jump to navigation

The Law November 27, 2010

Posted by ekarlpierson in 27) The Law.
add a comment

PARTICIPANT: You’ve talked about not living according to the ideologies of self or the ideologies of convention and authority, but aren’t there some ideologies that are worthwhile? Don’t we need rules for a cohesive society?

WW: Such as?

PARTICIPANT: Such as treating other people with dignity as a matter of personal policy.

WW: That’s great to have a rule of behavior for those people who are unable to live without rules. As the story goes, Moses went up the hill and brought back a set of rules for people to live by when society was falling apart, for the most part, as people were unable to live without rules. Things haven’t changed very much, have they? If there were no laws against littering, people would dump their garbage in the middle of the road for someone else to clean up. If there were no rules about speeding in a residential neighborhood, there would be some number of people who would drive through at 50 or 60 miles per hour. My interest is not to destroy the laws and the rules, but to go beyond the necessity to live by the rules. Do you need an ideology or a personal rule
to treat others with dignity? Do you need a rule that says you can’t go around town thumping people on the head to take their money? I realize that we must have laws, but is that how you wish to live?

PARTICIPANT: I wasn’t thinking in terms of a law that says I must treat others that way. I meant my own code of ethics.

WW: What’s the difference if you adopt a rule or if you make it up yourself?

PARTICIPANT: Well, if it’s a law, it would be imposed on me. If it’s my own code of ethics, it’s voluntary.

WW: All right. When you have a law put upon you, it goes in your behavioral rule file.

If you voluntarily adopt a law, it goes in your behavioral rule file. If you make up a law, it goes in your behavioral rule file. Does it really matter where the law came from? No matter where the law came from, it’s something out of the past that’s turning the here and now into a programmed, robotic existence. Is that what you want to be, an automaton, a member of The Borg? Obviously, the whole bunch of us want that because that’s what we do.

When my children were in their youth, it was necessary to have a certain set of laws that I set down for them. It was a necessity for their development. It was a necessity for their very survival, in some cases. Does that mean that they must live with Dad’s rules forever? Isn’t there some point where we can go beyond living by the law? Let’s be clear about this. I don’t mean to suspend the law or break the law, but go beyond the law. If you clearly see what you are and therefore can clearly see what others are, wouldn’t you then behave accordingly, as a matter of course?

PARTICIPANT: But people don’t see it and they are not going to, are they?

WW: But we’re interested in you and I, aren’t we? We can’t do anything about them. I can’t wait for the rest of the world to do something in order for me to live as we were designed to live. I want to find a way to live—a way to see that doesn’t depend on what others in society are doing. If I must wait for the rest of society to get straightened out before I accept responsibility for the life that I lead, then life is futile. I don’t want to be dependent on anyone for the way I see or for my attitude or behavior. I don’t like my state of being to be dependent upon or controlled by others. They aren’t going to sit here for hours listening to an aging gray-haired man going on and on about some boring subject, so let’s allow everyone who wants to live by the law do so. For me, I want to check out the hypothesis that it may be possible to go beyond the law; not to be above it, not to destroy it, but to make valid the ideas behind the law. I want to find out if I can see without the authority of the past or the law—to live within the law, not because of the law.

PARTICIPANT: To live by your own conscience.

WW: Look at the picture of man that we drew and find the conscience.

PARTICIPANT: I don’t see it.

WW: It’s one of the three parts of the awareness function.

PARTICIPANT: I got it. Side two, authority.

WW: Right. The trolls on that side bring up the law, the rules, the authority of the past. We like to call it our conscience, but it’s really just a method by which to eliminate more disturbing events. Our so-called conscience is just a group of ideologies, another piece of baggage.

PARTICIPANT: You have obviously put a lot of thought into all of this, and I really can appreciate that. I can’t say that you are wrong, but that sounds like a monumental task for me to give up everything of myself as a sacrifice.

WW: If you want to live a new life as a new person, you can’t bring the baggage of the past. The past must die. The self and its trolls must atrophy. This isn’t something that a person does once and then it’s finished; this is something that must be done on a continuing basis. You make it sound as if you’re going to give up something of value. This is a key. It isn’t so difficult to give up trash is it? If you discovered that the things you have been hoarding in your closet for years were just garbage, then it wouldn’t be so difficult to give up. The trouble is that we have mistakenly seen the trash as being of great value.