We are not free of darker feelings and views just because we espouse a spiritual view or lifestyle.
We praise consistency in most things unless the consistent behaviour is judged negative, but then we still prefer it to inconsistent negativity. The person who’s only erratically negative is much more scary socially for some reason.
Is it not true of children that they feel more secure with consistency? Actually, I would debate that. In the case of my son, who is also autistic, he seemed most secure when his natural rhythms were respected than by any effort at regulation I might have made.
So consistency within himself, as opposed to you making all rules? Yes. Arbitrary rules lead to insecure children just as much if not more so than respecting their natures.
Makes sense. I don’t like rules myself unless I make them. I don’t like rules, even if I make them.
It’s the particular definition of consistency which is important. Who’s consistency, in other words. The understanding of the word consistency is the tripping point. In my case, I make a rule if I am at a loss for how to function or adapt in a situation. For me, a rule always signifies an artifice that was necessary, because something was out of order, imbalanced.
But consistency can also be the reason for a persons downfall. I‘ve got to be ready for change as the world changes around me? Exactly. Consistency isn’t automatically a vice, but I would argue it’s not inherently a virtue either.
Given how rules in society seem to be growing in the last few decades, that is telling on how unbalanced society is getting. True. Even “good events” like Obama being awarded the Noble Peace prize are losing their original meaning. Out of synch with the spirit behind it.
So if not rules then what should we live by? We should live by the principles that allow the world and life on it to endure, and these are more forces of nature than rules.
We should live by our internal sense of doing right. So then let that be the rule? Well, there is a problem with the very idea of rules. If we say “this is a rule”, we are distressed whenever there is a deviation from the rule. We “lose faith”. More often just discarding an insight, rather than looking any deeper into it for meaning.
Those who can adapt to inconsistency the best, are those who tend to be the most successful, I think. Yes, this has been proven true in multiple fields of study. It is more like a law of physics than a “moral precept”.
Rules don’t have to be rigid. They can be adaptable. Rules can be more like guidelines, and then they’re flexible. Ah, then the word that seems to fit best in that case is “principle.” Like Occam’s razor, they help but don’t bind.
Rules are just guidelines, just like the white stripes on the roads. And they can serve, if they are held in the original spirit in which they were founded. Too often we forget intention though, and just keep adhering to a hidebound rule.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.