New Age and Equality

I wouldn't consider myself part of the New Age Movement,
But I have a question.

Is it true that the New Age,
Is dismissive of hierarchy and reason,
But promotes equality and intuition?

 

I believe that,
Hierarchy and reason,
Are just as valid as,
Equality and intuition.

And I have no inclination to change this.

If my belief isn't authentic,
I'll just wait for the New Age to come.

Does anyone know when the Age of Aquarius is going to occur?
I've heard different opinions.

 

Hierarchy, an exceptional gradient, is the ego's greatest defense against the truth. Reason based on hierarchy is oppressive.

Solution is equal dispersal.

 

In 1929, the International Astronomical Union defined the edges of the 88 official constellations. The edge established between Pisces and Aquarius technically locates the beginning of the Aquarian Age around the year 2600. Many astrologers dispute this approach because of the varying sizes of the zodiacal constellations and overlap between the zodiacal constellations.

 

Hierarchy is contextual.

 

Certainly higher depends on it's relationship to lower. Regardless as a practice of making distinctions, hierarchical models are an ego device.

 

We live in a world where such devices are required. Of course they are an ego-device but that shouldn't be necessarily used as a dirty word. I think it's natural to arrange things in a spectrum, organization is characteristic of what we are and it shouldn't be relegated to "evil" or "illusory" status.
Of course, there comes a point where reality wraps back in on itself and all spectrums are rendered meaningless, but we aren't exactly looking in from that vantage point.

 

We live in a world where such devices are used in practice, but what is practical is that which you practice.

It is not necessary to organize in a way that insures disparate dispensation.

Who is we? There is a power of distinction that is not as subject to the relativism of higher and lower and that is simply to determine, is it the same or is it different. Is it true or false, or what is it for? Hierarchy is an illusory status, a misapprehension of what is so.

 

So hierarchy is not authentic?
And we should choose authenticity (reality) over hierarchy (illusion)?

It is inauthentic to practice hierarchical behavior without choosing authenticity over hierarchy?
It is authentic to practice hierarchical behavior while choosing authenticity over hierarchy?
It is authentic to practice hierarchical behavior while choosing against it?

And if we see ourselves in a subordinate position,
We should accept this as an illusion,
Without a reason?

And if we don't,
We're selfish?

[Hypnotists claim that,
Hypnotic suggestion only suggests,
And that you can't make people do what they don't want to do.
However, this particular New Age line of reasoning,
Conceivably raises hypnotic suggestion,
To a higher level of mind control,
Against those who accept it.]

 

I don't agree with this,
However, New Age seems to include,
An "Esoteric Christian Tradition" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Aquarius).

Can anyone explain this?

 

individuality and Hierarchy? Are they opposites?


edit- individuality and equality, are they opposites?

 

We choose hierarchy at the expense of situational awareness.

We do as we are taught until a time when our previous learning becomes obviously insufficient based on the measure of transient success it has produced.

What is so is so.

If you see yourself in a subordinate position you must have a reason.

We are always self centered. If you mistake illusion for reality then you are confused.

Cultural conditioning produces effects very much like those found with hypnotic suggestion.

 

So,
You indeed believe that we should choose authenticity (reality) over hierarchy (illusion)?
What should we do if we become aware that we are in a subordinate situation,
To an elitist (esoteric?) group or individual?

So,
You indeed believe that,
We should embrace any perceived subordinate position,
And dismiss any reason against it?

Could you explain?

 

No, I am saying we are deceived in illusion. Only what is real is real and what is not real does not exist. What is false by definition is not true.

Change your mind.

I am not convinced that belief is a deed, but the I am I call myself is the same I am you call yourself.

We at large harbor many unexamined sponsoring beliefs that cause us to react automatically in a certain way. An example would be the belief that commodities are in short supply which makes us overall defensive and distrustful. The defensiveness arises automatically from the fundamental belief in lack. There is enough to go around, shortages are man made.

 

No, they are not mutually exclusive.

No, they are not mutually exclusive.

 

We should experiment in not following our conscience,
Those who do not choose to follow their conscience,
Shall realize their authoritative state,
(Their authentic state)?

 

In a real world, nothing is abhorrent. Anxiety is an effect of the misapprehension of what is so. If we realize anxiety we may be confident that our previous learning is suspect.

What should or should not be done, whether hoped or dreamed, means nothing in the face of will, as what will be done, is done.

 

The sense of right and wrong (should and shouldn't),
Means nothing in the face of free will?
We are free to do whatever we want,
Once we realize that following our conscience is an obstacle?

We should experiment in not following our conscience,
Including not following conscientious objection.
We will then realize (create?) our real self,
And since we trust in what is real,
We will trust in ourselves,
In not following our conscience?
This sounds very circular, and enslaving.

If reality has only things that exist,
In a real world, everything is not abhorrent?

During the Holocaust,
Being the "master race" was weighed against conscientious objection.
And you believe people should become comfortable in doing things which seem wrong?

 

A person who sexually abuses a child,

Teaches the child to become comfortable in doing things which seem wrong,
Before the child "learns" that they are wrong?

Sexual abuse is a kind of spiritual advisement,
Helping the child realize himself?

I've heard this has been promoted in certain cults,
And the list of abhorrence seems to go on.

 

Then let it go, it is not my reasoning, it is yours.

Nothing is abhorrent unless it is abhorrent for water to boil.

No. Right or wrong does not give an objective view. A better use for our power of distinction is to determine if a thing is true of false, is it the same or is it different, and to answer the question, what is it for.

As for during the holocaust, Nazi propaganda can be observed as being false , not evil, on the face of it. I mean that the reasoning that produced the effects of Nazi Germany was errant.