Theos-Talk Archives (July 1996 Message tl00011)

>Alan writes>
>Most of the subscribers to the theos-lists seem to be Americans - may I
>ask them, politely of course :-) if they agree with your assessment
>below (Alex excepted, as we already know he does).

>>Chuck writes>>
>>We sort of think it is.  When you have a society like ours which has as its
>>fundamental operating priniciple that everyone is on an equal footing, it
is
>>very difficult to dance around things, so we just say what is on our minds
>>and let the bombs fall where they may.  It helps us live longer, and we
don't
>>get ulcers.

Richard Ihle writes>
Alan, you must keep in mind that Chuck has already described himself as
having the same orientation as the "licentious" branch of Gnosticism.  Thus,
one could regard his stated policy of simply going around saying what he
wishes and "letting the bombs fall as they may" as just another technique for
the elimination of all Self-awareness in a single lifetime.  

Indeed, it could well be that the potential for reincarnation does not open
up until the transition point in animal-human material evolution where the
Self becomes sufficiently aware of itself to allow for an ego-formation to
stabilize in ~kama-manas~ ("desire-mental") consciousness.  What this means
is that the instant-gratification characteristic of kama (desire-feeling)
consciousness is supplanted by a new stratagem:  either holding the desire of
the moment in abeyance for the sake of a greater future desire, or simply not
indulging the desire because of consideration for the consequences.

If the purpose of the abstemious branch of the Gnostics was to eventually
leave the Reincarnating Stream by gradually killing out desire, perhaps the
purpose of the licentious branch was also to leave--but only faster, by means
of smothering the consequences of one egoic indulgence with a stronger egoic
indulgence whose consequences were smothered by even a stronger indulgence
etc.  Sex, alcohol, and drugs would undoubtedly sooner or later be very
useful in this regard.  

The overall idea may have been that in order to come back for another
lifetime it would be necessary that there be some remaining Self-awareness in
association with a desire-related state of differentiated consciousness.  If
one died in perfect Self-awareness uncontaminated by any kind of
desire-mental egoic delusion, there would be no "mechanism" to pull him or
her back for another lifetime; similarly, if one died with no Self-awareness
whatever because of sustained practice of indulging every animating,
physical, or desire-feeling impulse, one would not come back.

Now, a person who just goes around saying what he or she wants to
irrespective of the consequences would not be operating from a desire-mental
ego-formation.  He or she would simply be using his or her mental apparatus
in the service of something lower.  For example, as tools of a simple
physical ego-formation, words and ideas would be used--in a wanton, mindless
way--to try to establish dominance over, or even attack, someone else.  Of
course, dominance and aggression could just as easily be a component of a
desire-mental ego-formation as well; however, the difference in the latter
would be the use of mindfulness and strategy to accomplish the power-oriented
ends.    

Thus, ~not~ letting the bombs, verbal or otherwise, drop merely in a random
way may be the sign that someone has reached the "human threshold" of
psychogenetic development.  Simply saying and doing what one wants
irrespective of any negative consequences--for oneself or others--is not
necessarily the sign that someone has not yet reached that threshold; rather,
it could be, as in the case of the "bad-branch" Gnostics, the sign that one
is so dissatisfied with the human condition, that one wants to make sure that
he or she won't have to come back to do it all over again in another
lifetime.

Can America itself be characterized by a general absence of mindful "dancing
around things" as Chuck suggests?  I don't really think so.  I think I see a
lot of Americans doing a lot of judicious dancing around--often just to get a
longer term advantage for themselves, of course, but sometimes just because
they are kind enough to take into account the impact of their words and deeds
on others.  Anyway, at least ~I hope~ that Chuck is not right, for that would
mean that America either has not yet developed a manasic soul or has decided
that it is not important enough to keep. . . .

Godspeed,

Richard Ihle