16 Reply by Christine B. (edited by Christine B. 2004-05-22 07:27:44)

  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: The eyes have it

OK, here goes.  I realize that the potential to enflame some is HUGE but I've been thinking about this now for many hours.  First of all, the comment of Torarota's about spitting venom or whatever sent chills up my spine.  I was frankly shocked!

I've never felt that Lyra was intending to lump people into a box and therefore only befriend those in box A or condemn those in box B.  Tom explained it quite well.

What fractures me is that IF we come from the perspective that we CHOOSE where/how/when/and to whom we incarnate then to get  outraged over sterotyping is to PERHAPS fail to be awake and aware of some lessons from this life.

PLEASE, do not misread this into a blanket carte blanche for prejudice. It is not.

In order to give an example, I'm going to move over to something perhaps a little less upsetting.

A friend of mine has a Down's child.  This has been, as possibly imagined, quite difficult for the family.  The child is now 12, with 2 younger brothers.  Going places is tough.  People stare.  People make snide comments.  etc.

My former teacher said that "retarded and/or down's children are the 'forgotten orphans' and that they knowingly 'gave up a lifetime,' so that their siblings and parents could learn lessons they needed to learn."

Whether or not this is true...it seems real enough to me. 

Making a leap into physical sterotypes including religion, background, education background of parents, economic background, race, looks and eye color....(etc.)

IF we decide our incarnations are for our needed lessons AND those around us - then it seems to me that righteous indignation is a bit silly if not a huge energy drain.

IF some people are still prejudiced by color, religion, beauty/ugly, rich/poor then it's their "problem" is it not?...and yelling at a rattlesnake has never stopped it from biting.

One of my favorite writers and women is Maya Angelou, her books (autobiographical) made me laugh, weep and grow up.  AND, her books showed me parts of her world which I knew nothing about.  She showed me...not by yelling at me to stop being prejudiced but by showing me her soul,  and her world.

Warm regards,
Christine

17 Reply by JT

  • JT
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-05-11

Re: The eyes have it

Hi Christine,

You wrote: "If some people are still prejudiced by color, religion, beauty/ugly, rich/poor then it's their "problem" is it not?...and yelling at a rattlesnake has never stopped it from biting."

My thoughts on this are to do with prejudiced thoughts vs prejudiced words vs prejudiced actions.

When a single person using prejudiced actions and words there is likely a victim involved. (nonwithstanding karma)

When group dynamics use prejudiced words and actions there will normally be at least one victim, and often many more. (nonwithstanding karma)

On an ethical or moral level in our dualistic 3d Reality, I believe about standing against prejudiced words and actions where I come across it and see it within my everyday reality. Before it can become "everyones problem" and not just "their problem".

We can also step back from that and take a karmic perspective which is that a) this victim needs to experience what it is experiencing and that it is an opportunity for the victim to learn and grow and b) that the aggressor also has something to learn.

An even wider perspective, is maybe that it is a natural part of Chaos.

But as I see it, there are many, many factors to take into consideration in a case of group or singular prejudice being practised against someone or something - I just believe in being one of those factors :-D

Warm regards

JT

  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: The eyes have it

Hi JT,

I was hoping that I would get responses to my post as I felt there was something "wrong" about what I was saying; although, somehow it felt correct.  Thank you for pointing out the group dynamic involved.

I have a hard time with the wider perspective...natural part of chaos...as I really really like having things in neat rows and order.  One of the very programed part of myself I am learning to break down.

JT wrote:

But as I see it, there are many, many factors to take into consideration in a case of group or singular prejudice being practised against someone or something - I just believe in being one of those factors :-D

Could you expand on this please.  Are you saying you feel the need to get involved when there in injustice and prejudice around you.  If so, this is something I struggle with as in...do I jump into a situation where I am not asked...because of the injustice or must the situation present itself in such a way to clearly show I need to get involved.

Thank you.

Warm regards,
Christine B

  • lyra
  • lyra
  • Naked Emperor Pointer Outer
  • Offline
  • From: my own private idaho
  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: The eyes have it

Hi all,

Just to bring to everybody's attention something that appeared in my first post here, lest it goes unnoticed:

"I think this forum is one of the few places where such a topic could even be addressed without fear of racial accusations, and emotional knee jerk programmed reactions, because most of us here are familiar to some extent with channelled and / or spiritual material which gets into the topic of off-planetary origins of people.   I think most here will have the understanding that nobody is saying one race is better than the other, or eye color indicates inferior genetics, or anything crazy like that, but rather, is indicative of where one's ancestors originated from, if the off-planetary theory is in fact true."

I had hoped this would be the case anyway.   It seems like it is for most here, which is good.   Howerver, there will always be a few who will want to pick a fight about stuff like this no matter what one says or how tactful and nicely worded it is.   You can't win with them, so I'm not going to worry about it if somebody wants to get themselves all in a bunch.  They're going to see what they want to see, and there's nothing I or anybody else can do about it, so oh well. 

I had also mentioned the commenary by David Icke regarding those with the whole package of blue eyes, Rh- blood, and fair white skin as possibly having off planetary genetics.   Didn't know if anybody here had any experience researching this subject, or had any sort of information they could contribute.   While I have noticed general personality trends in relation to eye color, I'm still not sure what to make of the whole off-planetary origins thing in relation to eye color.    Something interesting I came across (can't remember the source) which seems to further point to this is the fact that blue eyeds are sensitive to sunlight, needing sunglasses, versus those with dark brown eyes who generally have an easier time in bright sun and often don't need sunglasses.  (I know this is the case with me)   This sensitivity is supposed to be due to blue eyeds having originated off planet, (Mars), with half the sunlight we have.  (???)   Again, not sure if it's true, but it's certainly an interesting theory!   smile    Actually I think this is something the C's addressed, now that I think about it.

Anyway, just some food for thought..................

"Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "Holy shit ... what a ride!"  - Anonymous
-----
"I get by with a little help from my (higher density) friends."
-----

lyra's Website

  • montalk
  • montalk
  • forum-keeper-upper
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-03-24

Re: The eyes have it

Turns out there's been some academic research into the issue of eye color and personality - here's an example:

Shyness and Eye Color - Shyness and little boy blue: Iris pigmentation, gender, and social wariness in preschoolers

Coplan, Robert J et al. - Developmental Psychobiology. Vol 32(1), Jan 1998, pp. 37-44

Examined the relation between eye color, social wariness, and gender in a sample of preschool aged children. 84 blue-eyed and 68 brown-eyed Caucasian 3.5-5.5 yr olds were compared in terms of parental and teacher ratings of social wariness, social play, and aggression. A significant interaction between eye color and gender was found in terms of indices of social wariness; blue-eyed males were rated as more socially wary than brown-eyed males, while blue- and brown-eyed females did not differ in this regard. These results support the notion that eye color is a marker variable for social wariness in young children.

---

# Cortisol production has also been related to the finding that blue-eyed males are more socially wary than brown-eyed males (Coplan et al.).

    * Melanin is partly considered to be function of norepinephrine (NE) and cortisol production. In addition, it has been hypothesized that placental cortisol during early pregnancy prevents replication of proopiomelancortin (POMC). This gene encodes the alpha-melanocyte stimulating hormone and beta-endorphin. The alpha-melanocyte hormone is involved in production of melanin pigment in mammals. Whereas, beta-endorphin is found in the hypothalamus and gray regions of the brain stem and is involved in pain perception and reduction of blood pressure. Thus, "higher levels of cortisol and NE could influence production levels of POMC to produce low levels of alpha-melanocyte hormone (i.e., producing blue eyes) and low levels of beta-endorphin (i.e., greater physiological arousal) in socially wary children" (Coplan et al.).

http://dubinserver.colorado.edu/prj/sha2/03.html

Acquiring fringe knowledge is like digging for diamonds in a mine field.

montalk's Website

21 Reply by JT (edited by JT 2004-05-23 00:12:55)

  • JT
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-05-11

Re: The eyes have it

Hi Christine,

I did not see anything wrong with your post - I found it very informative, another angle to think from.

I think its tough to know when to stick ones oar in and when not to, having said that, neither am I one of those people that jumps into every situation because often it is not warranted.

Also I found the more extreme the prejudice, the more extreme there was for potential confrontation and that also initially dictated for me whether to step in or not.

What used to hold me back was more to do with the reaction of those around me and my self image, than it was to do with whether the situation was "wrong or right". So clearing this kind of stuff out of the equation allows one to ascertain a situation a lot more clearly - it does not matter a damn what others think.


To take some extreme and obvious examples, on occasions I have seen a man beating a woman on the street and have stepped in, and on occasions I have seen adults beating children and have stepped in - at times I have been set upon by the "victim" and the "agressor" together, and on other occasions although the victims did not say anything, the look in their eyes was enough to know that I had done the right thing. Its a tough cookie. I think no matter what the outcome you can never hope to satisfy the aggressors or the victims values and this should not be the aim.
I do believe that there are a higher set of what could maybe be called divine values, and whether I get a verbal tongue lashing or beaten black and blue because of my efforts, if I can look in my heart and know that I was attempting to assist in bringing  "divine values" to the situation, then no matter what the outcome for me it has been the right thing to do.

So a few years, a few beatings both physical and verbal, and a few times being put in my place as to why I should not have got involved taught me a lot (hehe)

Speaking for myself I can only say that when it feels right I will stick my oar in, and also there are many tools to use, that is to say there is no need to fight fire with fire.

I found that being both creative and nonconventional could often defuse a situation very quickly and that words and conviction are an underestimated tool. Also if a situation is prediminantly "male energy mindsets" then to bring in feminine aspects such as feeling and softness is an effective method. Likewise when the situation is predominantly "feminine energy mindsets" then male aspects of energy.

Concerning an ordered life I would offer this.......change is the constant. When changing from situation A to situation B, chaos is the part that is in the middle.  When one is in the chaos, normally due to the emotional and mental challenges that arise, then the chaos becomes up front and dirty and can appear highly chaotic, disturbingly so.

To try and bring order to our personal chaos whilst moving from A to B, can be like trying to herd a stampede of cattle into a corral. On the other hand our "need" to bring order to chaos could also indicate a lack of trust or resistance in letting go and allowing in the outcome.


The bigger the difference between "what I want" and "what is", the more stress I am likely to incur in trying to bring order to that "perceived" chaos - acceptance and trust in "what is", goes a long way to minimising the negatives that can arise as a result of trying to bring order to chaos.

I enjoy order too, just that I tend to be more allowing of my cattle, guide them with a light hand, and prefer to fine tune the order at the end of the process, once I can see what the outcome is more or less supposed/ordained to be.

Warm regards

JT

  • From: Anywhere
  • Registered: 2004-05-21

Re: The eyes have it

Ok. Statistical studies are useful. They promote understanding. They might even bring you some sort of Knowledge. There must be some truth to the eye color theory. Looking at my personal experience, some of it sounds true. The are many counter examples also...

HOWEVER once what was originally statistical data or hypothesis becomes accepted Truth, then you are in trouble. In this case it becomes a disinformation tool. It promotes SEPARATISM, you know the "Them and Us" syndrome. Separatism is one of the favourit tactics of Darkness. Ever heard of "Divide to Rule", "Split and Conquer" etc. I am sure you know what I mean here.

Never forget that nobody EVER knows anything. The Universe is an ever-unfolding puzzle and as soon as you thought you had reached "Truth" it slaps you in your face saying: "Erm, no that's not Me!". It is useful to remember this. All Truth is temporary I can garantee that even the "Eternal Truths" are not valid from a certain stage of Evolution. So "Knowing", putting things in boxes with pretty labels on them is never useful. Wether regarding eye color or other. It promotes stagnation. I am not gonna keep going on about "Fixed Views of Realities" but...

333
  .
  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: The eyes have it

Rotatora wrote:

Never forget that nobody EVER knows anything.

Did you mean to say, nobody ever knows EVERYthing?  If so, OK.  If not, could you please elaborate.

Moving on, I do completely agree that whenever I've said - aha!!! That's right, that's the way it IS!! something bangs me over the head to show, no...it's not.

Regarding categorizing: I do feel that IF one is able to stay fluid, then putting things into boxes *can* be very beneficial, if only to help stay alive for the moment.  ie...lye isn't good in lemonade.

Warm regards,
Christine

  • From: Anywhere
  • Registered: 2004-05-21

Re: The eyes have it

One old greek philosopher used to have it as his motto. Plato I think.
He used to say "I do not know anything" (not word for word maybe).
His pupils used to be bemused by this man they regarded as the pinacle of Understanding who kept repeating he did not know anything...

The idea is that All knowledge is partial. I use the analogy of a ball. It is a ball but you can never see all "sides" at the same time. So, even though the ball may have some objective existence (Let's assume it has for now). We can only ever see a fraction of it -Replace the ball by any concept, object, person, situation or "truth"- So if we bare that in mind we realize that all our views are partial and biased and therefore not True. Get it?
Sometimes I pretend I am Lao Tse and say that "All the books in the world cannot faithfully explain what is a grain of rice".

However I agree totally with your: "Regarding categorizing: I do feel that IF one is able to stay fluid, then putting things into boxes *can* be very beneficial, if only to help stay alive for the moment."
We don't wanna be turning into a black hole and miss the last series of "Friends" do we? Yep I am sure even your local Ascended master, Archangel, Deva or Cassiopean has boxes of some sort!

333
  .

25 Reply by Rotatora (edited by Rotatora 2004-05-24 08:30:15)

  • From: Anywhere
  • Registered: 2004-05-21

Re: The eyes have it

To briefly go back to "Knowing Everything" or "Knowing Anything", the idea is that all We "Know" are merely working hypothesis, tools that we use for a while in order to get closer to where we are going while remembering that's all they are, tools. Knowing is Knowing...If we don't know everything it is safe to assume we don't know anything...

Lao Tse impression: "...but What is there to Know?" (rolls over in hysterics)

333
  .

26 Reply by BlackBox

  • BlackBox
  • Guest

Re: The eyes have it

Rotatora wrote:

One old greek philosopher used to have it as his motto. Plato I think.

It was Socrates. Plato was his pupil.

The quote has been changed over and over again.

But it goes:

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing"

or

"The only thing that I know for certain, is that I know nothing"

Or so it goes, with minor changes with the same message.

--

I think this quote is interesting for a skeptical/cynical approach to life when the society one lives in claims so many certainties, like monotheism, earth is flat, women are submissive to man. These types of false assumptions in which a society glorifies, makes it necessary for a man like Socrates to say a quote such as the above. This is to create a humble approach to the world, existence and knowledge, so that perhaps his society could look within to realize their foundations were corrupted.

H O W E V E R, I do not agree it has merit to seekers of truth. Knowledge is there. Truth is there. There is structure in the Universe and it is called Objectivity. There is chaos in the Universe and it presents itself by Subjectivity.

The days of knowing "nothing", I think, are not as important to follow literally as they were in the ignorant past.

Or rather that's my opinion.

  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: The eyes have it

BlackBox, the answer is kind of zen, as Rototoro said in regard to the master's lauphter, so it does apply. My dad used to say " The only thing I know is that I don't know." It's a really good refreshing bop on the head and does not imply that there is no knowledge, only that knowledge in and of itself does not lead to higher wisdom, happiness, meaning, etc. One can know without knowing, not know and know it, know that one does not know....etc. Without the initial empty space of head-scratching moment, none of us, of all of this , would be here. We find out things as we go along. None of these things will ever bring us to a point where we surpass Socrates, who was willing to die for truth, in that the ultimate statement of wisdom was his action, his action stating that no man, including himself, can ever call himself truly learned in an infinite universe. It all fits, my man, it all works together....See?

  • montalk
  • montalk
  • forum-keeper-upper
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-03-24

Re: The eyes have it

Kybalion: All truths are half-truths.
C's: Total truth is elusive.

Acquiring fringe knowledge is like digging for diamonds in a mine field.

montalk's Website

  • From: Anywhere
  • Registered: 2004-05-21

Re: The eyes have it

SednaSphere wrote:

My dad used to say " The only thing I know is that I don't know."

Well, Mr SednaSphere Sr. must have been a wise man!

The Tarot Card "The Fool" means exactly that, plus some "Surrendering to Spirit" element which goes back to Zen Buddhism again. Yep.
I despise the idea of "Nihilism" It's an horrible word! Anybody with either sight, smell, touch, hearing or feeling can prove its fallacy. If there was any Truth in Nihilism we may as well buy guns and do a Kurt Cobain!

EVERYTHING IS! That's what The Kybalion, agnostics, "The Fool", Zen Buddhism, teach. Dat's why "Universal Knowledge" is a contradiction in terms.
So, Let's all try to keep the number of boxes to a minimum.

333
  .

30 Reply by BlackBox (edited by BlackBox 2004-05-24 19:17:26)

  • BlackBox
  • Guest

Re: The eyes have it

Well this Socratic statement means more than what I'm trying to point out.

In the specific time that Socrates taught, the Athenians had setup a culture that thought of themselves as "masters of the Universe". Knowing this, and knowing that. They were ignorant with fat-bellies. This is in context to what I'm trying to suggest. Socrates, with his views, showed the world how NOT flexible the Athenian culture was. The so-called enlightened philosophers. scientists and even the philanthrapists were distraught by Socrates' point-of-view. It was a dangerous way to think because in order to accept Socrates, they would have to consider re-thinking their societal foundations. To actually consider it is not "perfect", god forid. So Socrates was instead executed.

Now, with what Sedna is saying, it is to take the Socratic philosophy to a more Universal level. In this case, the statement means that ALL knowledge still acumulates to knowing nothing. That the intellectual-center has an infinitum of topics, subjects, thoughts and facts that still lead us to not being able to answer the question, "What is the meaning to life", and so on. In this fashion, I totally agree. It is this Socratic thought that separates Adamics from Organic Portals.

So when looking at it, you have two approaches. One that is directed in context with Socrates role in the Athenian culture, and the second being the Universal implications his thoughts apply to intellectual-accumulation ultimately equaling "0".

Hope that clears up the difference of what I meant.

---

Oh, and Rota, Nihilism means different things to different people. Before I found channeled sources giving actual truths, I considered myself a nihilist for a bit of time. Or at least it was the closest thing I could categorize my non-Atheist belief structure. I believed in "God" but not a monotheistic god (lower-case "g") as my family, friends, and the engulfing society did. Nihilism, from the articles I read of Paul-Bordeau with his "Le Refus Global" and his type, brought up the ideology to throw away any respect and adherence to the foundations of society at present. The guidelines, the laws, the rules, the status-quo, all of it being staged like a cheesy "C" rated flick. It all made logical sense, yet there were holes in every corner. The "What is the Matrix?" question lurking as a feeling in the gut. That is what I came to define Nihilism as. At least to me. Not believing in the rules of those who have no reason to gain your allegiance, faith, or trust.