Ethical inquiry

[Illuminate]

Is there such thing as right and wrong? I have heard that “there is no right or wrong but thinking makes it so”. If this is the case then why do we call people like Jesus, Buddha, or any number of other deities and saints “righteous”?
If we were not here, that is if observing sentient beings were not here, would there be a right or wrong? According to the way that I understand the universe there would not be a right or wrong, all would be in balance if we were not here.
If this is the case that all things are in balance and just without us here wouldn’t it be the case that we do not act in a right or wrong fashion but only impose the right or wrong paradigm upon reality?
So my question is basically this, because I cannot be certain on this topic. If right or wrong is not reality based then how is it possible for one to become righteous?

[Poodle]

the back pages of this Forum and read some posts by DocResults. I sorta think you just may find your answer in there or not.

Be well,
Pood

[Don]

In order to determine how one can "become righteous," I think you would have to define what the term "righteous" means for you.

Once you have a definition, that definition should give you a direct answer. For example, if you wrote, "Being righteous means having a family and treating them with respect," the first thing you would need to do is get a family.

So Illuminate, what is your definition of "righteous?"

[Illuminate]

I have not as of yet looked into docresults posts. To don’s reply though I think righteousness is similar to the saints we see in society or the deities of the past. Upon thinking further about it, righteousness just seems to be a human thing. We see someone who is righteous, who is congruent with what society deems as right or worthy of praise and we give them that praise.
If ethics is just a superimposition of rules that make society function better and by obeying these laws one can become righteous, what is the purpose of being righteous? I guess I could find the reason for such things in that it makes society function better, or that it could create the ability for others to remember such a person for a longer time. But if those are the only reasons as to why one would want to become righteous, what’s the point?
There’s just so many directions one can take in religion, which one is the right one, if any?

[Don]

Respectfully, Illuminate, your response is still too general. You seem to be saying that righteousness is:
1) Being like a saint
2) Going along with what society deems "right or worthy of praise"

Let's get specific? In response to your first idea, which saint? What makes that saint different from other saints and people? What, specifically, did that saint do?

In response to your second idea, what, specifically, do you think society deems "right?" What, specifically, do you think society deems "worthy of praise?"

Eventually, you'll get beyond generalizations and down to specifics. When you get to the specifics, you will have your answer(s).

However, now you have added religion. Is this part of the same question or something different? If something different, start a new thread. If part of the same question, how does religion relate to righteousness?

Remember, be specific! If you're not specific, I'll just ask more questions! :)

[Poodle]

Stop writing and start reading. I know it took awhile for Doc's posts to sink in for me but they finally did and excellently crafted work I must say; otherwise, we will continue to Meta Model you until you do get down to very specifics yourself.

Ya know the old saying "saint or sinner"? Who do you know about that has NOT fallen short of the grace of God including those that have been labeled as "saint".

It is possible that one can over analyze anything thus losing sight of everything. I feel another metamuffin coming on so I'll close.

Pood :)

[Illuminate]

Questions are good and thanks for them. From my point of view righteousness and religion are interconnected in that main-stream religions, when you take away all of the intellectual arrogance and brainwash are basically talking about the same things. I think that the reason some religions have lasted for so long is because they are talking about the truisms of life. Most religions talk about love or are conveyed through an attitude of love and acceptance. Many religions talk about the law of reciprocity; from Christianity: “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, “an eye for an eye” and Buddhism talks about karma.

Righteousness, to me, is in following these laws of life or these patterns of behavior. Most religious founders talk to their followers in a way that states “be like me”. You can pick any extremely devout follower of a religious faith and that is what I mean by righteousness and being saintly…St. Augustine comes to mind. You can pick any deity or founder of a mainstream religion and they, I would consider to be, more righteous than the saints.

Knowing what to do in order to be a saint or in order to someday be considered for godhood I already understand. To be a saint one would have to be extremely devout and have an attitude of servitude to a single religion. To be considered for godhood, one would have establish what society considers to be a cult, one would have to firmly understand how to establish a cult and have the will to change character and intellectual traits about him or herself in line with past deities. In NLP language he would have to model the gods

I’ll restate my original question since I may have not conveyed it clearly enough, “If right or wrong is not reality based then how is it possible for one to become righteous?”. Paraphrased - if right or wrong is a man made paradigm then seeing and believing in the righteousness of deities or saints could only be part of that paradigm. In other words, as I understand it, righteousness does not exist but only in the human mind.

I am looking forward to seeing that I am wrong or that I am overlooking something here, so input is welcomed, negative or positive.

[Don]

If right or wrong is not reality based then how is it possible for one to become righteous?

...Righteousness, to me, is in following these laws of life or these patterns of behavior...


Well, above is your original question and your most recent response. Please note that I asked for more specificity, saying it would answer your question.

So you say that there are certain law of life, and by following them you become righteous. You have answered your question.

Now, what else would you like to know? :)

[Docresults]

Illuminate,

As I read through your post these questions come to mind. (You mention NLP so I'll ask in those terms.)

Which Truisms of Life are you referring too? And on which chunk level are you referring too? Also which content and which context? What does all this look like from the level of process/structure?

Which specific laws of life are you referring too and are you sure they are laws and not simply beliefs? (the particular behaviors you speak of will come from beliefs so behaviors are included in this question.)

From an NLP POV I'm sure you realize that the word righteousness and religion; also love, acceptance, reciprocity, karma are normalizations and will have different meanings to each individual. (They may be similar and yet they will have different rule structures.)

Also based on what you have written it seems that being righteous is about living up to some standard set by someone other than oneself. What if oneself disagrees with what others determine as righteous? (Given the possibility that we really can come to some sensory based description of righteous that everyone could agree upon.)

What if it wasn't a matter of you being right/wrong? What if it was all made up? What if it is all made up by you?

What if because of the way our minds work we can't really know actuality? What if what we think is true and what we think is illusion is all illusion? Where does righteousness outside of what you decide for yourself have to do with it? What if there is no standard other than what you decide within yourself is right (righteous) for you?

To Your Best,
Doc Houston

[Illuminate]

My understanding of NLP is inept at best. What are some of the best books I can find pertaining to “chunk level” and different levels of processing? My understanding has been met without most of the tools of NLP. As I see it, the lack of understanding NLP could limit my ability to interpret what I mean into words and could also lead me to assuming that others think the exact same things I do about these normalizations.
Some of the truisms of life that I spoke about in my other posts are (whatever one may interpret them to mean) increasing love, acceptance, understanding the self, and the use of will or complete surrender. These are written on by many sources as I see it, in different religious literature. Right and wrong, in a singular context sense, is the ability to get what one desires when sought out through his current actions. In other words if a person does not get what he truly wants in life then he is taking the wrong actions to get it.
Righteousness could be without the need to worry of what others see as righteousness if that person is not seeking love, acceptance or it could be part of the path to obtaining love and acceptance. In the end though, I think that righteousness is a label that others impose upon someone, we cannot be seen by others as righteous otherwise.
Life simply could be a figment of my imagination and you could just be part of that dream; that is not for me to say or even know. I do not think we can know these things, as you stated before in one of your post, yet slightly paraphrased; “we cannot know the truth because of the way our minds are made up”. I do not believe that giving up on this endeavor of seeking to know the truth is the answer though. Even if I were to never know the full truth and if I were to never truly know the reality for which I have made this map I will continue to adhere to Socrates bold statement in that “The unexamined life is not worth living."

[Docresults]

Life simply could be a figment of my imagination and you could just be part of that dream; that is not for me to say or even know. I do not think we can know these things, as you stated before in one of your post, yet slightly paraphrased; “we cannot know the truth because of the way our minds are made up”. I do not believe that giving up on this endeavor of seeking to know the truth is the answer though. Even if I were to never know the full truth and if I were to never truly know the reality for which I have made this map I will continue to adhere to Socrates bold statement in that “The unexamined life is not worth living."

Again whose standards are you referring to when you quote Socrates. Who determines what examined life and unexamined life is and who determines where the degree of examination is the point between worth and not worth living? (again asking others their opinion in these regards can be less than useful in my estimation.)

And if we are going to use the declaration that we can't really know the truth and we can know useful vs less useful. How about a life of discovering what one wants and how to focus on that instead of what one doesn't want? Does that qualify as examining life?

The challenge I perceive is things-events happen and people determine what they don't want and then they think, think, think and work to stop what they don't want from happening or happening again, which only adds power and manifest what they don't want.

How about a life that examines this way. Events happen which causes one to decide yes/no, I like/I don't like, I want/I don't want... and anchor in for every no, don't like, don't want the automatic question with curiosity and/or expectation, "What DO I want instead?" And then think, think, think and act from there and people may find that what they didn't want never shows up and what they do want appears more often and quicker. How's that for examining life?

To Your Best,
Doc Houston

[Illuminate]

Docresult, I respect your opinions and the way you think and I would like your input on something. In your opinion what are some of the best sources to learn NLP from? I am asking for book/seminar/audio title and author in this question.

Thanks for the help,
Aaron

[Docresults]

Docresult, I respect your opinions and the way you think and I would like your input on something. In your opinion what are some of the best sources to learn NLP from? I am asking for book/seminar/audio title and author in this question.

Thanks for the help,
Aaron

Aaron,

This is a difficult question as what comes out of me is a combination of in person training with Bandler, La Valle, Sikes, Cleveland, Hall and Bodenhemier, Baffa, Jefferies, Stocking, Slavenski. My opinions come from much introspection, deep mediation, a lot of consciousness work (spirituality), stepping outside of time/space etc.

From my position right now if I were to recommend stuff besides direct training with Bandler or La Valle I'd suggest all the written works of Jerry Stocking and any and all cd's and seminars of his. I've read all the majority of all the people I've listed above and they all have contributed to me being who and where I am.

What I have listed is not right/wrong or even the best place or way to learn NLP it is just what I would suggest from where I am right now and that may or may not be of value to or for you.

I'm curious if you did know, what would be the best sources for you to learn NLP from? (What do you suspect?)

To Your Best,
Doc Houston

[Illuminate]

I was thinking Bandler since many consider him the co-founder of NLP. right now, i'm in the middle of reading frogs into princes. in the future i plan to become a master practitioner through training, after finances are a little more secure.

Thanks for the insight into it though as most of the people you just listed i previously did not know of. I know the best way to learn something is not by reading it, though reading can spur experience, experience is the greatest laboratory for a new practice and i plan on taking it there here soon.