Any experience you have that does not bring you peace, you failed to accept. To the degree you feel removed from a peaceful state, you have a list of rejections.
Today we are discussing ethics. The branch of philosophy that examines attitudes and codes of conduct for their truthful and useful character. It differs from moralism in that it does not involve a rigid adherence to a single moral code, nor a rejection of moral critique. An ethical person is someone who lives what has been called the “examined” life, where other systems of moralism have principles restricting or even forbidding much reflection on the truth or worth of their belief.
The primary purpose of ethical thought is to examine attitudes for their usefulness and impact on ones environment and conditions in it. An ethical consideration might be something along the lines of … whether regular indulgence in aggressive or temperamental behaviour has a negative impact, or whether theft has a significant impact on human suffering … things like that.
Where moralism has aspects of blind loyalty, ethical examination enables choice and is often considered disloyal, unfortunately. The reason for this is that many systems of moralism are based on an absolute standard, usually patterned after ideas of the character or will of God. To question creed is seen as attacking God. Where ethics are like principles, more like engineering perhaps. Each attitude that occurs in human experience has been examined in the history of ethical philosophy, and new lines of consideration arise as social circumstances change. In fact, ethical philosophy could be considered the philosophical component of sociology.
How does this relate to spiritual and magical practice? Well, even in the materialistic point of view, attitudes are seen to manifest as behaviour which then manifest as outcomes, and by examining the qualities and characteristics of attitudes one can predict to some degree outcomes. Like free for all aggression as an ethical principle would lead to serious cost in human safety and health, and undermine any potential for cooperation on a broad scale.
Vikings. This is why they had their prophecy of Ragnarok. This is why we still have the concept of Armageddon. People still embrace attitudes of justified aggression toward other parties, both identified and unidentified.
What is the prophecy of Ragnarok? In the Eddas, the Viking oral tradition passed down and eventually recoded on paper, there was a story of a future event where the balance of power between the Aesir and the other powers of their world model would come to full fruition and the Aesir would die. The fait itself passed from our world in it’s original form, but there are neopagans who base their spiritual practices after it. There was a similar prophecy held by the Magi of the Persian empire. A clash between their Lord of Wisdom and their Father of Lies but in their prophecy the Father of Lies would lose. It was later introduced as a useful heresy, I guess, into Catholic doctrine.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.