, I’m negating bad concepts so you can see what’s left at the end of it.

Morality

If an old woman falls in the street and a man rushes forward to pick her up, onlookers might think, “He’s a very moral man”. However, his body was probably moving towards her before he even had a thought about it. It was his inclination to help. Another man who walks on by might be considered immoral, but similarly it was his inclination to walk on by. The morality is something applied to the situation after the fact and exists only in others’ minds.

The desire to help is primate empathy – a body inclination. We can try to encourage it by creating a system of theoretical rewards for such behaviour and punishments for its obverse. However, those rewards and punishments then persist as simply more body inclinations of desire and aversion.

The idea that good deeds beget favourable future outcomes is only true insofar that such behaviours trigger similar responses in other empathically-inclined primates. All the ones not so inclined will not think twice about walking all over you. If you think you deserve good things because you’re a good person then you’re just falling into the trap laid out in the previous section. We all know that bad things happen to good people. This is because bad things happen to everyone. Morality is not the causal system you assume it to be. It’s just a balm to soothe fears and encourage hope in the goodness of society.

Society

The realization that we’re all just individuals following our own particular and nuanced inclinations puts paid to the concept of society. If you think we’re all in this together, talk to your neighbour about something controversial. Whoever was your ally a moment ago is now your enemy through a simple change in conversation. Unity is the exception; division is the rule. Society is another concept made up to assuage the knowledge that you are a lone perspective on a completely individual and customized path. The idea that there even is a society out there that you somehow have to serve is a pernicious one which undermines your own personal will.

So, what now?

A post like this is supposed to be a bomb that blows up everything in order that you can see what’s left. It is a process of negating untruth rather than discovering truth (the end result being the same, except this way you don’t invent new concepts to cover the holes blown in your reality).

So, if you destroy all the made-up concepts designed to soothe fears, what’s left?

  • Inclinations. It is often the case that you don’t find out how you would respond to an event until it happens. More often, however, what and who you are – a completely individual and idiosyncratic set of inclinations – is already hiding in plain sight, but wilfully obscured by one’s own tendency to soothe fears through the delusions of deservedness, morality and society – a.k.a. EGO. You don’t need to be truthful to everyone about everything, but you do need to be truthful to yourself about your own inclinations. Know yourself well! And never be surprised again. You can only be bullshitted to the extent that you are willing to bullshit yourself.
  • Intent. We talked about deservedness and morality being irrelevant and ineffectual means towards manifesting desires. The only thing that truly matters in this respect is strong intent. If strong intent is aligned with true desire (i.e. the situation you really want to experience, regardless of your need to look good in front of others), then mountains will move for you.

Together, these premises form the only rule worth following: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Merry Christmas 2019, everyone! 🙂

Need help with your meditation? Book a Skype coaching session →

7 Responses

  1. Arpan says:

    I once read something supposedly said by Abraham Lincoln to the effect that developing a skill is a moral act. Why ? Because it involves overcoming many obstacles within you.

    That said, I believe that what is mentioned in this post boils down to the age old predetermination vs free-will debate. Either viewpoint, carried to its logical extreme is just that: a particular viewpoint/lens imposed upon reality. It changes nothing, one way or the other. From the lens of predetermination: those who believe in free will are destined to believe in free will. Those who are meant to debate for or against either side are destined to so debate.

    As goes the famous example of a convict pleading that he was destined to act criminally, and the judge replying that so was he destined to convict him.

    If “intent” is really a thing, set apart from instinct, unreason and other upwellings of unconsciousness, then morality of the intent can very well be debated. If there is nothing but unthinking impulse, then both intent and morality are null concepts.
    Re “inclination”: this point is the most solid point in this post. However this does not oppose the concept of morality or deservedness, if combined with “intent” in deeper sense that you allude to.
    Infact, you have created your own moral framework here: “You don’t need to be truthful to everyone about everything, but you do need to be truthful to yourself about your own inclinations”. It’s just a play of words.

    Eg. an islamic extremist is deviant not because he believes in a particular ideology, but because he is not in touch with his inmost inclinations. If the same Kalashnikov wielding fellow who is a devout muslim and is leading a ragtag mililtia, won’t be called a terrorist if he is fighting Taliban and making efforts to create a more liberal Afghanistan. He would be called Ahmed Shah Masood.

    However there is a large distance to cover between the ego-self and the true self. Morality and other concepts you criticise are societies way of handling itself and its constituent individuals in this long journey. The things most generally criticized in Ethics(as a branch of philosophy) are things which tend to cause people to fall into division and ego-centric reactions the most. Eg. war/violence. It is in this way that Gita is such a debated scripture. Because it rescued the concept of war from the abject label of something immoral at worst(according to pacifists) to something good as a limited measure of self-defence at best(according to most frameworks of social ethics) to gave it the sanction of a “spiritual vocation” capable of leading one to full enlightenment, if that was his/her calling. Ofcourse the inner state from which one fights makes for all the difference between an ego-centric violence and a spiritual act.

    This calling(what you term “inclination”) is same as the “entelechy” of the greeks and “swadhama”(self-law) of the Gita.

    • Saturnus says:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnDu404Lavw
      Interesting video on the topic of free will vs determinism with an occult/magickal perspective.

      I agree that philosophically it is true that free will and determinism are rather mental frameworks to analyze the world with each having their validity within their domain. Pragmatically, however, I would say that it is better to believe in free will (in so far as you want to keep beliefs around) rather than doubt it. I say this because it might be interesting to question free will from a philosophical standpoint, but that could very easily create a subconscious belief that puts you at the mercy of the pushes and pulls of nature and its inherent clockwork inertia.

      William James, the American psychologist, famously said: “My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will”. He was mostly sick as a child, and a failure during his adolescence and early adulthood. One day decided that he is going to believe that he had control over himself and his destiny, that he could become better, that he had the free will to change. It actually worked out for him! He turned out to become one of the most important psychologists of the 20th century. He is one of the founders of Pragmatism*, perhaps the only philosophical school native to the United States.

      All in all, intentions are very powerful things/thoughtforms regardless of where they come from. We can argue about where the intentions come from and whether it comes from a self that makes it a true free-will. It shouldn’t take away from the awareness of an intention arising in consciousness and its power to shape our reality.

      * Pragmatism considers words and thought as tools and instruments for prediction, problem solving, and action, and rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality. Pragmatists contend that most philosophical topics—such as the nature of knowledge, language, concepts, meaning, belief, and science—are all best viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes.

      • Arpan says:

        “Pragmatically, however, I would say that it is better to believe in free will (in so far as you want to keep beliefs around) rather than doubt it. I say this because it might be interesting to question free will from a philosophical standpoint, but that could very easily create a subconscious belief that puts you at the mercy of the pushes and pulls of nature and its inherent clockwork inertia.”

        I second that. On a superficial level, it is akin to the Pascal’s wager: “a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell)”.
        So, if everything is predetermined, then it does not matter what I believe in since my beliefs too were predetermined. Whereas, if there is free will, and I believed only in predetermination, then I might lose out on a chance to be a master of my destiny. And yes, belief in predetermination, can greatly hamper one’s development and pauperise one’s energies, if one is of a dull nature.

        “William James, the American psychologist, famously said: “My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will”. He was mostly sick as a child, and a failure during his adolescence and early adulthood. One day decided that he is going to believe that he had control over himself and his destiny, that he could become better, that he had the free will to change. It actually worked out for him! He turned out to become one of the most important psychologists of the 20th century. He is one of the founders of Pragmatism*, perhaps the only philosophical school native to the United States.”
        Inspiring example. However, on a purely philosophical plane, this can easily be shot down by saying: He was predestined to believe in free-will and predestined to get better. Philosophy is a bitch 😀

        ” Pragmatism considers words and thought as tools and instruments for prediction, problem solving, and action, and rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality. Pragmatists contend that most philosophical topics—such as the nature of knowledge, language, concepts, meaning, belief, and science—are all best viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes.”
        I agree with that point of view.

  2. Saturnus says:

    Great point about deservedness holding you back. Funny and ironic: “However, all you really showed is that you’re willing to work five years, doing an excellent job, at your existing level of pay.” The only way to get a raise is to ask for it.

    “you think you deserve good things because you’re a good person” I think this belief is an oversimplification of the idea that being in a higher vibration creates an environment that is generally devoid of danger and more filled with positive things. This idea has been dragged through the mud and mixed with rigidly dual and moralistic concepts, probably as an effort by society to control its subjects. Funny how deservedness plays a role here. It has been said that people who do one “good” thing (e.g. help a beggar) can end up loosening up their morals (e.g. not recycle) because they have gathered karma points from the universe.

    The point about society, while true in a way, I believe comes from (or leads to) a subconscious belief in a competitive reality, where ultimately no collaboration or understanding is reachable. People are seen as irrelevant or mere obstacles on one’s path.

    Nothing of value has been the sole work of one person. Even if let’s say Einstein came up with his theories on his own, they would’ve been impossible if he hadn’t read the works of people before him. It wouldn’t have been possible for him to read the works without the library being built by numerous people, printing press, the logistics of publishing of the books, etc. In the modern world, almost everything is a group effort.

    Regarding the point about controversy and disagreement. If I am hanging with a group of people who I know hold different beliefs about a subject, let’s say politics, than me, then as a courtesy of politeness (and social intelligence) I will not introduce the topic of politics into the conversation. I will instead talk about other things that we might find common ground, like movies we like or something else. This creates a collaborative environment where people feel safe and included in the conversation, and social pleasantness can be shared. In no way, it is necessary to talk about politics. If on way to some goal disagreements become an obstacle, it is only then that one attempts to resolve them. If a resolution is impossible to reach, then people can go their own way. It is very rare that disagreements should lead to direct confrontations.

    Great men and women had to come together to build our civilization. It is this civilization that shelters us from elements of nature and enables us to communicate to the level that we do. The fact that our civilization is degenerating does not mean that it is inherently bad or should be dismissed. It might very well be this super individualistic “each man on his own” mindset that has led to this demise.

    In no way one is obliged to serve society or his fellow men. The feeling of obligation is itself rooted in fear. But one also should be careful not to form an aversion to serving others, for one might find great joy in it.

  3. Saturnus says:

    Forgot to say Merry Christmas and Happy new year!

  4. Illuminatus says:

    Hi Saturnus,

    Your worldview can resolve with mine if we just introduce one concept: “playing along”.

    This is the idea that, despite realizing life is a dream, we find it goes smoother if we just wink and play along with it. Whatever forms manifest today, that’s your day. If you don’t like it, imagine something different for tomorrow.

    Free will would be my next sacred cow to dispose of. While in the article (and in my previous statement above) I implied there is some freedom to exert a will, whatever desires arise that are the subject of this will arise from one’s inclinations — and those inclinations were already determined at the moment when unlimited God split himself into two: the limited form (“me”), and the world that that form interacts with. The inclinations and perceptions are already decided based on where that dualistic split was made.

    So there is no free will because everything stems from the placement of the dualistic split. However, we “play along” that we have free will, because that is how it appears!

    • Saturnus says:

      Full agreement on the concept of “playing along”. It lets you not resist the dream of life, while maintaining a degree of lucidity and not getting lost in it. Probably what the original godhead intended before it got too absorbed in the play.

      Great point about inclinations, and I would add that the sense of morality is intertwined with these inclinations. Most if not all inclinations are caused by either of biological, social or experiential conditioning. Acting in alignment with these inclinations cause a feeling of satisfaction, moral good and integrity. Acting out of alignment with them creates cognitive dissonance causing feelings of guilt. In fear of disintegration one feels morally bad, and depending on the metaphysical beliefs the consequences thereof (fear of hell etc.)

      A question arises whether we can consciously change our inclinations? I wanna avoid the trap of free will here because as Arpan mentioned above we can say that we were predestined to change our inclinations and were inclined at birth to change our way (which is probably true anyway).

      I am not the same person I was a year ago, let alone 10 years ago. Did I always have this potential in me that have now been actualized? Could I could be in a parallel universe with different inclinations manifested?

      And finally, is subconscious programming as part of magick, a way of changing inclinations?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *