This is the first time that a substantial disagreement among sources has not only been apparent, but has, in my view, needed to be discussed.
But it’s also an opportunity to discuss the whole subject of disagreements and to find a new way of approaching them and I welcome that challenge.
In Third Dimensionality and duality, disagreements are often used to advance one’s reputation. One person “picks a quarrel” with another in order to come to the attention of the reference group and advance their “name.”
A part of the process of advancing one’s reputation is to become protective of one’s stated opinion, which often involves becoming self-righteous. I have stated that there is a disagreement among sources. I serve Archangel Michael. Implicit in this is that I should somehow begin to protect AAM’s view of the situation and progressively attack Matthew Ward’s.
I should become progressively more self-righteous and make excuses for myself if AAM’s opinion is proven to be wanting.
I could be seen as having something to protect now. In duality, there are sides. My side is right. The other side is wrong. I protect my side, my reputation, etc.
I have no desire to advance a reputation, no desire for that matter to have a reputation. I want no part in any discussion that may arise, except if that discussion pertains to reconciling any divergence in views.
I have the greatest respect for Matthew. It doesn’t matter to me if his version of events in this particular instance were shown to be not accurate – or shown to be accurate. I would still have the greatest respect for Matthew and continue to rely on him as a trusted source. I also acknowledge that in my view Matthew is a wise and honorable being, whose wisdom I have based most of my writings on and could not hope to approach.
The puffery that goes on sometimes today among terrestrial commentators is not something I support or wish to imitate. I’m aggrieved to find disagreement among sources and look forward to its resolution, in its own time, and through whatever ways emerge – in their own time.
When disagreements arise among sources, in a dualistic world, a call goes up for a debate. One is encouraged to“challenge” the other. Comparisons are made to “duels” and “jousts.” The one who disagrees leads a “struggle” and “vanquishes” the other. A side to the debate is said to have “won” and another side to have “lost.”
All of that supports dualism.
I intend to live with the cognitive dissonance that arises from there being a seeming gap between views without complaint or accusation.
I don’t intend to challenge anyone and I won’t be dragged into a debate. And I don’t agree to be lauded for this. It’s only how life should be and not something “laudable.”
This difficult situation is not necessarily new to me. I imagine it isn’t new to anyone else. We all find ourselves in the midst of a disagreement from time to time. But I anticipate that a dialogue could arise among others who may respond dualistically and want to “make something of it.”
If this were a topic visited by the mainstream media, they would probably play up both sides to the “controversy,” choose a side themselves, and report each doing or opinion in order to sell papers or boost ratings.
But none of that reflects where we’re going. It bears no relationship to life in the Fourth Dimension, as I anticipate it being, or life in the Fifth, as I imagine it.
So I just encourage us to note that there is a disagreement, not to approach it as anything more than it is, to allow for it to be worked out naturally, and to go on about our business of creating a world that works for everyone.
Any frustration that arises over there being disagreements among sources, I recommend that people solve in the ways that they do, without allowing them to create sides, taking them farther than they deserve, or becoming self-righteous.
I could very well be the source of the apparent disagreement myself. My own source could prove to be faulty. There are any number of circumstances that could create the appearance of a disagreement where none exists.
I also intend to rely fully on both sources gladly. Where their views diverge, they diverge. I don’t intend to yield to self-righteousness about divergence. Whatever view I feel I can support I will. Whatever view I can’t support, I’ll leave to one side.
In my opinion, self-righteousness closes one down to truth. Dualistic antagonism shuts the door to it. Dissonance is the price paid, as far as I can see, for cognitive breakthrough and paradigmatic expansion. If one cannot tolerate dissonance, I think one remains in a cognitive prison and closes the door to intellectual evolution.