A Fight for Love

In First-Second Degree of Illumination bubble awareness, I believe I have to fight for everything that supports my need to survive. I label whatever I feel works in my favor as love.

I fight against whatever threatens what I believe I’m right about. Nothing’s more worthwhile or noble than that, in my opinion. Thus, love equates to defending for what’s right and against what’s wrong.

What’s the payoff?

What’s the payoff for equating all this conflict and pain is about love? Why all the fighting and competition? Maybe to sustain my storyline?

While in bubble awareness, I cannot view my story from a perspective outside the bubble. Only imagine it – which imaginings would arise from within the bubble! This is how bubble awareness supports and defends itself – and keeps me in it!

Within my bubble awareness, I attend to those things that grab that awareness – especially those that might threaten my bubble, my life, my story. Attention tends to add intensity value to my story with use.

Compelled to Fight

To fight the good fight, I must invest all my attention into creating and maintaining defense. That means developing strategies intended to battle for and win the greatest of causes. One of those strategies is to feel right, proper and justified, a reward for all who intentionally do good.

Another reward for furthering the cause is an increase in sense of superiority. Helping others attain what they need and are unaware of can feel fulfilling. Such feelings allow me to justify my sense of separateness as I stand alone for rightness. When I’m in my element of being right, proper,and justified, I’m a hero! If only others could appreciate that. After all, it’s just common sense to praise all who believe as I do and feel loathing or pity for those who don’t.

Compelled by Love

Love compels me to fight for it. Because I know what’s right and wrong, everyone else should too. I feel frustrated and alone when I must carry out my duty of defending right from wrong – all by myself!

My defensive strategies have become routine. I convince others to join my fight of right-thinking through enticements, and I shame or threaten them with harm. The last type of convincer, the threat of harm, I save for when I’m feeling desperate! It’s my or else card, which I play as a last resort. It can feel a bit embarrassing when I have to shut my mouth, curb my behavior, and leave feeling unloved. I imagine negative thoughts of on-lookers as they stare silently back at me.

When a strategy fails, my imagination goes to work convincing me… again… why love, as I perceive it, needs defending. I sometime resort  to self-deception, which can feel petty, yet, at least I feel justified for trying!

Those who disagree with my truth are the losers. In this environment, I experience a level of self-vindication that satisfies my need for self-validation. I love the deep affirmation of love I feel each time I do what is right, proper, and justified.

Reconsidering the Law of Compensation

What if beyond my limited awareness bubble, the Law of Compensation is not a law? What if it’s an illusion, a perceptual result of defense of separation that I experience as lack?

By applying a mental filter, I can see this law in action in what I observe. That is, when I see someone achieve a goal, I can apply this “law” and assume that person helped enough others achieve their goals. So, applying it to my own life, I get busy helping other people achieve their goals so I can achieve mine.

It’s a simple business transaction: I give value, I get value. Value for value. Fairness. And, as we all know, the universe is nothing if not fair.

It’s always unfair to the one who feels dissatisfied. (anon)

Assuming the law is true, all I have to do is help some people get what they want, then sit back and wait for the universe to “pay up.” Since it’s the law, I should expect payment. When my expectations are not met, I have to wonder why. Maybe I didn’t help enough people or the right people. Or…

Maybe the Law of Compensation is not really a law after all.

What if there is another way to understand this than as a natural law, like gravity, that must be obeyed? What if my expectation of fairness is more a want than a law? What if there was never a hole to fill or loss to compensate for? Might it just be an illusion that confirms my belief in justice?

Compensation For What?

In order for the law of compensation to have any meaning, one must accept the concept of lack as a fundamental truth. That is, one must work to achieve what they lack. One must compensate for a deficit.

What happens when I no longer perceive lack? When I thoroughly and completely accept the concept of wholeness?

According to the Law of Compensation, where there is loss, there must be compensation. From a wholeness perspective, there is no loss. So, in order to preserve the “law” as a law, I must invent a loss or deficit for which I must compensate. To balance loss there must be gain to equal out the exchange. Thankfully, I have a good imagination!

Perhaps I invented the Law of Compensation in order to feel certain things – like a sense of personal:

  • growth – to compensate for diminishing sense of individualism
  • justice – to compensate for a sense of loss of rightness when wronged
  • fairness – to compensate for a sense of disadvantage in a competitive world
  • balance – to compensate for my feelings of imbalance

All these defend my position within First and Second Degrees of Illumination. And defend me against enlightenment beyond that. While I hold out the Law of Compensation as truth, I will remain limited in:

  • awareness of what may lie beyond fairness, justice, and defense.
  • gratitude for what is – as my focus is always on lack that needs compensating for.
  • awakening to the unlimited Self – as I’ve limited Self to perceiving life as a transaction.
  • connection to everything in my external reality.

I wonder how my life might look when my perspective is no longer one of lack needing compensation. Perhaps when I no longer perceive myself as a deficit to the universe, I will no longer have to obey the Law of Compensation.

The Law of Compensation

In my bubble of limited awareness, compensation means to make up for (a loss or lack) by exerting an opposite force or effect. Every action compensates for some lack. This “law” confirms my belief in separation and justifies my sense of justice. Yeah, it’s probably another one of those self-referential paradoxes.

Sir Isaac Newton codified this law into his third law of motion. “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

Basically, this law says that you get what you give. The more you contribute in life, the more you receive from the Universe. Of course the opposite is also true.
(Hurley, The Law of Compensation)

Using the Law of Compensation

Some say they have amassed fortunes as a result of mastering this law. My payment to them in the currency of money, attention, behaviors, and perceptions illustrate how I use their belief in the law to compensate for my sense of lack. Thus, enriching their bank accounts at the expense of mine. See, it works for them, so must work for me, too! That’s what makes it a law.

You can get anything you want in life if you help other people get more of what they want. (Granados)

As noble and useful as this appears, it makes one significant assumption. It assumes lack as a condition that must be compensated for with right, justified, and/or proper action. Further, it supposes that one can invest some energy and as a result reap a guaranteed reward of their choosing. An enticing idea. Particularly in the West, where wealth is seen as success in life, those sensing lack for any reason may find application of this law irresistible.

Compensation in Terms of Value

I attach value to everything in order to make comparison judgments based on my personal value. Things have no value until I invest my life-force energy in defense of a judgment – “rightness.” When I judge a loss in rightness value, I work to compensate for it.

Thus, judgment requires perception of value. Investment requires value judgments. I invest in value judgments with value judgments in order to make value judgments.  I guess that settles the self-referential paradox question. It’s a paradox!

Could the “law of compensation” be a conceptual misinterpretation of the natural law of accountability in which the universe accounts to me by presenting my beliefs to me? Perhaps compensation is a law in my universe because I believe in and defend the perception of lack.

Does the earth realize a loss regained when it compensates for evaporation by returning huge rivers of water to the ocean?

In Defense of the Secret

When something is secret, it’s hidden. How do I defend for or against what I’m unaware of?

In my bubble of limited awareness, I work at keeping a secret from myself, limiting my awareness. To remain in this trance, I hide a secret – substituting real with imagined data I choose to defend. Protected within my comfort zone fortress, I experience what I want rather than what is – even when I don’t like it. I didn’t say I was good at this!

What About the Secret?

What if I’m not seeking truth? Maybe it’s far too frightening, mind-boggling, and/or pointless for me to entertain. Instead, I want to experience a reality of my own making. Might that imagined “reality” require me to keep a bit of mystery, an unknown element, a secret? After all, if the secret were revealed, my fanciful reality might not be able to handle it.

Would secreting certain information out of my conscious reach allow me to hold onto beliefs that support my uncertain reality? With beliefs like lack, for example, I can entertain fantasies of competition. Through competition, I feel I can win back and compensate for what I’ve lost. When I become aware that any lack I experience is but a chosen perspective, I resolve the paradox, and the secret begins to reveal itself.

How Do I Defend the Secret?

In order to know the secret, I must trade all that I understand for it. To do this, I must question with full intent what I hide from myself. In this way, I willingly offer up my defense of overt rightness for covert understanding.

In order to do that, my will to understand must exceed my need to defend what I presently believe. I must get around my confirmation bias. To know the truth of something requires conscious thought. Knowing my propensity for blocking awareness of truth, I would want to challenge any concept I believe is true.

Thus, a single, well-defended secret prevents my limited mind from waking out of a hypnotic trance of my own making. I am good at this!

Why Do I Defend the Secret?

I like to think I have control of this world, able to make accurate predictions. This keeps me busy working to satisfy survival needs that distract me from knowing the secret. If revealed, the secret might end my fantasy, which might appear as death to me. This because the world I’ve worked so hard to build might be in jeopardy of oblivion. I’m not down for even the thought of that, so I defend myself from the secret – to the death!

I think I fear knowing in most situations more than I fear not knowing. Perhaps I defend the secret because my intention is to be unaware.

Who Defends the Secret?

With secrets, I create and sustain a persona of unawareness in which I experience a sense of me rather than me. I am who I imagine myself to be.

Even when experiences are hard to bear, I’d rather defend a known reality than to seek an unknown alternative. Thus, my limited awareness further limits my awareness.

Perhaps when the fundamental secret is revealed, I’ll discover that it is my intention to limit my awareness by defending the secret.

Limitation by Design

Do I limit my experience – on purpose?

In my bubble of limited awareness, although I believe I live with trillions of other beings, I alone live within my thoughts. Everything and everyone I experience in this dimension of limitation are literally and figuratively phantasms of my imagination. To me “they” are simply concepts in competition with other concepts. My perception of a walrus, for example, is a concept that competes with my concepts of everything else. I’ve limited my perception of this because it is not everything else.

Everywhere and whenever I notice, I’m faced with solid evidence of limited experience in the form of paradox. That is, nothing is as it appears – ever! Everything appears as a paradox of  unreasonable reasons, illogical logic, timeless timeliness, and perceptions of lack in wholeness.

Adaptation = Limitation!

One explanation for this paradox comes from the theory of evolution. I perceive as I do as a result of millions of generations of adaptation to changing environment. Thanks to Mr. Newton, I now know that evolution follows the law of conservation of energy. Thus, it has keenly honed my senses to perceive me in relation to a limited number of needs-related aspects of my present environment. Rather than to compare me to ALL that is not me, I compare me with only that part of not me that I consider matters to me.

I don’t perceive EVERYTHING – even within the limited space of my own body. Just what I NEED to perceive in order to survive long enough to pass my genes along to the next generation. Those senses, skills, and education I don’t need or don’t use often enough fade away. That’s evolution through adaptation.

Attention = Limitation!

In this way, my mind considers every thing, person, or place as a concept.  To manage the perpetual competition among these concepts, and to avoid overwhelm, I limit the number I’ll attend to at any one time. That’s intentional limitation!

Evolution, then, is the result of a paradox in which one must limit their sensual and conceptual life experience in order to fully live.

Purpose = Limitation!

Perhaps the purpose of my life is not the achievement of wholeness – a paradox in that one cannot achieve what one already is. Rather, maybe my life’s purpose is to notice the enjoyment I get from the paradox of limitation by design.