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.

Please follow and like us:

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.

Please follow and like us:

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.

Please follow and like us:

My Perception Paradox Resolution Process

A review of how I work out my paradox of perception…

…being at once whole and incomplete, for and against, me and not me. I start out without paradox as one whole. Suddenly, perception brings an awareness of “not whole” – a deficit of separateness that must be returned to wholeness. Thus starts a paradox I must and yet cannot fix –

  1. Perception of separation (the “Who”) – acknowledgement of deficit from wholeness represents the initial paradox of awareness, that of perceiving wholeness in terms of a “not” condition. Thus, creating two conditions within one reality – me and not me, this OR that – which I compare to create perception.
  2. Intention (the “Why”) – gives purpose to resolving the paradox. Defends perception of separation by accepting it as truth by proposing a solution.
  3. Philosophy – MY life story framework – the laws of rightness that define MY limited awareness bubble in terms of symbols and their meanings. Defends intention by setting standards for comparisons.
  4. Choice (the “How”) – perception of distinct options leads to an intention to resolve the dilemma by selecting the most right (best) way. A choice defends standards in terms of values imposed by a philosophy to provide a base of comparison for each option.
    1. Policy – represents a specific plan for applying philosophical standards of rightness to a choice. Thus, defending the philosophy that governs the choice along with the choice. This by acceptance of outcomes that fit within the parameters of and confirm my life story-line.
    2. Procedure – The specific actions necessary to produce an outcome. Thus, defending a choice by confirming the rightness of the associated policy through action.
  5. Outcome represents feedback in the form of a perceptual “What” that symbolizes the “Who” – Thus, defending the choice, policy, and procedure with evidence that confirms my philosophy and satisfies my purpose in choosing this method of resolving the paradox of separation.

It’s all about appearances!

Although my paradox of perception remains, I feel as though I can resolve it through continuous improvement of my environment and myself. As there was only the appearance of a deficit, there can only be an appearance of a resolution. And that’s all I need in order to feel satisfied in a purposeful and meaningful life.

Hence, I’ve worked out the paradox to my satisfaction. Appearance of resolution IS resolution. And yet, there remains a nagging sense of want for “more…” and “better…”

Ah, but thankfully, I have a fix for that!

Please follow and like us:

Questioning Perception to Clarify Choice

How Choice Confirms the Paradox I Intend to Resolve

I rarely think about my intentions when people are agreeable and things are going well. I may still be unaware of my intentions when I act on perceived threats, reverting automatically to defense. This because my focus is on choice as the application of defense of the intention rather than on the intention. Regardless of my intentions, any choice I consider or make within the bubble is in defense of the separation paradox.

Thus, choice defends intention that defends perception.

That seems like a pretty poor strategy for resolving a paradox! How do I intend to resolve a paradox by choosing to confirm it? That sounds a bit confusing to me!

Might confusion be the strategy of choice?

Consider how convinced you feel when reason aligns with perception. When “how” and “why” align with sensory “what” – “I know this is true, because [a logical reason].” As I consider how stubbornly unmovable I get when I feel convinced of my “truth”, a little confusion may indeed be in order.

How does that work?

I use automation, of course! I engage a policy-management, self-regulating process to carry out my choices without question. Think mechanical process – “When this, do that.” Over time and experience, I learn to trust my choices – no questions necessary!

When I choose for, I also choose against. The process defends both sides of the argument. From an energy conservation perspective, it’s brilliant! The same reason I use in defense of one option I favor also defends why I’m right in not choosing another option. In choosing the road to the left, I’ve also chosen not to take the road to the right – for the same reasons.

Although this process manipulates conflicting concepts to maintain a sense of rightness, it adds paradox to paradox.

Let’s Recap!

  1. By perceiving, I set up a fundamental paradox of deficit within wholeness.
  2. I intend to resolve this paradox by setting up a system in which need-fulfillment feels like paradox resolution.
  3. To defend the intention, I create a life story that sets the parameters within which, as the hero, I must satisfy the ultimate need – survival of the paradox!
  4. I sustain the fundamental paradox by masking it behind paradoxical choices.

I can challenge my choices. Why? Because they’re not set in stone! They’re just concepts I’ve accepted as “right” and so, true. By questioning a choice, I open a space for understanding the philosophy and intent behind it. I might even let go of my defense of the current choice. It’s at least an opening.

Questioning

Questioning my choices may be cutting myself short of a realistic answer. My process isn’t designed to question itself because it is the answers. It has the right reasons for my survival and simply applies an appropriate defense. Therefore, questions intended to check the reasons for a system of defense must come from outside the system. Questions from within a system of defense tend to confirm the system.

Perhaps questioning my intention,rather than my perception would open a space for something new. Change the input change the output.

This means I want to design questions that awaken the process and its system of defense to itself. The answers to those questions will bring enlightenment to the process and promote clarity to a paradoxical reality.

Please follow and like us: