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.