However, first I’d like to very quickly go over a few things that you are likely to agree and disagree on.
RELIGION
Take Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Catholicism, Confucianism (loosely), and most religions on the surface level. (I want to exclude Luciferianism/Satanism and all derivatives.) Few Muslims will admit that the Christians are “correct”, and vice versa. The same holds for pretty much and pair of religions.
POLITICS
How many democrats or republicans or leftists or rightist will accept the “other side”?
MAC VS. PC
It’s hard to find a Mac fanboi that can tolerate anything about Windows (or Windows users). Conversely, it’s hard to find a Windows user that doesn’t loathe being looked down on and ridiculed, which often leads to teasing the Mac fanbois.
PICK ANYTHING!
Now, just pick anything and look for the 2 different sides that “fight”. It’s easy to see how so many issues can be polarizing.
AWAKENING
But what I’d really like to address are “sides” in “awakening”.
Among those that follow how humanity is “waking up”, you’ll find an astounding amount of diversity. Some believe in UFOs. Others in reptilian aliens that possess the elite. The Illuminati. The globalists. The eugenicists. Climate “alarmists”. Climate change “deniers”. Crystals. Pyramids. Sacred geometry. Physics. Mathematics. Free masonry. Libertarianism. The list goes on with no end in sight.
Before I get to “the lens”, I need to set the foundation with a fundamental principle: freedom. Not good. Not helping others. Not religion or Jesus or Buddha or anything else. Freedom. With a very good reason.
KANTIAN ETHICS IN A NUTSHELL
If you are not familiar with Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative, I recommend you read up on it quickly to find out about it. Here’s a very quick summary with the 3 formulations:
- Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.
- Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.
- Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.
For Kant, there are 2 basic acts – those done out of duty (you may need to read up on Kantian Duty), and those that are not. Those that are done out of duty are morally praiseworthy, while those that are not, are not. Consequences are not relevant. Did you act out of duty or not?
However, in order for there to be any duty, i.e. the possibility of a moral act, there must be free will. Without free will, no act can be moral or good.
Now, that’s the Kantian outline, and Kant has his critics as well as advocates. One critic is Hegel, who gave us Thesis – Antithesis – Synthesis, or as David Icke has termed it, Problem – Reaction – Solution. That process has been used for evil beyond comprehension. Nuff said about Hegel. Another critic was Schopenhauer who basically attempts to castrate morality by relegating it to the physical world. Morality as an explanation of the physical world is pointless when confronted with the question, “Should I or should I not?”
John Rawls goes on to expand on Kantian ethics with the “veil of ignorance” in which you make moral decisions based on not knowing who you are. e.g. Should slavery be allowed? If you could be a slave, it’s unlikely that you would say “yes”. The veil of ignorance forces you to adopt a lowest common denominator in your moral decision making, and to put yourself in the place of the person that could be adversely affected by your decision, such as a slave, a particular race, gender, sexual orientation, class, caste, etc. etc.
So, that’s Kant in a nutshell with a little added “veil of ignorance”. The most important thing to understand is that without freedom, there can be no morality. i.e. You cannot be “good” without a free will.
THE PROBLEM OF QUALIA
Now, rather than bother explaining qualia, I’m simply going to quote from Wikipedia, which is good enough for our purposes here (source):
The question hinges on whether color is a product of the mind or an inherent property of objects. While most philosophers will agree that color assignment corresponds to light frequency, it is not at all clear whether the particular psychological phenomena of color are imposed on these visual signals by the mind, or whether such qualia are somehow naturally associated with their noumena. Another way to look at this question is to assume two people (“Fred” and “George” for the sake of convenience) see colors differently. That is, when Fred sees the sky, his mind interprets this light signal as blue. He calls the sky “blue.” However, when George sees the sky, his mind assigns green to that light frequency. If Fred were able to step into George’s mind, he would be amazed that George saw green skies. However, George has learned to associate the word “blue” with what his mind sees as green, and so he calls the sky “blue”, because for him the color green has the name “blue.” The question is whether blue must be blue for all people, or whether the perception of that particular color is assigned by the mind.
This extends to all areas of the physical reality, where the outside world we perceive is merely a representation of what is impressed upon the senses. The objects we see are in truth wave-emitting (or reflecting) objects which the brain shows to the conscious self in various forms and colors. Whether the colors and forms experienced perfectly match between person to person, may never be known. That people can communicate accurately shows that the order and proportionality in which experience is interpreted is generally reliable. Thus one’s reality is, at least, compatible to another person’s in terms of structure and ratio.
The existence of colour-blindness illustrates the problem on a physical level, and is sufficient proof of the existence of the qualia problem in the physical world. It’s not difficult to extrapolate and imagine that each individual, natural person has their own “reality” or perceives their own “reality” (that is actually trivially true), and that their perceptions differ from one another, but in the physical world, behaviours are all perfectly aligned. That is to say that for any given colour, no matter how anyone perceives it, we all agree that it is called by a particular name and that it is not another colour. You can extend this to anything, be that shapes, hardness, temperature, or whatever. Any incongruities can be easily dismissed as insignificant variations of perception, such as I may have a higher tolerance for cold weather than another person, but we both agree that the weather is relatively cold.
QUALIA AS METAPHOR: THE LENS
Now, take the way that people describe things in awakening as metaphor and apply that to your own beliefs in a generous way so as to interpret them as you understand them better. Suddenly, those incongruities between beliefs seem to disappear, and you have in your grasp a way to view the world and people that brings you closer together, rather than driving you further apart.
Here’s an example. Many religions talk about demons or djinn or angels or nephilim or what-have-you. Map those words onto “alien” and all of a sudden, you have a new way to view the world.
Take what David Icke describes as “reptilians”, and map that onto “demon”. All of a sudden, we’re speaking pretty much the same language and describing the same things.
Rinse and repeat for pretty much any concept. (See conclusion below for continuation of this thought.)
SO WHAT WAS ALL THAT STUFF ABOUT KANT FOR?
Kant gives us a clear picture of morality, and the fundamental principle that underlies it is freedom. In awakening, freedom is a central tenet as without it, we cannot be moral beings. We are seeing the emergence of more and more totalitarian policies in the supposedly “free world”. America is now the “Police States of America”. If unchecked, the police state will rob humanity of its ability to be moral, of its ability to be good, of its humanity.
The New World Order is purely Luciferian and will destroy all of humanity unless we act to stop it. But we need more people to wake up and to realize what is happening.
For those of us that are awake, trying to belittle others or insist that we are “right” or that “they are wrong”, is simply not productive. We awaken in our own ways and to different things. Where I understand something over here, I am ignorant of something over there, and then again over in that other place I misunderstand something. And that’s OK as long as I move forward.
CONCLUSION
While the lens can be helpful, it needs to be used properly. Knives are useful to prepare food, but they can also be used to hurt. When using the lens, think about how things contribute to freedom. This is really the only thing that you need to think of and the only measure that you need. If something contributes to freedom, then it opens the way for the possibility of being moral. If it detracts from freedom, then it closes off any possibility of being moral.
The 2 simple questions to ask are then:
- How does someone else’s different idea map onto my belief structures?
- Does that belief promote freedom?
It’s not necessary to completely revamp an entire set of metaphysics when trying to view through the mapping lens. Remember, it’s only 1 tool to help understand differing perspectives, and to come to grips with one’s own perspectives. You may very well already have your own “lens” but talk about it differently. If you do, you can likely use it to understand my lens.
Cheers,
Ryan