Extremism

[artichoke]

Q'uo (channelled by Carla Rueckert) makes the analogy that graduation from third density requires that one gain a certain amount of energy. Think of a swing. When the swing is stationary there is no energy in it (of the kinetic kind, anyway) but when you start it moving, gradually you can go higher as you accumulate energy in the swinging.

I see this as swinging in various dimensions or polarities: positive-negative, democrat-republican, capitalist-communist, high-low, and so on. Swinging from one extreme to another, exploring the extremes.

In school I learned that one tests an idea by taking it to the extreme. Then you find out how it breaks, what its limits are, and generally the extreme is the simplest case to understand, if you can imagine it.

Some ideas are fine all the way out to the extreme. Most people would agree with Barry Goldwater's famous quote: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" It sounds like he was rebelling against the kind of anti-extremist rhetoric we are so heavily beset with today.

Thinking in extremes is very important. Maybe it's the beginning of independent thought. Without being able to imagine extremes, I don't believe that I could do much thinking.



So ... what do we think of the current "War on Islamic Extremism"? It used to be the "War on Terror", then I heard a rumor that it was the "Long War", now the "War on Islamic Extremism". Soon they may decide to be catholic about it and shorten it to the "War on Extremism"!

I believe they, the sponsors of this war and its propaganda, are trying to take away our ability or our permission to think. They want to prevent graduations as much as they can, by trapping people in the muck of ignorant fearful moderation.

 

[Ben]

I do not understand the advantage of pursuing a course of action because it is 'extreme' rather than because it is as closely aligned as possible with objectivity and truth. That may require extreme action and it may not, what is it specifically about being extreme that you recommend? Also, as I see it we are trying to do the opposite of what the pathocrats DO rather than the opposite of what they SAY, seeing as what they say is geared towards manipulation.

 

[artichoke]

I'm thinking about personal growth, not specifically fighting the jerks although that's certainly an experience that is available to choose.

So let's use that as an example. How would a novice fight them? Probably going to an extreme, not calibrating actions skillfully (or at all) because he/she doesn't have experience yet. Then by learning from the school of hard knocks, one learns a more efficient path. But if one is afraid to make mistakes, one may never learn much.

But that's just an example. The same principle applies to learning to make lasagna or a jet fighter. You have to try things. Now if you're in mortal terror of being labeled an extremist, or just get out of the habit of trying things, you'll not learn much.

The same principle applies as well to metaphysical work, and now we're getting very clearly into things that feel graduation-related. It's even riskier and one needs a lot of guts and freedom to go for it.

PS I try to do what I do and it often ends up being different from what the jerks are doing. But I don't strive to do the opposite from them or calibrate myself by comparison to them.

 

[radish]

Q'uo (channelled by Carla Rueckert) makes the analogy that graduation from third density requires that one gain a certain amount of energy. Think of a swing. When the swing is stationary there is no energy in it (of the kinetic kind, anyway) but when you start it moving, gradually you can go higher as you accumulate energy in the swinging.

I see this as swinging in various dimensions or polarities: positive-negative, democrat-republican, capitalist-communist, high-low, and so on. Swinging from one extreme to another, exploring the extremes.

I suspect the topic of personal growth is somewhat separate from that of "fighting the jerks" (at least as far as that means holding a particular political philosophy), so this probably belongs in a different section, and I apologize for that, but here it is... In contrast to the interpretation above, "Ra" (also channeled by Carla Rueckert, p. 90, Book II) said:

"The key to balance may then be seen in the unstudied, spontaneous, and honest response of entities toward experiences, thus using experience to the utmost, then applying the balancing exercises and achieving the proper attitude for the most purified spectrum of energy. ... This is why the brilliance or rotational speed of the energy centers in not considered above the balanced aspect ... of an entity in regarding harvestability; for those entities which are unbalanced ... will not be capable of sustaining the impact of the love and light of intelligent infinity to the extent necessary for harvest."

 

[artichoke]

I don't see your Ra quote as a contrast to what I said. You don't achieve balanced fullness by staying in a muddle in the middle. You have to get out and explore all the territory, going in many various directions one after another.

 

[vinny]

So ... what do we think of the current "War on Islamic Extremism"? It used to be the "War on Terror", then I heard a rumor that it was the "Long War", now the "War on Islamic Extremism". Soon they may decide to be catholic about it and shorten it to the "War on Extremism"!

I believe they, the sponsors of this war and its propaganda, are trying to take away our ability or our permission to think. They want to prevent graduations as much as they can, by trapping people in the muck of ignorant fearful moderation.

I think you've got a point, that the PTB are trying to reduce our ability to think about anything. They want to completely stigmatise (and hystericalise) any efforts of independent thought away from the 'official version' of events that are spouted out to everyone.

So it is definitely is being driven like this: 'war on terror' -> 'war on extremism' -> 'war on independent thinking' -> 'war on thinking'

The trouble is, that this creates a sort of counter-effect: a tendency for certain types of people to follow any extreme idiology that comes their way, merely because it is extreme, as a sort of reaction against suppression - unfortunately this then leaves them totally susceptible to manipulation, and entrapment into another false set of ideals. It is important not to simply swing totally the other way and say that 'its an extreme view so it must be right because it rebels against the norm'.