Family and relationships, part 1
God's egoism comes out most strongly in her statements about family and relationships. We've all been terribly wrong on our views of morality because we've been under the mistaken impression that we should concern ourselves with the well-being of other people. "For centuries you have been taught that love-sponsored action arises out of the choice to be, do, and have whatever produces the highest good for another. Yet I tell you this: the highest choice is that which produces the highest good for you" (p.130). God says, "Let each person in relationship worry not about the other, but only, only, only about Self," because "The most loving person is the person who is self-centered"(p.124). The same principle applies to raising children. "Even the physical comfort of members of your family will no longer be a concern for you—for once you rise to a level of God consciousness you will understand that you are not responsible for any other human soul, and that while it is commendable to wish every soul to live in comfort, each soul must choose—-is choosing-—its destiny this instant" (p.114). Walsch, just wanting to make sure, asked, "Then, pray God, tell me—what promises should I make in relationship; what agreements must I keep? What obligations do relationships carry? What guidelines should I seek?" God reassured him, saying, "The answer is the answer you cannot hear—for it leaves you without guidelines and renders null and void every agreement in the moment you make it. The answer is: you have no obligation. Neither in relationship, nor in all of life" (p.135). We are under no obligation to feed our children, although it's commendable for us to wish that they be fed, whatever "commendable" means. Pretty scary thought, huh?
But it's not as scary as it might seem. Remember that we are all part of God, and we're just trying to re-member Who We Really Are. And who we really are is God. We are all God. And there's only one of us. So in practice, there's really no difference between egoism and ordinary other-focused morality. In God's words, "What you do for your Self, you do for another. What you do for another, you do for the Self. This is because you and the other are one. And this is because...[ellipses in original] There is naught but You" (p.131). So you are the only person who exists. Consequently, "the highest good for you becomes the highest good for another" (p.131). These "others" that we perceive around us aren't really "other" at all since we are all one. So being self-interested means being interested in "others". That's why I say Walsch's egoism isn't as scary as it might seem. We might imagine parents who neglect their children on the basis that they have no obligations to them, but if "you have caught yourself in an unGodly act as a result of doing what is best for you, the confusion is not in having put yourself first, but rather in misunderstanding what is best for you" (p.132). It is best for you to feed your children because you are your children.
to be continued...
Part 16
18 comments:
Steve, Walsch's worldview is monistic, but he doesn't say Christainity is monistic. He's not a Christian.
(Off-topic)
Sam,
You're pretty good at clarifying problems which most people have trouble with or get tripped up on. Have you heard of the Monty Hall problem? I know you mentioned once that 'riddles' aren't really your thing, but this one is quite simple; perhaps you can explain why our intuition falls short when we first try to solve the problem.
Suppose you are on a game show, and the host shows you 3 doors, where behind one door is a car but behind the other two are sheep. You choose a door, but before the host opens it, he is forced by the rules of the game to open one of the other doors, revealing a sheep. Note the host knows what is behind each door. Next, he gives you the choice to switch your original choice with the remaining door. Do your chances improve if you switch?
Wait, Steve, to clarify, the host will never open a door to reveal a car. He'll always reveal on purpose one of the sheep, since he knows what's behind each door.
I like your explanation, Steve; that's all I'll say, lol, before Sam arrives. But, ya, that's quite good on a first reading.
No, I've never heard of this problem before. When I first read it, it seemed very simple. But the more I think about it, the more complicated it gets. I think I'll ask my friend Jeremy about this. He loves these things and always figures them out.
Sam
What thoughts came to mind first?
First, I thought, "Well obviously if you only have to choose between two things, then you've got a better chance than if you have to choose between three things."
hmm, ok. So, if you were on that game show right now, what do you think you would you do? (Besides hoping he goes to commercial)
I probably wouldn't change my answer.
lol, well mathematically-speaking it is better to switch.
Jeff, I completely agree with you.
This is what my friend, Jeremy, said:
"I actually saw this on an episode of "Numbers," a TV show where they
have a mathematician helping the FBI solve cases.
When you make your original choice, you have a one in three chance of
getting it right. When one of the wrong choices is revealed, you have a
one in two chance of getting it right; so you actually improve your
chances by switching your choice at that point."
I think Jeff is right, though. This is how I look at it. When you're faced with keeping your choice or changing you're choice, you're essentially making a whole new decision involving only two options. So whether you choose the same thing you chose before or the other thing, your chances are still 50%.
LOL!
what, are you all saying that you wouldn't switch??
(sorry for the delay, I probably will not be able to visit as often these days)
Alright, no responses. Well, I'll just lay out the proof that you are supposed to switch, then:
After you pick the initial door, there are 3 possibilities:
(i) The door you picked was the car.
(ii) The door you picked was sheep #1.
(iii) The door you picked was sheep #2.
Then, the host opens a door, revealing a sheep.
Case (i): You switch, you lose (you had a car, now you are switching to a sheep).
Case (ii): You switch, you win (you picked a sheep, the host reveals another sheep, now you switch to a car).
Case (iii): You switch, you win (same as above- you picked a sheep, the host reveals another sheep, now you switch to a car).
Therefore, by switching, you win 2 out of 3 times, which is 66.6%, while if you stay with your original choice, your odds are only 1 out of 3 (33.3%).
So, Steve was right in his second response, as I was hinting at initially.
I don't see the difference between case ii and case iii.
Okay, to clarify, I'll go through this step-by-step.
Case 1: I picked a door, it was really a CAR, then the host opens another door revealing a sheep (either sheep), meaning the last door untouched is the other sheep. Therefore switching to that last door loses.
Case 2: I picked a door, it was really SHEEP #1, then the host opens a door revealing the other sheep (SHEEP #2), meaning the last door untouhed is the CAR. Therefore switching to that last door wins.
Case 3: I picked a door, it was really SHEEP #2, then the host opens a door revealing the other sheep (SHEEP #1), meaning the last door is the CAR. Therefore switching to that door wins.
So, switching in two out of the three equally-likely scenarios wins you the car (2/3 = 66.6%).
It might help to visualize the scenario omnisciently as if the doors were transparent.
Ah, this problem can be notoriously hard to understand intuitively speaking. Mathematically it makes sense, but intuitively, that takes more time.
Here's an interesting solution (intuitively):
Suppose that in the Monty Hall game you choose a door. But instead of opening a door, Monty Hall offers you 2 doors for the 1 you just chose. Most people would take his offer, and they'd be right.
Isomorphically, this is the exact same Monty Hall game as before.
Post a Comment