Subjective Reality and Nonviolence (Blog)

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by machine

Michael if you are sitting in your house and someone comes in and starts killing your family and you are holding a gun would you should him and kill him?

First, I would not be holding a gun. I've done it before; I plan to learn how to shoot; I will not use it on others.

Second, I consider my life to be secondary to those I love. That includes the person shooting. If I could figure out a way to disarm her without killing her, then I would do it.

Third, if it became a matter killing the gunman (with my bare hands is hardly out of the question), then yes, I would kill him. The scenario is nigh unlikely, though in the world of hypotheticals, I'm sure crazed, mindless, gun-toting Rambos are everywhere and simply require being silenced by a sniper rifle.

So, what have I outlined?

Murder is not the first resort. It is the desperate bid of the powerless against the perceived oppressive. Someone felt the need to shoot us: I would presume that, symbolically or directly, we have caused that person pain. Is the answer to this to kill them? "I'm sorry for hurting you, here, have a bullet." That would not be terribly responsible of me.

When you characterize murderers as faceless monsters with no humanity, it is easy to say, "They should be killed." But you're the same as they: why shouldn't you die first?

[Angela]

Steve, your blog post is a clear and loving light that illuminates for me, in a way I haven't understood so fully, what you're going on about with all your subjective reality talk.

While I've spoken a lot about the importance of taking 100% responsibility in my life, your challenging post helps me to see I was really only talking about 99% (or less). That extra percentage point is a daunting one!

On Monday, the tv blasted VT news as I did my usual dancy, laughing exuberant treadmill workout, and I could feel my love for everybody involved flowing along with my endorphins. The lady on the treadmill watched me having so much fun for awhile, horror apparent on her face, and she finally asked me, "Can you believe what happened?!" I nodded and said, "Well, I can accept what happened." Maybe I should have added, "...but I don't condone what happened," to comfort her a little.

I'm in alignment with you regarding: Be the change you'd like to see in the world. That feels huge and ripe and enlivening to me right now.

Lots of love,
Angela

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

escapee is an example of the people who can't understand SR, no offense my friend, I am not attacking you at all!

The shooting was not just a shooting. It hadn't occured until it came into my experience, how could it? I had no proof it happened until I brought it into my awareness, it makes no sense to talk of it as real if it never came into my awareness, and as such it makes no sense to talk of it as JUST a shooting, when it quite clearly has meaning because it came into my reality. It found me, via LoA or SR or whatever you wanna call it. IT FOUND ME. Or more accurately. I MADE it find me...

OK, so with SR you get to not know of events like this or the world's pain, it sounds like. So that stuff seems to not exist, until it comes up into your awareness. Now, if, oneness can be brought into awareness - does anyone else think that oneness awareness is capable of reaching the pain that does exist in the world? I'm not saying that being one with all allows you to have direct specific awareness of events, but rather just a general health feeling of the one of all.

Stuff that doesn't exist because it's not in my awareness may actually be there as feelings once I touch on being one with everything. Expanding one's awareness, it me, means that one actually is bringing a larger scope into awareness - which would naturally include what the earth and beings on earth are going through.

Like the tree falling in the woods that nobody hears - may actually have happened and with an expanded awareness of oneness, there would be some effect of that event on experience.

To say nothing outside my awareness exists does cut off my experince of expanded awareness, of being able to reach beyond my normal sphere of experience. It seems that oneness would include everything. But I have to think more about SR being different that oneness, as in - is SR different than oneness?

[machine]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

First, I would not be holding a gun. I've done it before; I plan to learn how to shoot; I will not use it on others.

Second, I consider my life to be secondary to those I love. That includes the person shooting. If I could figure out a way to disarm her without killing her, then I would do it.

Thank you for clarifying that. But if she were shooting others that you love is there a heirarchy to who is more important than the other. My life is also secondary to those I love and I'm not sure how I would react in the hypothetical I posed with a family member doing the shooting but it makes good food for thought. I added that twist on the scenario to actually challenge my own belief of - "I would kill the person doing the shooting."

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Third, if it became a matter killing the gunman (with my bare hands is hardly out of the question), then yes, I would kill him. The scenario is nigh unlikely, though in the world of hypotheticals, I'm sure crazed, mindless, gun-toting Rambos are everywhere and simply require being silenced by a sniper rifle.

This confuses me a bit. You say above you would not use the gun, but here you say killing with bare hands is ok. Although there is nothing wrong as this is a personal choice. Bare hand killing of someone with a gun could be quite a challenge.

I'm not so sure the scenario is so unlikely. It happens every day. When I was a cop I saw it quite often as a matter of fact. Completely innocent people getting killed and hurt; innocent bystanders too. The world has many people who don't blink an eye in hurting another.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

So, what have I outlined?

Murder is not the first resort. It is the desperate bid of the powerless against the perceived oppressive. Someone felt the need to shoot us: I would presume that, symbolically or directly, we have caused that person pain. Is the answer to this to kill them? "I'm sorry for hurting you, here, have a bullet." That would not be terribly responsible of me.

When you characterize murderers as faceless monsters with no humanity, it is easy to say, "They should be killed." But you're the same as they: why shouldn't you die first?

I agree murder is not the first resort. Your original post stated "Murder is not the answer to murder" so this is why I asked these 'hypotheticals'. It seemed like a concrete sentence needing challenge.

Kids have gotten killed because someone asked for their sneakers and they refused. Now is that person supposed to say, "I'm sorry I didn't give you my sneakers and somehow hurt you"? Some people perceive 'hurt' where none existed. Does this imagined hurt give them a right to strike out at the supposed source of their hurt? It happens every day. Look at all the domestic related killings just because one of them wants a divorce.

I don't think murderers are faceless monsters with no humanity. They have a face and they are human. Some murderers have no humanity, some do. But they are making choices to kill people based on some, as you put it, symbolic or direct hurt. They are making the situation the way it is not the innocent person.

I'm not the same as them. In the hypothetical I gave you, I didn't walk into their house and start killing their loved ones. I agree that we all have the potential to do exactly what someone else has done - good or bad. But that doesn't make us equals. I think the 'everyone is equal' is crap. I think it's more like 'everyone is potentially equal' - it depends on the definition of equal and the choices we make. But this is just my opinion and belief.

I understand from the SR point of view we are all equals because it is all one consciousness. But I'm not viewing my life from that point of view.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by machine

Thank you for clarifying that. But if she were shooting others that you love is there a heirarchy to who is more important than the other.

Yes, I'm not at the point where I love everyone equally. I'm working on it. But I know the people being killed, and I do not know the hypothetical person shooting.

Originally Posted by machine

This confuses me a bit. You say above you would not use the gun, but here you say killing with bare hands is ok.

No. It is not okay. My action would be wrong. As you say, it is a personal choice.

Originally Posted by machine

Bare hand killing of someone with a gun could be quite a challenge.

I wouldn't expect to survive. But I would expect to succeed. The hypothetical scenario does not put limits on tactics, after all.

Originally Posted by machine

I'm not so sure the scenario is so unlikely. It happens every day. When I was a cop I saw it quite often as a matter of fact. Completely innocent people getting killed and hurt; innocent bystanders too.

I am certain you believe you had the entire story.

Originally Posted by machine

I agree murder is not the first resort. Your original post stated "Murder is not the answer to murder" so this is why I asked these 'hypotheticals'.

Correct. Murder is still not the answer to murder. My act of murder would not be an answer: it would be a temporary relief for the sake of the higher good. It would solve nothing.

However, if you considered that my original post was a response to someone who said (paraphrasing), "If only the kids had guns in their hands, they could have murdered back first."

That is not a last resort.

Originally Posted by machine

I understand from the SR point of view we are all equals because it is all one consciousness. But I'm not viewing my life from that point of view.

Neither am I. I have not said anything about subjective reality in this entire thread. Considering the above debate with Akashic, I've decided that the term is more useless than "darkworker", because people generally do not have any idea what Steve refers to when he explains it. I would not presume to think I could explain the concept any better.

And besides, we are all only equals if and only if we choose to believe that.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Bitsy

Wolfgang:
About some things you wrote, though, wolfgang, I don't believe it all.



I don't believe this bit. I would believe that you do care when someone or people that you personally have some sort of attachment to die. Since your birth, every day in the world, who knows how many people die?

It seemslike you are agreeing with me. You are saying it does matter, and more when it's someone you've known. I thought I was saying that, andalso with oneness one can feel the world's pain - not becuase I (ego) will know of certain events that I have some conditioned response to - that's attachment. But because dropping into expanded awareness possibly contains feedback on how the whole world is doing in a health or state of harmony/non-dystruction/order.

Today, who knows how many people died? Palestinians have been being killed for decades, in Iraq, people are being killed every day, innocent people, children, people dying of starvation, the list is endless. But I am assuming you haven't grieved and don't grieve every day for all of that. I apologize in advance if I assume wrong, though.

I really don't know what it'slike to grieve specifically for something outside of my SR. However, all I want to say, is maybe oneness contains these "outside of my awareness" occurances in the form that is possible in oneness. I have thought, I touch on oneness and find my ego starts to react with feelings, like something isn't right or can be better. Then I hear that "neat" idea - oh but it's suppposed to be perfectly unfodling, the now of what's in my experiecne, hmmm.... perfect but flawed because there are reactions running around.

I don't believe this is true either. Your peace is only affected by what you are and become aware of. If you are ever-aware, as I was, that this world is screwed up, then your peace is surely affected.

Then it's agrement with me. If ever-aware of the world's pain, it effects your peace. But, does, removing your own awareness of some of the worldly pain actually effect the peace of the world?

I believe that even you yourself, if you knew about the deaths of people in a country somewhere across the ocean, would not mourn long over them, unless someone you were "attached" to were involved in whatever had occured. To be truthful, the vast majority of people in the world only mourn or express grief at deaths involving people who are attached to them in some way, and they would also rejoice at the death of their enemies.

Sure, the ego attactments create withdrawls. It's hard to be attached tosomeone you've never met. "I" woulnd't be able to morn the specific deaths that I don't know about. But, my main quandry, is those unknown specific deaths - are they actuall "out there", when the ego is not the domminaint perspective. The spiritual/etheric might contain these events/deaths/occurances and through a oneness or expanded consciousness there's notice of these changes still. So, even if wedidn't hearabout that shootings, our dreams and angel talk and core feelings register the "death of people across the ocean".

Maybe there are Amazon indians, that have no outside contact but great spiritual connections to the earth, - maybe they feel a general shift or something when there are nutty deaths going on or when the health of the planet is shakey.

[machine]

Micheal Chiu: First I want to say thanks for the dialogue. It has caused me to think and inspect even deeper.

"I wouldn't expect to survive. But I would expect to succeed. The hypothetical scenario does not put limits on tactics, after all." -- I never saw it from that point of view success/survival.

"I am certain you believe you had the entire story." -- Far from it.

From a cop persepective trying to sort it out in the 'physical world' I knew I got pieces of the story from different people with different perspectives. It was my job to try and put together the actual event from many fractured and conflicting pieces based on testimony and physical evidence.

If you mean entire story from the highest perspective; who could assume they have that?

From a perspective of someone who believes in karma then there are no innocent bystanders. (I think you'd have to use karma through past lives if we are talking about innocent bystanders; innocent presupposes they haven't done anything to cause it. Not sure how I feel about karma through 'past lives'; although I do subscribe to the reap/sow model in this life)

From a worldly/non karmic/non top state point of view - If you are challenging whether innocent bystanders get hurt and killed I would have to disagree with you.

"And besides, we are all only equals if and only if we choose to believe that." -- Very true. Another point of view I never considered. Thanks.

[hadashi]

In case you don't know, I'm a newbie.

Yesterday I made the resolution of trying to determine whether my using this forum would help my own personal development. I decided to experiment by following up on Steve's latest blog post and reading what people had to say. In short, I decided to take an in-depth look at one thread, thinking that that would be a manageable start, rather than dipping and diving into the plethora of topics that Steve has covered.

At that time there were three pages of reader comments. So many views and opinions, such a range of outlook, manner, style and personality! For me, accustomed as I am to mulling tings over on my own - the hermit approach - it was overwhelming, to say the least. It was like riding a rollercoaster. I felt that I was being buffeted all directions at once!

Your community. At first I had the impression of cacophony. It seemed to me that it exhibited aggression, intolerance, impatience, defensiveness and so forth. Now, I'm sensitive to that. I'm an appeasing sort of fellow by nature. Perhaps because I've a touch of Asperger's syndrome it is vital for me to exist in a place of harmony and peace. I perceive people as dangerous to my psyche.

My attribute, skill, ability or whatever is to be able to identify with what any person is saying. I can fit myself into their shoes quite comfortably. I'll agree with whatever you say, not because of weakness (though that is how conventional thinking would probably see it) but because I can see your point of view as my own. The disconcerting thing - to you - would be to see me immediately after speaking with you agree with a person holding the opposite point of view. You would see me as vaccilating. The disconcerting thing for me, yesterday, was to be swept one way and then the other by that welter of comments. Phew!

So as I say, my first impressions of the group that populate this forum was of a wild and woolly bunch. I didn't know if I could survive there(here), and so I took myself off for a walk. It was nice weather outside. It's autumn in my part of the world, plenty of orange-golden leaves.

I returned and went over all of your comments, and this time took notes, underlining those passages that struck a chord, and I realized that there wasn't as much argy-bargy there as I had thought. In fact, people were generally supportive of one another, and reasonably careful not to tread on other toes. (Those shoes fit me better)

The upshot is that I'm gonna persist. I'm going to try to make this work. I'll be careful not to expose myself to too much and too quickly. I plan to comment on a good number of your comments - please bear with me as I develop the requisite computer skills.

Hey, it's good to be with you!

And I realize that while this post doesn't seem to be on topic, it is relevant in the sense that it explains what I'm doing when I repond, on topic, to individual comments one-by-one.

[hadashi]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Sorry, I must be attacking your lack of compassion with my lack of compassion for your stance, of making chicken legs more important than kids.

Hi Wolfgang (nice name, by the way!)
The juxtaposition of chicken legs and dead teenagers does not seem to sit well with you. Maybe this was deliberate on Steve's part. Often an 'outrageous' comparison spurrs us to think along new lines. Maybe that was Steve's intent.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by machine

From a perspective of someone who believes in karma then there are no innocent bystanders.

I said nothing about karma.

Originally Posted by machine

If you are challenging whether innocent bystanders get hurt and killed I would have to disagree with you.

Again, to know this, you would have to affirm that they are innocent in ways that you have already stated you cannot. Ultimately, it is a matter of your personal judgment whether they are innocent or not. You think they are. Good for you. Ergo, their deaths must be senseless and incomprehensible?

[hadashi]

Originally Posted by YouseffTheSheep

In anycase, it's a thinker.

It certainly is - the incident itself, Steve's blog, and the comments that you and others have made.

[hadashi]

Originally Posted by ken nubo

When I write I usually do so to ENTERTAIN myself and the readers

Hi Ken, it is interesting that you do that. Have you asked yourself why? (Sorry if I sound like a psychologist.) You don't need to be funny out of habit. I tend to do that too. I'm sure more people will take you seriously if you do so yourself.

[hadashi]

Originally Posted by machine

The most common act of violence I observe is what comes out of people's mouths. (Mine included)

Hey machine, this resonates with me. I really think that all of us need to be very careful before posting. Maybe emoticrons help

Also we could ask ourselves:

1. Is it true
2. Is it necessary?
3. Is it kind?

[hadashi]

Originally Posted by ethereal

There is only God and God's Will. There is no "you". "'I' am God" (which seems to be the crux of SR) is still a duality, and a dangerous one as history shows over and over again.

I can 'grok' what you say. 'I am God' still needs work as a concept; it still contains duality. Better to say either 'I am' or 'God is'. But both of them still contain an essence of duality in the sense of something-doing (a noun plus verb).

I like 'I', 'God' or 'being' - in my reality they all mean the same thing.

Wish that I could get away from labels entirely...but then how would I take part in this discussion?

[hadashi]

Originally Posted by machine

Let's just run this through a bit further.

If Subjective Reality is the model of reality, then all things/events are neutral. Eating a chicken leg, killing someone, birth, death, etc... all mean the same - nothing.

So why bother 'self development'. Why blog to help other people? There are no other people; there's just your consciousness.

Hey, machine
This whole post of yours is very interesting to read.

I'm reading a couple of books by Jon Kabat-Zinn at the moment to do with living in the moment (see Eckhart Tolle), specifically as it has to do with meditation. (Coming to our Senses and Full Catastrophe Living, from memory.)

There's all this stuff, machine, as you refer to - choosing between 'doing' or just allowing oneself to 'be'. It's a dilema for most people.

Unless, as in my reality, you do not allow action. And that is because 'time' as we're in the habit of experiencing it, does not exist.

Hmm, I don't think I've managed to get the point across.
To be continued

[Dive Bomb]

Steve, might I add a suggestion to include Creative Observation under "related articles?" I think the two go together pretty well for those who are trying to experiment with IM/Subjective Reality.

I don't know if you control that part or not, but I thought maybe it might help because it certaintly has for myself

[escapee]

Hmm, I don't think I've managed to get the point across.

You arent alone .

Even if we use SR/LOA model to view the shooting incident to filter off the negative emotion, I believe we are only limiting the perception of an objective reality through a "cleverly disguised lense". If this isnt true, then there is simply no reason to

1 ) Choose veganism
2 ) Blog about PD
3 ) Overcome news addiction due to the so called negatively biased news Your powerful SR lense could easily filter them all as equality. A woman raped to death = newly born baby. There is no reason to avoid reading such negative news in SR world.

4 ) Choose Brown rice over White rice.
5 ) Discuss the validity of the model here ( it's meaningless )
6 ) To seek the true nature of reality or purpose of life
6 ) Many objective opinion that Steve talked about.

Like i said early, to me It's more like a lense or tool to limit the perception of the painful biological real world because reality is indeed very real. It's really good when you use it in public speaking ( as Steve has talked about ) to overcome fear rather than drugging yourself with illegal substances.