Hello
I want to continue my question from class last week about the interpretive paradigm of either EA or Ari's perspective, and if there is an implicit understanding/expectation/definition of morality.
A few devils advocate considerations come to mind but I have counters to these too-
1. Nothing is simply positive/negative, or challenging/easy - these terms mean different things to different people. being intense for some is easier than being superficial, being superficial for some is easier than being intense.
2. When we approach an actual chart with an actual person, we'll be in resonance with what needs/wants/is best to be explored together and thus this question of a baseline or lineage-wide definition of morality doesn't quite matter anyway.
Counters:
1. We all have a personal cosmology about what we deem good/bad/moral/immoral/difficult hard- the questions is how aware of it are we, and how much does that go into a reading we give to someone else, or to ourselves. Not knowing our natural biases or starting points can lead to potential confusion in the container of a reading about what options we have, how and why things are happening. Knowing and being able to articulate our natural biases or proclivities helps us understand our medicine that much better.
For me this bleeds into a larger discussion about what exactly natural law is. I have googled this a hundred times and notice there is a huge difference in natural law as defined by western philosophers and lawyers, and then what natural law is in the "spiritual" world. The only 3 direct teaching of natural law from JWG I've been able to come across are
1. we don't put babies on the autobahn
2. learnt guilt vs natural guilt (learnt guilt being unhelpful conditioning, and natural guilt being a natural response to something we've done that makes us grow/change).
3. the law of gravity
The question of natural law bleeds into morality and with what tonal perspective to approach a reading because what is right? what does someone come to a reading for?
I want to reiterate I know and have experienced reading for people that this situation is entirely context dependent, but from a pure deep curiosity I have for this practice I'm wondering if anyone wants to share any further insights.
THANKS IN ADVANCE!
Hello Julianne! I believe Hamelt said, "There is nothing either good nor bad but thinking makes it so".
You often ask the very questions I'm contemplating - so, thanks! These are very interesting topics to me as well. I personally find it quite difficult to discern "learned" guilt from "natural" guilt... and would they not both lead to "learning" in the end? Much of our conditioning is so deep that it can feel "natural" but is in fact simply generations of conditioning - AKA "Culture".
I also struggle with the imposed duality of "nature" and "human" - to me we are all one event unfolding. If humans have created or invented something, is this not just "Nature" creating and inventing through us?
Sincerely - is a nuclear bomb any different from a meteor impact or a tsunami? Is Vivaldi's Four Seasons that different from bird song, the Cistine Chapel from an old-growth forest?
I contemplate "natural law" & "human law" quite a bit myself so would love to keep the conversation going.
Thanks again for your sincerely inquiring spirit!