-
Posts
-
Reader wrote: Urantia and in the current universe age are tasked with the use of meanings as aids in the real-ization of the glory of this divine presence in and to their fellow-finites.Hmmm. Interesting. What do you mean by “use of meanings as aids”? How do you separate meaning from the value? Aids to what? I’m probably missing the obvious. And, I agree, power unified in Supremacy is a huge topic which probably needs its own thread.But here are my thoughts, since you said to go on: If each personality adds new meaning to any given value, then that meaning-value combination from experience is unique to that personality and to the Supreme. This is why, I think, the Supreme needs every single personality’s experience. It’s about the parts and the whole. The power personality synthesis of the Supreme is the unification of the manifold and diverse personal meaning-value experiences into one meaning-value whole. At least that’s how I see it.
Bonita writes:
What do you mean by “use of meanings as aids”? How do you separate meaning from the value? Aids to what?
I meant to imply that there’s more to it, that meanings are ancillary to the total experience. They are crucial in that they are useful – they make sense of value-experience for us, connecting dots, deepening the ramifications. If I can grasp some particular harmony or beauty of soul-growth under a meaningful expression, for example, I might be able to share it out.
Similarly on the mansion worlds we will enjoy the rush of new meanings as well as the love, mercy, ministry of those higher in attainment who are appointed to share divine truth, beauty, and goodness with every new ascender.
Outside of love, mercy, and ministry, I’m not sure any hint of divine values can be shared between two minds without the aid of meaning. As pure experience our brush with value is very personal, goodness, beauty, truth are not means to an end, they are simply the ‘lures’ of God-reality, each awakens love for more of God, but is valuable in and of itself. Well that’s my current understanding.
Meaning is what we ourselves make of this brush with reality (besides co-creation of soul).
But the divine value itself is not given on the plane of utility – it is not “good for something” it is good in itself, not a means but an end.
Meanings augment the adventure in and with spirit values, they enhance the experience of divine Truth, Beauty, and Goodness, not only personally and individually but because they allow for the possibility of common experience (experience which without them is isolated).
This is only a snapshot of my current understanding. Good questions.
-Reader
Reader wrote: Outside of love, mercy, and ministry, I’m not sure any hint of divine values can be shared between two minds without the aid of meaning.I hadn’t thought of it that way. I’ll have to chew on that for a while. So you’re saying that the only way to share value is if both minds have arrived at the same meaning? Or do you mean that you share your own personal meaning with another person and they share theirs with you? (Like we’re doing here.) I’m not sure meanings can be absolutely identical in any two people, but I do think that they can be similar and compatible.I’m pretty sure the only thing we all share is the indwelling Spirit, the source of value, and the Adjusters are all identical in nature. I think it’s the meanings and interpretations of value that are all different. Need to think about this some more.Applicable quotes: [103:1.1; 141:5.1]Bonita writes:
I’m pretty sure the only thing we all share is the indwelling Spirit, the source of value, and the Adjusters are all identical in nature. I think it’s the meanings and interpretations of value that are all different.
I agree, although this sense of the word ‘share’ is quite different than the sense I intended.
But yes, this universal ‘share’ in God’s quiet indwelling Spirit which the whole world enjoys since Pentecost is the key concept of our gospel, I think. It is the key to recognizing the real oneness of all humanity without eliminating the precious uniqueness of their personalities (since Father’s Spirit itself takes the lead in refusing to over-rule personality prerogatives). It is the key to attaining that purity of mind which overcomes the obstacle of unlovliness by ‘seeing’ the best in everyone without conditions which would render a child of God less than whole. It is the key to loving the whole Sonship as One.
Reader wrote: It is the key to loving the whole Sonship as One.I agree that it is the key, the door opener. Dealing with what is beyond the door is more difficult. Purity of mind doesn’t develop overnight, it’s a process of learning to love and trust. Most of us aren’t even conscious of our own inadequacies when it comes to loving and trusting others, especially God, which is where it all must begin. Divine beings must be loved in order to be known. Others, for the most part, need be known in order to be loved. Reaching the point where you can love and trust other people as though they were divine must begin with love of the Divine.
Dealing with what is beyond the door is more difficult. Purity of mind doesn’t develop overnight, it’s a process of learning to love and trust. Most of us aren’t even conscious of our own inadequacies when it comes to loving and trusting others, especially God, which is where it all must begin. Divine beings must be loved in order to be known. Others, for the most part, need be known in order to be loved. Reaching the point where you can love and trust other people as though they were divine must begin with love of the Divine.
So, if one cannot trust someone, then they cannot be loved? is that your premise, where the value of trust weighs more than loving someone, especially if they have not shown themselves as trustworthy first. When a door opens, one may not be able to see through all the passageways and corridors which may follow, but if one walks through the doorway with faith in that which may be beyond the threshold has more value to love others who have not been loved enough to be able to show reciprocal love or trustworthiness. It is easier to love and trust in a God whom we cannot see, than to trust an other who we do not know well enough to respond in kind when presented with love and kindness, wherefore which has more value to God? If an individual cannot be trusted, would love not be warranted to change this to trustworthiness, regardless of how much love is needed? If one must trust someone before they can be loved, have we not set a value on that person as unlovable, therefore prejudging and withholding any love which may show them to be trustworthy of that love? If you cannot love other people until you love God first, would that offered love to God have any value at all to Him, if it is not offered or shared with others first. Or, in other words, are you saying that if one does not love God first, they are not worthy of your love and trust? If so, what value is that love and trust?
MidiChlorian wrote: So, if one cannot trust someone, then they cannot be loved?If I cannot trust you, then I cannot truly love you. I can trust in your lovability, but that is something different. To truly love you I must explicitly trust you. Without trust part of me would always be holding back, wondering about your motives, being judgmental on some level. Love should have no such qualifications. Trust is necessary for love because true loves is selfless. Selflessness is a state of complete trustfulness. Without trust there is no real love. There are other sentiments which can fool the mind into thinking it is love, but it is something else. Even friendship requires trust.And of all forms of evil, none are more destructive of personality status than betrayal of trust and disloyalty to one’s confiding friends. p754:04
Trust is necessary for love because true loves is selfless.
Me here: I would disagree. Had a moment with one of my daughters a few years back when I was accused of not “trusting” her. My comment was I know you and I love you. And I trust you….to be you. Which does not mean I trusted her to be mature or experienced or trustworthy in some matters for which she demanded my trust. She is far more trustworthy in many regards today. Do we trust children with fire and power saws and cars? No. Has nothing at all to do with love.
I read the issue as trusting God and looking for God in others with “high” love and insight and patience and understanding and kindness – not trusting someone to be or do what they are not yet able to be or do. Love and trust are unrelated except regarding the Father. You can’t love another person “into” trustworthiness. And their trustworthiness should not be some precondition (conditional) to our love either. The love of all others is a trust in the Source and Destiny of all others….not a blind or delusional trust in the trustworthiness of any other. Or so I think.
Sorry Nelson if I stray from your very interesting topic.
I hardly trust myself.
Bradly wrote: Do we trust children with fire and power saws and cars? No. Has nothing at all to do with love.You’re talking about trusting behavior. I’m talking about trusting personalities. Big, big difference. Do you trust your children with your love?Bradly wrote: And their trustworthiness should not be some precondition (conditional) to our love either.Trustworthiness has to do with behavior, choices. Trustworthiness has nothing to do with giving or receiving love, it has to do with earning the opportunity for loving service, proving your loyalty and ability to love. Trust is related to trustworthiness, but they are not the same thing. One is a cause the other an effect. Most people don’t even know what trust is, just like they don’t know what love is.39:5.7 The Spirits of Trust. Suspicion is the inherent reaction of primitive men; the survival struggles of the early ages do not naturally breed trust. Trust is a new human acquisition brought about by the ministry of these planetary seraphim of the Adamic regime. It is their mission to inculcate trust into the minds of evolving men. The Gods are very trustful; the Universal Father is willing freely to trust himself–the Adjuster–to man’s association.
Do you trust your children with your love?
Hmmmmm…….Good points. My love cannot be disappointed, no. My hopes and expectations have often been so disappointed. I have been a most grievous source of such for my parents as well….but knew with certainty of their love. I have even betrayed their love and been shamed thereby. But further maturity brought my orbit back in line…eventually. Their trust did result in my trustworthiness as it has with my own children. Interesting Bonita. Thank you.
MidiChlorian wrote: “So, if one cannot trust someone, then they cannot be loved?”
If I cannot trust you, then I cannot truly love you. I can trust in your lovability, but that is something different. To truly love you I must explicitly trust you. Without trust part of me would always be holding back, wondering about your motives, being judgmental on some level. Love should have no such qualifications. Trust is necessary for love because true loves is selfless. Selflessness is a state of complete trustfulness. Without trust there is no real love. There are other sentiments which can fool the mind into thinking it is love, but it is something else. Even friendship requires trust.
And of all forms of evil, none are more destructive of personality status than betrayal of trust and disloyalty to one’s confiding friends. p754:04
(754.4) 67:1.3 In all the administrative work of a local universe no high trust is deemed more sacred than that reposed in a Planetary Prince who assumes responsibility for the welfare and guidance of the evolving mortals on a newly inhabited world. And of all forms of evil, none are more destructive of personality status than betrayal of trust and disloyalty to one’s confiding friends. In committing this deliberate sin, Caligastia so completely distorted his personality that his mind has never since been able fully to regain its equilibrium.
Yes, your cut and pasted sentence, from the UB quote above would, be relevant if I were “a Planetary Prince who assumes responsibility for the welfare and guidance of the evolving mortals on a newly inhabited world”, but your selected sentence would not apply to a mere mortal human, or are you implying your trust requires a higher standard?
Both “love” and “trust” have values set to them by the applicant and the applicator. These values can be miss-valued by either, depending on the intensity, either applied or implied, but one is a feeling or emotion and the other is the result of action or non-action based on history. Both can be affected by the chemistry of the body and the illusion of the mind.
“In a social context, trust has several connotations. Definitions of trust typically refer to a situation characterised by the following aspects: One party (trustor) is willing to rely on the actions of another party (trustee); the situation is directed to the future. In addition, the trustor (voluntarily or forcedly) abandons control over the actions performed by the trustee. As a consequence, the trustor is uncertain about the outcome of the other’s actions; they can only develop and evaluate expectations. The uncertainty involves the risk of failure or harm to the trustor if the trustee will not behave as desired.
Trust can be attributed to relationships between people. It can be demonstrated that humans have a natural disposition to trust and to judge trustworthiness that can be traced to the neurobiological structure and activity of a human brain. Some studies indicate that trust can be altered e.g. by the application of oxytocin.”
Oxytocin has interesting effects on humans of both sexes and can contribute to various behaviors after certain life events and can change the overall values deemed relevant to a persons thoughts.
“Recent studies have begun to investigate oxytocin’s role in various behaviors, including orgasm, social recognition, pair bonding, anxiety, and maternal behaviors. For this reason, it is sometimes referred to as the “bonding hormone”. There is some evidence that oxytocin promotes ethnocentric behavior, incorporating the trust and empathy of in-groups with their suspicion and rejection of outsiders. Furthermore, genetic differences in the oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR) have been associated with maladaptive social traits such as aggressive behaviour.
It is on the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines, a list of the most important medications needed in a basic health system.”
So, “trust” can be effected by many things which are not necessarily related to “love” or the love of God. The perception of trust can be a personality trait or a physiological issue, and even a psychological issue, which can be an affect of either the trustee or trustor.
Love, on the other hand, can be physiological and psychological based on a persons “serotonin“ levels in the body and the central nervous system (CNS), where different levels can be a direct cause of the level or value placed on the emotion considered as love. Where:
“Approximately 90% of the human body’s total serotonin is located in the enterochromaffin cells in the GI tract, where it is used to regulate intestinal movements. The remainder is synthesized in serotonergic neurons of the CNS, where it has various functions. These include the regulation of mood, appetite, and sleep. Serotonin also has some cognitive functions, including memory and learning. Modulation of serotonin at synapses is thought to be a major action of several classes of pharmacological antidepressants.”
[. . .]
“Depletion of serotonin is common between disorders such as obsessive-compulsive disorder, depression, and anxiety. However, Dr. Marazziti and his researchers at the University of Pisa in Italy, found that depletion of serotonin also occurs in people who have recently fallen in love. This leads to the obsessive component associated with early stages of love.
Consumption of an average amount of alcohol (.8g/kg of body weight) shows to decrease tryptophan by about 25%, leading to a similar decrease in serotonin. The sexual and impulsive behavior resulting from an intoxicated state is at least partially an effect of the decrease in serotonin because serotonin regulates these behaviors”
So, “love” can be enhanced or depressed depending on a persons physiological conditions, which may involve the consumption of various products, known to alter serotonin levels in the human.
But, the main issue between being able to love someone without first needing to trust them, becomes an issue which is the same as friendship, where:
(1438.5) 130:7.2 When Ganid inquired what one could do to make friends, having noticed that the majority of persons whom they chanced to meet were attracted to Jesus, his teacher said: “Become interested in your fellows; learn how to love them and watch for the opportunity to do something for them which you are sure they want done,” and then he quoted the olden Jewish proverb — “A man who would have friends must show himself friendly.”
And one must look for an opportunity to open up oneself with a trusting heart, to project with a loving heart, the willingness that one wishes to love and be loved. This cannot be done if everyone which one encounters is looked upon as a person who must prove themselves as trustworthy first. Even an animal can sense when someone does not trust them, whereby this sense is transposed as fear. Therefore if one does not trust another, then is this not fear for the other person, thereby no one can love someone who they fear. The same thing might be said for someone who thinks them self as being inferior or superior to another, where there is a fear of either rejection or being unworthy of such a relationship, if this was the case, then would Jesus not have been able to accomplish as much as He did.
MidiChlorian wrote: Yes, your cut and pasted sentence, from the UB quote above would, be relevant if I were “a Planetary Prince who assumes responsibility for the welfare and guidance of the evolving mortals on a newly inhabited world”, but your selected sentence would not apply to a mere mortal human, or are you implying your trust requires a higher standard?But you are held to the same standard as any other being since God is no respecter of persons. And that standard is to be perfect within your realm of existence as the Father is in his. “The Father has bestowed himself upon you, placed his own spirit within you; therefore does he demand ultimate perfection of you.” (40:7.4)1:0.3 God-knowing creatures have only one supreme ambition, just one consuming desire, and that is to become, as they are in their spheres, like him as he is in his Paradise perfection of personality and in his universal sphere of righteous supremacy. From the Universal Father who inhabits eternity there has gone forth the supreme mandate, “Be you perfect, even as I am perfect.” In love and mercy the messengers of Paradise have carried this divine exhortation down through the ages and out through the universes, even to such lowly animal-origin creatures as the human races of Urantia.What think you, nelsong? Is ‘is’ properly defined now :)
Making progress.
I my mind trust implies that there has been some sort of prior agreement between persons. Its a two way street, not a blind alley.
The agreement is value, how we live up to it has value???
What think you, nelsong? Is ‘is’ properly defined now :)
Making progress.
I my mind trust implies that there has been some sort of prior agreement between persons. Its a two way street, not a blind alley.
The agreement is value, how we live up to it has value???
Ya…One would think integrity is a spirit world value.
Richard E Warren
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.