faf45.scr

.ll 72
.fo off
.co on 
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
 
.ce Copyright (C) Flemming A. Funch
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
 
Technical Essay # 45 - FAF 17 May 1991

.ce Power of Choice


This universe is big and complicated, there are a great deal of things to understand. One
might be inclined to search out allies that seem to be worthwhile to align with. There are
many systems of belief, organizations, subjects, and so forth that one can consider aligning
with.

Particularly in this local area of the universe it seems very confusing to try to evaluate the
consequences of different commitments. Who are the good guys, who are the bad guys,
which choices should I take, what should I believe in, who should I work with?

On this planet there are many different games being played at once. Many different
influences are being exerted here. It is easy to get a loss on trying to simplify it and decide
who are the white hats and who are the black hats.

What I am particularly referring to here is the confusion between who is working for spiritual
freedom and who is working on global enslavement. Paradoxially the same groups that have
been preserving and teaching knowledge about spiritual development over the centuries are
roughly the same ones that have taken center place in conspiracies to suppress and control
populations. There is no clean division at all between who works for freedom and who works
for enslavement, and at any rate any person or organization can subtly change from one
moment to the next. The Church of Scientology is an excellent example of these
contradictions.

If I had to suggest one single method of evaluating groups, subjects, philosophies, politics,
principles, theories about life and so forth, it would be:

Power of Choice

That is, do you get more or less freedom of choice by aligning with the subject or idea at
hand?

That can be used as a single, continuous evaluation of which choices to take and which
ideas to accept. How does it affect your power of choice on all dynamics? The choice that
honestly brings about the most freedom of choice on the most dynamics is the best choice.
The choice that limits freedom of choice or provides the least increase in it is not the best.

You might accept being sub-ordinated to an organizational structure, and thereby limiting
your 1D power of choice, if it produces increased freedom of choice on 3D, 4D, 7D or
whatever. If it doesn't you probably shouldn't.

In evaluating an idea there is no reason to accept anything that limits power of choice. If
somebody give you an idea, say "God created you and you must obey his laws", how do you
know if that is true? Well, if it increases your power of choice on the most dynamics it is a
useful truth. If it doesn't it is a false truth probably intended to control you. In this case the
statement would limit your power of choice if you accepted it, so you don't have to.
Conversely, a statement like "Infinite awareness is available to you and you can know all the
laws of the universe" would increase your power of choice.

It is a common trick to give you something that seems to be a great truth and that aligns and
explains a lot of things but that has a twist that limits your choices. You might accept it
because it seems to explain a lot of confusions. That is alright, but watch out for the power of
choice thing. You can take the part that explains things and convert the limiting part to
something else.

Like if we tell you that Scientology explains life, the universe, and everything and therefore
you have to do what you are told by the organization. You would have to add up the benefits
pro and con power of choice to see if you would accept that. The best thing to do would of
course be to take the explanations and not accept the control aspect.

If we tell somebody "God created everything and he is in control", well that certainly aligns a
lot of things. Life can be quite simple and safe if you believe in that. But does it increase your
power of choice? Certainly not, it limits it severely.

Examining the status of your power of choice is more important than any amount of
convincing explanations of how things are. If it limits your choices then somebody didn't tell
you the whole story.

If you keep guarding your power of choice you can't be fooled for long.

Good and evil, right and wrong are of course completely relative terms. You can really only
evaluate that from your viewpoint. If it is workable, if it does the greatest good for the greatest
number of dynamics, then it is good. That might look very different for anybody else, because
you can only evaluate it for your dynamics. We could maybe say that your 8D is also
everybody else's but the other dynamics aren't. At any rate the evaluation will be different
depending on who makes it.

You can expand the idea of power of choice a little wider to more flows. Not only looking at
the power of choice on your dynamics, but what does the subject at hand to for the power of
choice of everybody else's dynamics. That is really an 8D view of things.

For example, if might appear to support the power of choice on your dynamics to exterminate
another race of perceived lesser people if they are in your way. That is if you are an alien or a
Nazi or something. But, viewing it objectively it would seem more positive if the other
people's dynamics were taken into consideration also.

You could for that matter divide people into those who are seeking power of choice only for
their own dynamics and those who want it for everybody's dynamics. If we should put a label
on it we could call the first guys "negative" or "contractive" and the latter guys "positive" or
"expansive". That is also the difference between purely self-determined and pan-determined
ways of operating.

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Mar 30 00:06:02 EDT 2023 
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/flemming/faf45.scr
WWW://www.clearing.org
BLOG://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
Send mail to [email protected] saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but 
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.