LHP, RHP, and that vast middle ground. NO TROLLS.

[DoubleD]

well said Akelta and CK, without debate we learn nothing about ourselves and others. It's shameful what this new "cupcake nation" has become....

[User5191]

I agree. But I fear this extends beyond just a national issue. I sometimes wonder if we are witnessing the decay of modern western liberalism (in the true sense of the word), and thus the beginning of the decline of western civilization. Our great grandkids will be able to tell us...

That being said, I didn't see this post going this way when I originally posted, but it's still about learning. So, let's go with it! Haha

[DoubleD]

agreed completely. So yes it did go off the rails but that's all part of conversation in general right?

So steering it back on course, talk about what RHP means to you when compared to LHP. Everyone has a different take on it and you seem very well versed.

[User5191]

agreed completely. So yes it did go off the rails but that's all part of conversation in general right?

So steering it back on course, talk about what RHP means to you when compared to LHP. Everyone has a different take on it and you seem very well versed.

Good morning DD.
Well, that really is the heart of the question, isn't it? Our use of definitions, and labels, really do mean something. So, is it a question of morality? Of ethics? Of dogma? Established religions? Of what we're comfortable? Or perhaps some combination of those things? I'll come back to this.

On the countryside, maybe we define it as opposed to the LHP. What does that mean? Is it evil? Does it seek to use nefarious means achieve gain? Does it overcome the free will of others?

It goes into an interesting area of discourse that we couldn't solve were we to sit down with a bottle of wine. Though, that may be more fun. And at the heart of it, our perception of it all will likely be a result of our own experiences. We are prisoners to those experiences and they shape how we view everything. Language is even a major factor in setting up the matrix in which we perceive these things. For example, the left was "sinister" in Latin. As opposed to the right, which was "Dexter." The Romans were so afraid of the left that it consumed much of their daily routines. For example, "getting up on the wrong side of the bed" simply meant that you exited your bed to the left. The belief, apparently, was that you would disturb the evil spirits which would then continue to torment you throughout the day. The remedy was to undo everything you had done up to the point that you woke, and then re-exit the bed from the right. So... There is also this superstition aspect. Even in modern Islamic countries, doing anything with the left hand is a sign of disrespect, because it is unclean. It's the hand used to finish matters up in the restroom even. All of these things undoubtedly play a part in our perceptions of what the left and right mean.

For me, I am unsure. I was raised Protestant. I would still classify myself as loosely Christian. Probably a shock in this forum! Lol. Today, I would consider myself more of a Unitarian with a heavily Christian influenced paradigm. But, I recognize there are many paths to divinity. How "God" speaks to one, may not be what resonates with another. And who am I to judge the form of which godliness makes itself known to another? To me, I suppose then that it comes down to, probably, two things. The intent of man, and the universal law. This is going to be a hodgepodge of thoughts that may have inconsistencies as I'm still struggling to balance these thoughts and make it make sense even to me. So, bare with me and know I reserve the right to change my mind.

For me, intent is like 90% of things. What was the person seeking to accomplish? Were his motivations pure or self-centered. Followed that is the recognition that there is a universal law, and that the crimes we classify as mallum in se (they are wrong because the act is accepted by all as wrong, I.e., rape or murder). I guess to me, in its purest sense, true right would be one who acts selflessly for the benefit of all; and true left would be the concept of acting to only satisfy ones own desire. True right would always be seeking the benefit of all, even to the detriment of the individual. These are selfless acts. Pure left could give a shit less about that, unless it also benefits them. And framing of all would be their intent and how it operates within this universal law. I think that's a starting point. I could further look at fruits of these two concepts, possibly. On the right is love. In its most selfless purest sense. On the left, in its purest form, is selfish apathy (which we would most expect to see in a sociopath). To a lesser extent, the left would also house the so-called deadly sins. That being said, I wouldn't classify them as pure evil, as each may serve a purpose in its own time and in its own way.

Based on that, few of us would EVER be purely left or right. There are some exceptions. But, rarely does the individual live their life on either path completely. If they did, that Medal of Honor winner would have probably died long before the battle that is his defining selfless act. And the death-row mass murderer probably would have been identified long before his most heinous of crimes. So, we're in the middle. Balancing the two.

As stated above, certain attributes associated with the left, may serve a greater good that could bring their results in line with the right. Lust produces families. A limited amount of wrath comes with retribution, which can be warranted. So... What is the intent? How is it used? For what purpose?

And it gets really hazy when you look at life's examples and realize we are all really operating in the grey. There are some seriously twisted people that still love and protect their families. And I have yet to see a holy man who is without vice. Are all angels purely good? No. Are all demons purely bad? Hardly. So, I guess when analyzing not choices, and right from wrong, it goes back to: 1. What is their intent, and 2. Does it conform to those universal laws and ethics?

For me, taking that universal approach, I judge actions mostly on their intent within a libertarian lens. Exercise my free will with the intent of helping others (but not ignoring my needs and seeking self fulfillment), while not infringing (and indeed protecting) the free will of others. Of course, all within the universal law. And, as a citizen, the laws of man as well.

What I fear, from either side, is when those choices are taken away. That is, when we impose our will and desires on others this eliminating their exercise of free will. I can foresee situations where it must be taken away or restricted; such as protecting children, or protecting society through incarceration; but this would be a subtopic. But, from a larger standpoint, I believe that the approach of allowing people freedom to find their path, to educate themselves, and hope that they generally choose more selfless acts that benefit all, is the best approach to balancing the right and left.

I recognize, however, that these are all labels. And many of you will (and should) disagree. I support that, as it is your will to do so and allows you to find your truth. But for me, that's the best definition I can think of workout sitting down, writing out this as a statement with examples, and then spending years testing the logic and theory within.

I doubt this makes much sense, as it's clearly stream of conscious and an effort to simplify a very difficult topic while typing on a phone. But, it probably sums up the core of my belief: right is selfless love, left is selfish love. Most are in between, we should do what we can to ensure the protection of others to find their own way within certain confines.

Confused? I am.

[Noctua]

To me these paths don't really exist. I believe if you fall neatly into any of these paths then you're not really living your life. The only path is your path. It doesn't need labeling.

[User5191]

To me these paths don't really exist. I believe if you fall neatly into any of these paths then you're not really living your life. The only path is your path. It doesn't need labeling.

Thank you for the contribution! I get what you're saying and generally agree. That being said, we try to categorize things to make sense of them. It helps to sort order from chaos. The law from anarchy. which is what I seek to do in my life. And, in a broader sense, why we are having the discussion. For me, it's to develop a moral code to live by which helps make sense in an otherwise convoluted world. That being said, their probably is no true "path" and with that, I generally agree with your point.

[eye-soul]

As u said there is no right answer
but I think being in the middle is more advanced which means u had experienced both in past lives and it is time to use both in balance which is not easy yet fun

[Noctua]

To me these paths don't really exist. I believe if you fall neatly into any of these paths then you're not really living your life. The only path is your path. It doesn't need labeling.

Thank you for the contribution! I get what you're saying and generally agree. That being said, we try to categorize things to make sense of them. It helps to sort order from chaos. The law from anarchy. which is what I seek to do in my life. And, in a broader sense, why we are having the discussion. For me, it's to develop a moral code to live by which helps make sense in an otherwise convoluted world. That being said, their probably is no true "path" and with that, I generally agree with your point.

You're approaching the wrong person with that.. order vs chaos, law vs anarchy jargon.. I gather when you say 'we' you refer to civilization.. sure, but civilization in this regard has devolved and I would implore anyone to look to the ancients for a true model of flourishing spirituality. Where magick is magick, where spirit is spirit, where demons are gods and religion did not truly exist.

I am a completely chaotic being, my soul is chaos and I've never had a problem with discernment. So I'd have to completely disagree, I believe this mentality is what is holding many back from true experience and self realization; that everything has to make some sort of sense, everything has to abide by some rule WE have made when WE are not omniscient, everything needs to be in some man made order.
There may very well be an order to all things, but it is unseen to us and the need for control over this by means of labeling with strange human definitions has caused grief for many who are continuing to evolve.

As soon as you decide you are on one of these paths, left hand right hand whatever, you are committing to a faith and will for the rest of your life be focused on defining what it means to you rather than simply 'being'. The exception is if you are already far along in your path, confident and understand you are just utilizing a term for ease of communicating it. That you have always known where you stand, that you are focused on your truth from within FIRST.. and the ideal of a society governed/dictated path very last which simply reconciles the human need to relate to one another - truly nothing more.

So I speak of an obsoletion, futility of terminology and civilized order. I encourage individual meaning and if that means you relate to one of these so governed identifications in your own personal way, so be it.. but anyone who does so at an illuminated state of being, knows that they do not need a path to define them. Rather the individual defines their path.

As far as I am concerned - LHP, RHP, etc.. these are not paths, they are terms - categorization and organization has nothing to do with the actual path. You need to separate terminologies and categorizations and labels from the actual path you are living. And never ever ever allow some structure, some other person or persons define your moral code. Your moral code is your own, it isn't left or right or middle it's just yours. If you are so caught up with labels you're going to lose the very essence of who you are. I'm not saying anyone here is in that unfortunate situation, but the potential is there.

Which is funny as typically a person will feel the opposite way, that seeking definition, a fixed label is going to allow them to flourish as they can finally identify as something. For a little while it's liberating but it is more or less an illusion, at worst an insidious form of stagnation which can bring a lot more conflict than liberty into one's life.
Those who feel chaos is conflict and order is peace have a skewed comprehension of the complexity of these essences. Living one's path without this kind of sought after party-definition (as with politics) is scary to an underevolved psyche and that is why we have religion, which I would argue has created more slave driven hatred, war and misunderstanding as an institution than unruliness has. So I am not too particularly fond of the whole concept.

To me distinguishing a 'left hand right hand middle hand' is absurd, I will not abide by this so called law. I can respect those who do and the power of choice as human beings, of course! However I do not respect the handling of paths this way. I believe it's too personal to categorize.

Left Hand, Right Hand, Middle Way, are too broad to mean anything whatsoever and so - completely needless.

[DoubleD]

@ck, wonder response to my initial response you. You are a very articulate person with your passion and your thoughts with a level of respect not often see these days. I am honored to read your posts, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart. I agree with your distinctions of paths and understanding what is what. To me there are paths, paths we choose an some resonate better than others. There is nothing wrong with identifying as Christian, or with some of that in your heart. I went to catholic school and didn't have the same experiences others do, I have a good experience and they saved me from myself. I understand both sides of this coin however, and don't take away for others feelings.

I wear a coptic cross with the lords prayer on it, does it mean I identify with the light beings or what people identify as them? No, I prefer the darker lower vibrational lords of the cosmos, the ancient ones that were part of the polytheistic world of the past. But that's me.

I have had relationships with men and women, more men than women. I prefer women from a purely physical sense and prefer men for most everything else. I look at this path the same as my physical realm path.

So again CK, thank you for all of your heart felt sharing, I find it enlightening and challenging in a lot of ways. I also have a thing for military men and their presence.

keep up the good work my friend

[User5191]

@DD

It really has been great getting to know you and your experiences as well. It's really true - there is so much that we can all learn from each other here. We all approach things from our own unique places in life. It's clear that some of us are drawn to order while others prefer chaos. And I guarantee that we all would have unique definitions of what that all means too. Still being new to this journey, I find that I continue to learn more and more each day. Usually like drinking from a fire hose and doing so even for the smallest of thirst. But, sometimes it's best to get thrown in the deep end and see if you can swim. So far, I think I'm managing to make it. But every time I answer one question it raises two more. Oh well, it's fun to learn, seems to have many advantages, and probably keeps me out of trouble! Ha!

I don't fault you, or anyone else in the least, from following the paths of old. I know someone who saw the wild hunt. Changed his world forever. And, I'm sure I'm the course of time I've seen things that aren't a part of mainstream religion too. Still, it is all about learning. It's so very exciting!

I'll continue to define this for myself, and look forward to future enlightened debate and discussion on these points. I also look forward to my personal growth, hopefully with continued development and skills as it relates to my companions.