Home 
Eldon's Blog Programmed or Enlightened Consciousness
Eldon's Blog Programmed or Enlightened Consciousness
| Programmed or Enlightened Consciousness |
 |
|
Recently I had Neale Donald Walsch, author of CONVERSATIONS WITH GOD, on my radio show and our conversation continues to generate a flurry of email. Neale essentially stated that there were no virtues that could be said to be universal. Indeed, he asserted that values were relative--an argument for cultural relativity. I had a problem with that statement. For me, there is no evolution of consciousness--single cell to man, monkey to man, Cro-Magnon to homo sapien-sapien or whatever--without the recognition of the value in our sense of service to one another, our noetic knowledge that some things are just inherently wrong, and our realization that there are causes, purposes, meanings and so forth that are larger than the individual. The study of values is called axiology. Metaphysics is all about ontology (being) and axiology (values) or the fundamental nature of reality. Philosophers have longed labored over values, absolute to relative. Immanuel Kant, best know for his CRITIQUE ON PURE REASON, reasoned that value systems derive from tradition, religion, and so forth could not necessarily be relied upon, for in his view there was nothing that was unconditionally good except "good will" and therefore he insisted that good will was the basic premise upon which values derive their authority. My question to Neale began with acts of violent cruelty such as the father who runs down his daughter because she is becoming to Westernized. His reply suggested that this was okay for what else could you expect from someone who had been raised to believe this was okay since they were three years of age. Well for me, and for Kant and a whole host of others, there is nothing kindly, nothing remotely similar to "good will" in an act of this nature. This is purely selfish lower animal behavior, like that of the stallion that kills the foal so it can get to the mare. Where is the enlightened consciousness in this? I enjoyed a conversation Sunday with two men I admire. Neurosurgeon John L. Turner and NASA physicist, Tom Campbell joined me for an hour on the phone. Our conversation was all about consciousness. We agreed that everything is consciousness dealing with a data stream as in a multi-player virtual game. Our adapting laws of physics constitute the rule set for the game. We make changes in our individual realities by how we interpret this data stream and as a result of our interactions with others in our interpretations. So in this model, it is our relationships and our mutual interpretations that reinforce the world as we know it. Now, leaving it there for just a minute, what is one to do when, in the nature of their interaction with others, two opposing views arise. Simple--they discuss those views in an adult manner hoping to gain from the exchange and not as a result of subtracting from the other. To that point then, Neale and I disagreed and had a civil discussion about that disagreement. I asserted that the world would never know peace if we couldn't come to some point where there were common virtues (common values) that we could then put the rule of law behind. In my opinion, that might begin by deciding that life was sacred. In this great country we think of it all through the eyes of our founding fathers, "Created with certain inalienable rights--life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Neale's answer went along the lines that this is exactly what happens when 50% plus 1 agree. We live in a so-called modern era where tradition is often discarded. In this culturally relevant modernism, there exists little coherence in values or ethics. There are those who say something along the lines of that suggested by Neale when he said, "Eldon, you expect people to consistent and they're not." He's right, I want coherence, consonance--not dissonance. The philosopher Alasdair Chalmers MacIntyre believes that a historical narration of the development of ethics is in order to illuminate the modern problem of moral arguments that proceed from incompatible premises. In his seminal work, AFTER VIRTUE, he identifies the central question of morality as having to do with the habits and knowledge concerning how to live a good life. His approach seeks to demonstrate that good judgment emanates from good character. Again, many listeners wrote letters. One such listener wrote, "Excellent show this week with Mr. Walsch. First of all, you had an excellent guest who was compelling to listen to. A man of great intellect and wisdom. Secondly, it was more of a debate where you were both arguing and defending positions; ringside stuff, close encounters, blow by blow and you were endeavoring to find an opening to land an uppercut. Very stimulating radio indeed." Another listener wrote, "I loved your interview with Neale Donald Walsch. I think you touched upon a really important subject, especially for those of us working on our spiritual growth. Although I respect much of Neale's work, I cannot agree with his statement about truth being determined by 51% of the people. Great crimes against humanity have been committed by groups in the majority, ranging from the holocaust to Rwanda. I believe that there are basic truths and moral values that, while hard to define sometimes, can be agreed upon by everyone. We all know that cruelty is wrong and man has an innate need to be free. I believe it is incumbent on all of us to thrash these questions out and get to a stage where there are basic values that we can all agree upon. It is only by doing this that our world can experience true peace." I do also believe that peace, like freedom, is not free. That is not to say that violence is the answer for it may well not be. Mohandas Gandhi (also known as Mahatma--a title or distinction in Sanskrit that means "great one") Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King, to name but three, have demonstrated to all that principles can rise above force and liberty can be achieved without violence. Still, to bring this about requires what Gandhi called, "Right action." Two words that basically sum up my position on this. The first is "right." That presupposes that there is a lesser or "wrong" action. And then of course, the word, "action." We see more than enough in the news about those who stand by and do nothing while someone is brutalized or taken advantage of. Don't just stand by--get involved! My office has sent a formal invitation to Mr. Walsch inviting him to come back and discuss all of this and hopefully he will accept. He did tell me over the phone at the conclusion of the show that he would love to--so perhaps then we can really flesh this all out and find some common ground. You will want to listen to this show when and if it happens. I remember reading Baird Spalding's "Life and Teachings of the Masters of the Far East" years ago. In this multi volume set, the masters address America. Essentially they describe it as a great experiment that is the lighthouse to the world. A country unafraid of its spiritual heritage and undivided by its religious differences. A country where freedom rings, a country governed by laws designed to treat the least among them exactly as the most powerful, a country of hope and vision and opportunity. Again--a lighthouse to the world. In my view, our individual willingness to step up and address injustice, inequities and the like, speaks directly to the stage of our conscious evolution--an evolution toward enlightenment; or away from it. I do believe in the human potential so I like to think that many matters are written in the heart and just as a leaf turns toward the sun, our destiny is to turn toward the light--that is the light of enlightenment. Thanks for the read, Eldon P. S. If you still haven't obtained a copy of Mind Programming, use this link to get your copy plus hundreds of f r e e bonus tools: http://www.progressiveawarenesspromotions.com/innertalk/May09/index.htm |
