Self Overcoming: She Sells Sanctuary

And other thoughts on the LHP core.

There are two main approaches when confronted with strife.  Looking up vs. looking within.

A. Strife -> B. Coping -> C. Inner peace.

The difference is the method.

Path R: Coping with (turning to) an abstract source of strength to be tapped into to remove oneself from strife (a) and towards inner peace (c).

Path L: Coping by confronting strife through direct engagement via conflict and eradication of the abstract source with personal accountability and self sufficiency. (c).

Which brings me to this:

A comment I see represented a lot, even among professed LHP “practitioners” reads contextually as:

I will overcome the limitations of my mind per this arbitrary categorization of behavior as destructive. In this I will rewrite the core programming which drives me towards ‘problem’ behavior and find ‘peace’ through an understanding of why I behave as I do.

Quite simply overcoming oneself in this regard is submission and acknowledgement of their approach as an absolute.

If there is a misnomer with the impetus of core transgression it is in application. Does transgression of “self” qualify on its own? If you simply overcome yourself what are you overcoming it in relation to?

Maybe it IS going against for the principle alone. Maybe “never submitting” on principle is ALL it’s about.

An example might be a detained mob hit man. The crime is several counts of murder.

Murder is of course a crime per “nomos”, but justifiable if part of a strategic move. There are several examples of this.

I do not separate the Military’s use of “special forces” to neutralize threats as any different then a mob hit man getting ordered to neutralize threats. The moral grey area appears  to be who and what sanctions the actions.

The strife (a) becomes: Being pushed and questioned to answer in a way that violates a strongly held belief.

“B” is a window into wiring. Especially when absolution is dictated.

The prosecutor might say: “The hell you will go through if you don’t cooperate is something you don’t wan’t. You’re only making it harder on yourself. *But* we’ll offer you protection if you cooperate and tell us who gave the order.”

At this point “sanctuary” becomes an ending to your suffering and any compassion/protection a device of control with appeal to obligation. Your inner peace (c) is achieved through compliance.

To trust in an absolution under penalty has put an unadmirable word on your forehead: rat, traitor, or pussy to name a few.

You were sold sanctuary at the price of integrity.

Which brings me to the point.

This is a stand or fall bellwether of approach.

In the above example “overcoming ones core approach”, though dressed up as a number of societal obligations is a treason against the self. They may entice your submission with promises, but in effect they have told you that your ethical code and alliances don’t suit their needs and need to be realigned with their definition of moral grey areas.

It is at this point one decides what matters more, their ideals or their comfort. A contrarian might say this leads to stagnation of “potential” in the individual. This path is a dead end that places more barriers then it removes.

Their criticism may be, You’re doing yourself no good by resisting something that might actually be to your benefit.

And you could listen, but never will you find sanctuary.

Fun With Moral Relativism

1200px-Gadsden_flag.svg

The Gadsden Flag is the best representation of natural human behavior. A human behavior defined by autonomy and what happens when infringement upon by another prompts retaliation.

If there is one over-reaching behavior it is governed by the personal interaction we experience. I defer to lex talionis, or “Don’t Tread On Me”. Don’t fuck with me and I won’t fuck with you.  The tie in to “direct victimization” goes here.

The obligatory question:

What’s more just, killing the man that killed your family member personally or letting your your peers do it?

The obligatory answer:

Vigilante behavior undermines the rule of law meant to play arbitrator. Societies that adopt a strict legal code get their retribution via the legal system where severe disruption to another occurs. This is the closest a society can get to letting all do it themselves.

* That’s not to say you can’t do it yourself. If you can elude other people you elude punishment.

This is my moral nihilism.

Actions do not carry any cosmic consequence and have no innate significance, but do facilitate as a cooperative tactic to punish “harmful” behavior per that socities code.

All higher mammals form a code of behavior based on viability. Often this code is formed around familial bonding and is applied when immediate disruption occurs.

With self preservation being the highest law the code that drives morality comes from needing to exist in a social setting. Having a standard/code is a way to removes hindrances preemptively a give the species an ability to thrive more easily. This standard/code is nothing more an adaptive ability to exist with competing animals.

Morality is a survival strategy.

A Paradox:

“Cosmic judgement” is impossible if borne of a subjective moral compass. Furthermore,  “evidence” suggests perceived balances are attributed to a “wandering” dichotomy borne of the same subjectivity.

In other words it’s an inevitability that events you experience (given the range of possibility) will fall on either side of a subjective divide. (Right and Wrong) That same subjectivity that places the divide is also the arbitrator of retribution as experienced.  This brings you the adage “what goes around comes around” and erroneous conception of karma.

What is left is the law this creates. This often represents “victimization” of another. The ability to categorize it, likewise falls on either side of a placed divide.

This is often reinforced by a belief that there WILL be retribution. “Guilt” is experienced when one’s own actions contrast with this imposed standard.  People will subconsciously seek  “judgement” for their actions further solidifying an absolute nature vis a vis an artificial morality.

In other words:  the kid that is “only sorry because they got caught” is actually responding naturally to morality,  the subsequent punishment then molds them to take on (or reject) a subjective “right” and “wrong”.  The code taught varies. (Moral Relativism)

This is not without value. As it usually reflects empathetic behavior defined by what you do and its impact on another.

This is what brings life the refined “golden rule”.

“Treat others how you would like to be treated and treat others how they treat you.”

Amen.

The morality sermon has been delivered.

* Writers note – The Blog has resurrected. Let a new intricate design be made.

This will accurately represent (and not just troll) my belief and present forth an evenly ripped off approach I will amalgamate into my own way.