Is “good” an absolute?
In your arena of events, obviously, one man’s good can be another’s disaster, [Adolf] Hitler pursued his version of “the good” with undeviating fanatical intent. He believed in the superiority and moral rectitude of the Aryan race. In his grandiose, idealized version of reality, he saw that race “set in its proper place,” as natural master of mankind.
He believed in heroic characteristics, and became blinded by an idealized superman version of an Aryan strong in mind and body. To attain that end, Hitler was quite willing to sacrifice the rest of humanity. “The evil must be plucked out.” That unfortunate chant is behind the beliefs of many cults, scientific and religious, and Hitler’s Aryan kingdom was a curious interlocking of the worst aspects of religion and science alike, in which their cultish tendencies were encouraged and abetted.
The political arena was the practical working realm in which those ideals were to find fruition. Hitler’s idea of good was hardly inclusive, therefore, and any actions, however atrocious, were justified.
How did Hitler’s initially wishy-washy undefined ideals of nationalistic goodness turn into such a world catastrophe?
The steps were the ones mentioned earlier, as those involved with any cult. Hitler’s daydreams became more and more grandiose, and in their light, the plight of his country seemed worsened with each day’s events. He counted its humiliations over and over in his mind, until his mind became an almost completely closed environment, in which only certain ideas were allowed entry.
All that was not Aryan, really, became the enemy. The Jews took the brunt largely because of their financial successes and their cohesiveness, their devotion to a culture that was not basically Aryan. They would become the victims of Hitler’s fanatical ideal of Germany’s good.
Hitler preached on the great value of social action as opposed to individual action. He turned children into informers against their own parents. He behaved nationalistically, as any minor cult leader does in a smaller context. The Jews believed in martyrdom. Germany became the new Egypt, in which their people were set upon. I do not want to oversimplify here, and certainly I am nowhere justifying the cruelties the Jews encountered in Germany.
You do each create your own reality, however (intently), and en masse you create the realities of your nationalities and your countries, so at that time the Germans saw themselves as victors, and the Jews saw themselves as victims.
Both reacted as groups, rather than as individuals, generally speaking now. For all of their idealisms, both basically believed in a pessimistic view of the self. It was because Hitler was so convinced of the existence of evil in the individual psyche, that he set up all of his rules and regulations to build up and preserve “Aryan purity.”
The Jews’ idea was also a dark one, in which their own rules and regulations were set to preserve the soul’s purity against the forces of evil. And while in the Jewish books [of The Old Testament] Jehovah now and then came through with great majesty to save his chosen people, he also allowed them to suffer great indignities over long periods of time, seeming to save them only at the last moment, and this time, so it seemed, he did not save them at all.
Despite himself, and despite his followers, Hitler brought to flower a very important idea, and one that changed your history. All of the most morbid of nationalistic fantasies that had been growing for centuries, all of the most grandiose celebrations of war as a nation’s inalienable right to seek domination, focused finally in Hitler’s Germany.
The nation served as an example of what could happen in any country if the most fanatical nationalism was allowed to go unchecked, if the ideas of right were aligned with might, if any nation was justified in contemplating the destruction of others.
You must realize that Hitler believed that any atrocity was justified in the light of what he thought of as the greater good.
To some extent or another, many of the ideals he held and advocated had long been accepted in world communities, though they had not been acted upon with such dispatch. The nations of the world saw their own worst tendencies personified in Hitler’s Germany, ready to attack them.
The Jews, for various reasons, and again, this is not the full story, the Jews acted as all of the victims of the world, both the Germans and the Jews basically agreeing upon “man’s nefarious nature.” For the first time the modern world realized its vulnerability to political events, and technology and communication accelerated all of war’s dangers. Hitler brought many of man’s most infamous tendencies to the surface. For the first time, again, the species understood that might alone did not mean right, and that in larger terms a world war could have no real victors. Hitler might well have exploded the world’s first atomic bomb.
In a strange fashion, however, Hitler knew that he was doomed from the very beginning, and so did Germany as far as Hitler’s hopes for it were concerned. He yearned for destruction, for in saner moments even he recognized the twisted distortions of his earlier ideals. This meant that he often sabotaged his own efforts, and several important Allied victories were the result of such sabotaging. In the same way, Germany did not have the [atomic] bomb for the same reasons.
Now, however, we come to Hiroshima, where this highly destructive bomb was exploded (on August 6, 1945), and for what reason? To save life, to save American lives. The intent to save American lives was certainly “good”, at the expense of the Japanese this time. In that regard, America’s good was not Japan’s, and an act taken to “save life” was also designed to take individual lives.
At what expense is “the good” to be achieved, and whose idea of the good is to be the criterion?
Man’s pursuit of the good, to some extent now, fathered the Inquisition and the Salem witch hunts. Politically, many today believe that Russia is “the enemy,” and that therefore any means may be taken to destroy that country [This dialogue was published May, 1979].
Some people within the United States believe fervently that “the establishment” is rotten to the core, and that any means is justified to destroy it.
Some people believe that homosexuals and lesbians are “evil,” that somehow they lack the true qualities of humanness [and therefore need not be treated with normal respect]. These are all value judgments involving your ideas of the good.
Very few people start out trying to be as bad as possible. At least some criminals feel that in stealing they are simply righting society’s wrongs. I am not saying that is their only motive, but in one way or another they manage to justify their activities by seeing them in their own version of the good and the right.
You must realize that fanatics always deal with grandiose ideals, while at the same time they believe in man’s sinful nature, and the individual’s lack of power.
They cannot trust the expression of the self, for they are convinced of its duplicity. Their ideals then seem even more remote. Fanatics call others to social action. Since they do not believe that the individual is ever effective, their groups are not assemblies of private individuals come reasonably together, pooling individual resources. They are instead congregations of people who are afraid to assert their individuality, who hope to find it in the group, or hope to establish a joint individuality, and that is an impossibility (emphatically).
True individuals can do much through social action, and the species is a social one, but people who are afraid of their individuality will never find it in a group, but only a caricature of their own powerlessness.
SESSION 852, The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events, May 9, 1979. Copyright © 1981 by Jane Roberts, 9:39 P.M. Wednesday. Published with permission from current copyright holder, Laurel Davies-Butts, Seth/Jane Roberts Yahoo Group
Published on Seth, Practicing Idealist by “Oceanside Rick, Friday, May 6, 2011.
To be continued…
Seth’s grasp of human thought and behavior is so broad, practical and non-judgmental, it astounds me.
Instead of letting cultural values of right and wrong, good and bad, reinforced by the shame of guilt and the threat of punishment control our lives from the outside-in, why not live by value fulfillment and practice idealism? By determining the qualities of life and being we value most, our ideals, and actualizing them to the best of our ability, we’re able to avoid conflict and control our own lives from the inside-out. Isn’t the change we’re looking for, within us?
By trusting our own ability to know the difference between what what we like, and what we don’t like, what works for us, and what doesn’t, what makes us happy and what doesn’t, we put ourselves in the driver’s seat of our own lives. When we take responsibility for creating our own reality, we see the connection between what we think and what we create. Our powers of observation and imagination grow. Truth and honesty become more important and we discover the wisdom of our greater consciousness, the wisdom of our souls.
Creation – being pushed from within by the Impulse to Be and pulled from without by the Promise of Being and Creation, is a matter of finding what’s best within us and making it visible. It’s a matter of creating order out of chaos and making sense out of nonsense. In other words, the challenge of Being and Creation is learning how use the power of thought and imagination to shape energy, money included, into a pleasing reality. The prize is a sense of satisfaction, the feeling of a job well done. Like learning how to walk and talk, it is a personal, subjective endeavor that requires creative aggression. It is a great balancing act, where we, like babies, must accept falling down to learn how to stand up.
What can be more exciting, or worth doing, than changing ourselves for the better to change the world for the better? What’s more practical and doable? And, as long as we respect our oneness and individuality, it’s something we can do together. What others will not or cannot do for us, we must do for ourselves.
Roger/Pete Peterson – http://realtalkworld.com
“We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having (creating) a human experience.” – Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
Instead of money, power and privilege, wouldn’t love, truth and joy be a better measure of success? One set of values isolates us in the material world of separation, scarcity and competition, while the other not only acknowledges our oneness as well as our individuality, it acknowledges our role in creation itself. Using love, truth and joy to measure success provides us with a moral compass. It encourages us to live for the love of Being and Creation, instead of running from the fear of poverty, suffering and death. It inspires us to find and express what’s best in us and ALL that we’re a part of, instead of giving in to the least of what we can be.
“How you define yourself and the world around you forms your intent, which, in turn, forms your reality.” – Seth
In other words, we create our own reality from what we choose to believe about ourselves and the world around us.
If we don’t consciously choose the ideas we accept as beliefs, attitudes, values and expectations, we unconsciously absorb them from our surroundings.
If the ideas we accept as beliefs, attitudes, values and expectations create our reality, can we afford not to question them?
The more we love and appreciate ourselves, the better we treat ourselves.
What do we want most for our children, ourselves and the world?
What can we do today for the selves we’ll be tomorrow?
The secrets of the universe lie hidden in the shadows of our experience. Look for them!
Affirm what you believe!