The Real Self

Discussion in 'Philosophy, Religion and Spirituality' started by pointwithinacircle2, Oct 19, 2014.

  1. pointwithinacircle2

    pointwithinacircle2 Rapscallion Premium Member

    803
    841
    113
    I saw this today and decided to re-post it here and see what kind of comments it generated. What do you think? Is this a true statement? Is the finding of the real self similar to what we call finding light in Masonry? Could this explain why Masonry is feared by some?

    [​IMG]
     
    JTM, Bill Lins, dfreybur and 2 others like this.
  2. Morris

    Morris Premium Member

    309
    120
    43
    You know I didn't post because there was just something there that didn't seem right to me. I now think its the word "dangerous". It kept throwing me off. I ended up researching the author a little bit and now I see it a little clearer. The author was raising an army of followers to break away from their government. I learned that he was deported as part of a criminal plea deal with the US government and that 20 other countries denied him entry.
     
  3. Morris

    Morris Premium Member

    309
    120
    43
    For me, finding the real self is very central in my life but I can't get behind this because the real self is not dangerous, its shaping if that word makes sense.
     
  4. pointwithinacircle2

    pointwithinacircle2 Rapscallion Premium Member

    803
    841
    113
    Brother Morris, First, on a personal note, let me say thank you for your comments which caused me to search deeper into the identity of the author. I was surprised to discover that I actually own several books by this person (written under an earlier name) which I purchased back in the 80's. I think that perhaps I will dig them out and re-read them. Perhaps they will be more meaningful to the person that I am today than they were to the young, impetuous man that I used to be :)

    Second, and more important, I would like to discuss words with you. The author of this piece uses the word dangerous to describe some people. You indicated that this word "didn't seem right" to you.
    I admit that it is a provocative word. Today, it is a word that is often used in a casual sense to indicate that something is bad. Of course using words in the casual sense often means that they are poorly defined. If we look at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dangerous we find this definition:

    dan·ger·ous
    adjective \ˈdān-jə-rəs; ˈdān-jərs, -zhrəs\
    : involving possible injury, harm, or death : characterized by danger
    : able or likely to cause injury, pain, harm, etc.

    In order to explain my point I would like to reference the word danger to in relation to handguns. Some people would like to ban (or restrict) handgun sales, use, and ownership based on the argument that handguns are dangerous. Handguns certainly are capable of causing injury, harm, pain, or death; so taken in a casual way the argument seems to appear valid. However no one is arguing that we take handguns away from police. Why? Is not the answer that we want some people in our society to be dangerous? Is it not a good thing that criminals consider the police to be a danger to them. So would you not agree that in some cases being dangerous is a good thing?

    My point here is that if you begin with a good man, and help him become a better man, it is logical to believe that his actions will work toward good. A man who is both good and dangerous will, in my opinion, probably do away with more evil than a good man who is weak. Any man who is powerful is dangerous. Power and Danger are only bad when they serve evil. Who wins when good men are weak?

    My question to the thinking Mason would be; What will happen if good men refuse to be dangerous?
     
    Chaz likes this.
  5. dfreybur

    dfreybur Premium Member

    3,935
    2,393
    133
    In the Southern Jurisdiction Scottish Rite there's a degree about Masons historically resisting tyrants both secular and religious. When I read the highlighted text I remembered that degree and it's tale about how the Knights Templar were wiped out by tyrants both secular and religious.

    To one who wishes to push power past the bounds of justice, Masonry is dangerous. And each one of us be living examples of that dangerous status.

    In the US we have the Pledge of Allegiance. It's to the founding principles not to the current rendition of the government. In Canada they are "Glorious and Free". Also to the founding principles not to the current rendition of the government.
     
    Chaz and Derek Harvey like this.
  6. pointwithinacircle2

    pointwithinacircle2 Rapscallion Premium Member

    803
    841
    113
    Words are symbols which point towards concepts.......... In order to understand one another we need to understand the concept behind the symbol.

    Danger is defined here http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/danger as "a person or thing that is likely to cause injury, pain, harm, or loss". Using this definition the question becomes "Are there people or ideologies which are are subject to injury or loss due to love".
    Using your definition of love, it seems likely that those people who are negative and dogmatic are likely to experience a loss of power and influence as people become more positive and creative.
     
  7. dfreybur

    dfreybur Premium Member

    3,935
    2,393
    133
    Love is often painful. Love brings us to think and do things the change us, sometimes in ways that are dangerous to our former ways. Consider that some folks convert to marry someone. Consider that in a time when duels happened plenty were over mates.
     
  8. jjjjjggggg

    jjjjjggggg Premium Member

    252
    155
    63
    I like the sentiment... An enlightened man is certainly a threat to ignorance and fanaticism, hopefully to the establishment but more so to the darkness within himself.
     
    Chaz and Derek Harvey like this.
  9. Isaih

    Isaih Registered User

    33
    0
    6
    point I think in the olden days when men challenged god, the tower of babel was some kind of universal mind.
    Because the almighty countered the challenge by confusing the tongues.
    This symbol I see in various forms seems to represent that concept[​IMG]

    I dont know what the symbol actually means but it does represnt this concept well.
    Sun being the light of knowledge promised by satan- and the serpent there just to confirm it.

    If you wanted to create babylon again I suspect you would need to destroy individuality and create this single mind.
    So that author is probably interested in furthering that agenda.Because inside yourself is sin. You need to look externally. There seems to be some kind of ruse or irony in his concept.

    I'm back here on this forum because I have some queries. I want to know if its ok-
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2014
  10. Derek Harvey

    Derek Harvey Registered User

    158
    88
    28
    Very well said. I'm all for that. Totally agree
     

Share My Freemasonry