Yeah, fballer11, you're welcome. I feel like I'm kind of raining on some people's parade about Hawkins, but people are just surrendering their minds to his assessment of, well, just about everything, and, as they say, if it walks like a cult and quacks like a cult....
Anyone who questions him gets the retributive calibration, so people are sort of afraid to question him, maybe like the journalists are with, say, Rush Limbaugh? They don't want him writing them off because he's so darned influential.
I can see why people go for it. I went for it myself the whole time I was reading the book. After that, I sort of sat with it for awhile, and then I'm going, hey, I've been in a cult before, I know what it feels like to be in a cult, and this is
exactly what it feels like--turning over your mind lock, stock and barrel to someone else, so I burned the book and never looked back.
People don't want to have to think, that's why they get hooked into personality cults, it seems to me. It's a form of returning to the womb.
Hawkins offers what everyone's looking for: absolute certainty. It's just another form of fundamentalism, and a dangerous one, I believe, in my rotten little below-200 heart. That kind of certainty doesn't exist.
I do believe in spiritual evolution, and I do believe in some sort of Omega Point, such as Teilhard referred to:
Quote:
Omega point is a term invented by French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin to describe the ultimate maximum level of complexity-consciousness, considered by him the aim towards which consciousness evolves.
Rather than divinity being found "in the heavens" he held that evolution was a process converging toward a "final unity", identical with the Eschaton and with God.
According to Teilhard and the Russian scholar and biologist Vladimir Vernadsky (author of The Geosphere 1924 and The Biosphere 1926), the planet is in a transformative process, metamorphosing from the biosphere into the noosphere.
Omega point - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
Think of the political ramifications of an
elitist system like Hawkins'! Do you think that the 85% of the population who are poor schmucks that calibrate below 200 should be allowed to vote? More to the point, do you think Sir David does? This is going no good place, IMO.
It's one thing to have a theory that there are levels of consciousness. I believe there are levels of consciousness--no problem there.
What I have a problem with is one man setting himself up as the
arbiter of the value of everything in human culture, and who feels empowered to write off his detractors as low-calibration nincompoops. The "karmically qualified" Hawkins' demagoguery is getting close to the Divine Right of Kings flapdoodle of old, it seems to me:
Quote:
The Divine Right of Kings is a European political and religious doctrine of political absolutism. Such doctrines are largely, though not exclusively, associated with the mediæval and ancien régime eras.
It states that a monarch owes his rule to the will of God, not to the will of his subjects, parliament, the aristocracy or any other competing authority. This doctrine continued with the claim that any attempt to depose a monarch or to restrict his powers ran contrary to the will of God.
Divine Right of Kings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
The Emperor has no clothes.