Looking for the good, ignoring the sad(anything we dislike), according to
Abraham’s (Esther Hick’s) website:
“You cannot look at what you do not want and
not join and perpetuate that vibration. Take your
attention from what is not in harmony with who
you are, and your "now vibration" will adjust to
who you really are, and you will uplift others.”
“Abraham” - Excerpted from a workshop in Portland
OR, on Tuesday, 10 June 1997
http://www.abraham-hicks.com
I believe there is no objective truth out there
although everybody claims what they see is
truth and insists all should be forced to
accept their version based on the
fact that tradition and most
people agree.
I respect this belief, but I believe in a different
theory about a relative world, we create our
own version of reality in our minds
and call it true.
When I explained why I believe there is
not a single truth, some claimed I must
be psychologically disturbed, very
insulting indeed.
But they added they do not think me inferior,
just uninformed and unenlightened, they
would not reject my friendship on the
grounds of my strange beliefs.
I am glad their opinion does not exclude me
from their respect, they “gave me leave
to be myself” meaning they will not
discriminate against me on the
grounds of my weird
theories.
People teach it is not realistic to close one’s
eyes to their truth just because one
dislikes it.
Yet I believe TRUTH is RELATIVE and we
create our own reality, we are FREE to
focus on what we like and ignore
what we dislike, creating
the life we want
to live.
We find an uneventful life very boring
and focus on things we do not like to
add obstacles ; challenges that
force us to seek solutions
in exciting ideas.
The most important challenge in my life
is overcoming misunderstandings
and problems in com-
munication.
I do not look down on the conventional
version of truth and do not intend
contempt for those who believe
in it when I explain
my theories.
I am just different, an alien from
another universe.
I apologise for becoming aggressive
and judgmental when my alien
theory of truth is under
discussion.
I respect everybody’s right to live
their own theories, exercising
their right to choose.
5 comments:
Why should view points either be all truth or all relative. Why not an uncertain blend of the two?
I'll accept that in inter-subjective consensus reality - we all agree on the framework of facts and pragmatic uses for objects to enable us to create a mass illusion which we call reality. Good point, thank you.
I look at it a bit like this -- and of course, there's no need for you to agree -- we are each sending out spotlights to see what's out there. If there were not truth (or reality) those spotlights wouldn't reflect off anything. It'd just be a cold meaningless blackness.
But it's not. Our spotlights pick up all kinds of wonderful, beautiful images when we look to see what's out there. Only, each spotlight is only picking up one narrow aspect of all that's out there to be seen. And where we make the mistake is when one person thinks what his spotlight reveals is the whole thing, the whole truth. Even to the point of thinking someone else's spotlight just can't be right, because it isn't his or hers.
If I say the world's flat, there's a little bit of truth in that, isn't there? I mean it certainly looks that way. Just like no spotlight ever gets the whole truth, most of them are picking up at least something ...
I think artists are in the business of creating more and more spotlights. Highlighting this one or that one, fixing up this one, dusting off another, just trying to catch as much as they can of all the wonderful truth that is out there to be shined upon.
There are those practical people whose business is to determine which spotlight is best for which problem, and which spotlight is more limited than another, and how to classify spotlights and so on, but I don't see that as the artists job, necessarily. The artists just has to keep revealing more and more, as much as they can, of all the beautiful and radiant truth that is out there to be seen.
Having written this much, I guess, I'll throw this up at my blog ...
Matt, I agree with you, and I want to add that EVERYTHING is out there, the ugly, the scary, the discordant – as well as the beautiful images – and we CHOOSE where we direct our spotlights. Our predisposition determines whether we shall keep seeking for things we call beautiful or things we call horrible – and every person and artist is free to focus on what interests him/her.
Therefore, I differ from you in one respect only, you wrote:
“The artists just have to keep revealing more and more, as much as they can, of all the beautiful and radiant truth that is out there to be seen.”
There is no hypothetical ethical imperative that the artists “have to” reveal the beautiful and radiant; artists are free to reveal the ugly and the depraved, just as artists are free to describe their highest ideals and most depraved thoughts.
We are free to accept or reject what is revealed and revere some artists and reject others on the basis of our own taste and ideas, so I only want to enlarge your concept of what artists can do – while emphasizing our individual right to enjoy or ignore their work.
As for sending spotlights searching for things we love while knowing it is but a small aspect of “truth” – I agree with you 100%!
Behind here ...
There is a lot of merit to what you say!
Post a Comment