De Mon Faire – Question of Ethics


ethics

 

DMF 11/11/2012 (1st 11:11 nov 10th)

De Mon Faire translates to, Of My Maneuvers. I started working on a self discovery in 2010, in hope of resolving some issues within myself and give my soul a very much needed, tune-up. My intended effort would be primarily based on spiritual development, by which I allowed myself to be open minded to all material of self-actualization and spiritual awakening. If I truly desired to discover and then empower myself, I would need to let all sources of manifestations be equal in their existence. This thorough self-examination was going to be an intentional effort to recognize and then pull energy towards me; which would increase my vibration level of consciousness. It seems many are instinctively experiencing similar desires related some sort of coherent social spiritual awakening.

Thus far there are #15 manuscript of the entire work. Each manuscript, is titled De Mon Faire #1-#15, and detailed various sociological, ecology, anthropology, psychological, astronomy, theology, and spiritual theories and accredited works by leading theorist and authors. It was my intent to digest naturally whatever ideologies moved me spiritually, and with some detailed self actualization establish a spiritual portrait of myself, an inventory of my abilities and a self assured state of mind, that would guide me more effectively, as I continued my soul code journey.

Some of the leading authors/theorist were, James Hillman, Malcome Gladwell, Carl Jung, Hank Wessleman, Wayne Dyer, John Pokinghorne,Doc Childre, Thomas Hobbes, Saul Alinsky, George Orwell, the Bible, etc. The first step in my blinded agenda, was to declare a truth to myself. If I were solely responsible for knowing one truth of life on earth, what would it be? From that one truth, the rest of De Mon Faire would naturally evolve. Everything would magically seemed linked-this aspect I later learned to be SYCHRONICITY by Carl Jung.

The one truth I declared in De Mon Faire #1, is from the Bible, Hebrews 11:1. ” Faith is all things hoped for and trust in the invisible force of creation”. From the day I took ownership of this powerful truth, my life began to slowly evolve and I became enlighten to the most wonderful relationship I had ever had. The personal relationship between God/the Universe and I.

The following is an insert from De Mon Faire #15 (which is currently being lived). When I started this amazing journey, I had faith but was not consciously aware of it’s inherent power. Little faith, leads to little belief in the self, creation and life abilities. Since having secured a full conscious awareness of faith, I have leaped spiritually and physically. As of now De Mon Faire is in creation. From the beginning I felt that if it turned out to be useful in my life, I would edit my personal “faire” versions, into a collective version, to do what is the natural thing to do, give back to the Universe/God, that which was given/channeled through me.

DE Mon Faire #15 Entry 2: (11-11-12)

I finally have an understanding of my order which from every perceived manner, seems like madness/chaos: Yet to me sEems so perfectly clear (ex: I spelled sEems, the way I did, because the capital E would be considered a typo, but from my point of view, sEems, still resulted in the same out come as “seems”, so why worry about it.) It has to do with my core ethics: In DMF#1 and #2 I questioned and examined my character. This was a good starting point, but character is streamed from ethics and moral.

At this very moment I am taking an Ethic course (through the writing of De Mon Faire, I have returned to college in 2011 to continue my degree) whereby the core theme is an understanding of varied ethically approaches and facilitation in behavior and thought. Naturally we base our ethical disposition on a mixture of standard approaches, resulting in varied opinions regarding, what is ethically accepted behavior and what is not. My core ethical principle (which streams my every behavior and thought) is DEONTOLOGICAL. This ethical approach asserts that our duty and rights should be independent from the consequences. An individuals intent is more relevant than result. The primary theorist of this ethical approach is Immanuel Kant. In general, Kant considers “The Formula of The End In Itself”: this is one of Kants Supreme Principle Categorical Imperatives. This philosophy asserts “each of our acts reflects one or more maxims. The maxim of the act is the principle on which one sees oneself as acting. A maxim expresses a person’s policy…the principle underlying the particular intention or decision on which he or she acts…whenever we act intentionally, we have at least one maxim and can, if we reflect, state what it is…each person assumes that the other has maxims of his or her own…and is not …to be manipulated.” (May et al, pg.39-40)

I associate Kants mutual maxims, with individualism. I firmly, live, breath and practice individualism- everyone has a right to individually believe whatever it is they believe and have it exist as a portion of the whole. So it becomes difficult for any one sector to deny, prevent or diminish another individual beliefs.

Associated with the ideal of individualism is Liberty, Freedom and self responsibility. So the actions I create are my responsibility and I accept I am obligated to them, for I created them. Thus at all times each of us is an active, willing participant in the affairs of events: 50-50.

I know that I’m responsible for all my acts and thoughts, as I go through the regular denial process into acceptance. Thus I expect everyone else to be the same. But the world operates on varied planes, and I should not discard any of these (all exist as one) : however, nor should I change my bar of ethics either.
From the Deontological approach, I can, not agree, but I must also acknowledge that what I don’t agree to, has a RIGHT to not agree either.

Understanding this helps me recognize my actions and beliefs. It has helped me realize I do what I do and how I relate to people. I assume it’s because I don’t seek to change a person- the only thing I seek to accomplish is the better positive state of life. I acknowledge the opposite of this rose-colored glass view has a proper right to exist in our reality, and my only intent is to co-exist, while practicing my angle.

When I meet people I let them exist as they are (even when they try to persuade, fault or correct me). I remain me and let them proceed as they would, even if it is destructive for me. I do this because upon an encounter, if another has any deception or ignorance, there is nothing I can do to prevent them from changing their ways, unless they ask for assistance. If I continue to associate with them, then I am responsible for my actions as I follow them down a mal path. The rational thing to do is to avoid these types of relationships (as an individual, I am not ethically obligated to trust everyone-I have a choice and self will), but as it is a known fact, fate unfolds, whereby unlikely pairs are place together, headed towards a collision. I take the collision and consider it an excerpt or test from God/Universe- knowing that in the end, I will gain from the unintended relationship.

In the end, I remain true to my principles of ethic, and simply was deterred momentarily, which the universe (God) always seems to compensate for (Karma). Yes I was paired with a collision in waiting, but in the course of that collision I met some other people who internalized aspects of my demeanor. Or I may met some people who contributed to my beliefs, who I would not have met had I not been a co-factor of a fated collision. There are many possibilities of outcome, but the primary factor is I end up benefiting from paired associations. This is because I have faith and intentionally look for the good in all things.

Now there are time when I might say to another, “if we go that way we will fall off a cliff.” It is not my responsibility nor right to prevent that person from continuing to go down an ill fated path. Conventionally this can be seen in substance abuse. I can inform a person of the possible consequences of substance abuse, but there is no feasible way for me to prevent them from doing what is their natural right and individual willed.

I do correlate my ethical beliefs with the macro societal value, and thus there will be moment when I (as well as every other citizen) is obligated to intervene. Example a child is in harms way, a disable person is unaware of a speeding car, someone burns down city hall, etc. My involvement in these non-negotiated societal obligations does not diminish my individual ethic, nor give me concrete judgment of another, it simply places me as an obligated individual removed from the course of action of another.

Another important aspect of this ethically approach is although I affect through reflection, I do not place demands upon that which has an individual right to exist. All I can do is remain true to myself and be a sort of role model of that which I am of.

References:
Delston, Jill, May, Larry, Wong Kai. (2011). Applied Ethics:A Multicultural Approach 5th Edition.Prentice Hall

Posted with WordPress for BlackBerry.

Advertisements

One thought on “De Mon Faire – Question of Ethics

  1. Paul Goree

    I feel so blessed to have DE MON FAIRE in my life. When I think of Joyce Myers “mini-god” I think of Genesis 2:7 –the breath of life (God-the spirit), living human (Soul) and nature (earth). Thus the spirit is always within me as my soul grows!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s