The Joseph Perspective.
A regular philosophy column based on the Joseph Communications by Joseph's trance medium Michael G. Reccia.
Would you describe yourself as a 'thumbs up' or a 'thumbs down' kind of person? By that I mean, when you are encouraged to 'rate' some product you've bought online, or invited to like or dislike a youtube clip on the internet, or someone's photograph, do you respond positively or negatively as a rule?
I ask because in today's high-tech world it's seemingly no longer enough to simply buy something or look at an image and remain neutral about it - the whole world now feels compelled to make a critical comment. Anything and everything has to be judged, with people attributing either a positive or a negative spin to everything from a bag of sweets to a clip from an old TV series to someone's viewpoint on Facebook or Twitter. And isn't it surprising how many 'raters', not content with simply rating, quickly devolve into ranters? Isn't it disturbing to discover how many human beings, people who might appear quiet and civilised as they pass you by on the street, are so opinionated and capable of pouring out such vitriol, such anger, such foul language and such undisguised hatred towards others once they get hold of a computer keyboard?
Let's take that hypothetical and aforementioned bag of sweets as the focus of one of these internet rants...
...It's a bag of sweets. Someone has made the contents following a particular recipe in good faith and they hope you will like them. If you don't you can always give them to someone else. Or you can throw them away. It's hardly the end of the world. ...Unless you're a 'rater', of course, in which case those sweets and the company that produced them instantly become your mortal enemies. Your criticisms of said items are then likely to include recommendations that the company needs bankrupting, that the people who made them should be turned out of their homes and made to roam the streets dressed in sackcloth and that every single pack of those sweets should be trampled under foot until all traces of them have been eradicated from the planet.
A good friend of mine often quotes his late mother as saying 'if you can't say something good about someone, don't say anything at all.' Such wisdom in so few words! Because rants have power. Their words carry vibration and thought and volition within them. Angry tirades on the internet are intended to hurt and to wound - so hurt and wound they do. From a spiritual point of view, they also cluster with similar vibrations, attracting more of the same towards themselves - so the angry ranter becomes angrier, that boosted anger stabs out towards its target and disrupts and hurts its intended 'victim', and we have yet another contribution towards humankind attacking itself and revelling in disharmony rather than choosing the enlightened alternative.
Here's what Joseph has to say on the subject of anger and of 'like attracting like':
' The moment that you become angry about something, your thoughts attract, seek out and bring towards you similar thoughts of anger from those who are subconsciously angry in a similar way at that particular point ...and also from the Field, whose intention it is to maintain itself at a negative setting and to hold you in thrall to its intentions. And so, every angry thought attracts further angry thoughts.'
He also observes:
...if a person is angry at their wife, or their husband, or their own children... crackling around the energy that they have produced are other like-energies that reinforce that anger and 'tempt' that person into becoming more angry.
How often have you come down from a position of anger and thought: 'How could I be like that? What has made me so angry? Why did I want to sustain the anger? Why did I want to go beyond my own anger and become more and more violent, more and more outraged, more and more indignant? Why did I say things that I didn't want to say? And why, from this position of relative calm now, does my episode of anger seem like another person talking and not myself?'
It is because in moments of anger you activate, you bring towards yourselves, those thought-forms that vibrate at the same frequency and add to your anger. It is in the interests of those thought-forms (because you have given them a degree of 'awareness'- though not an awareness in the sense of the soul's awareness - 'need' is a better word... you have given them a need) to stimulate your lower emotional responses so that you feed them with energy.
Be still is something else you have been told by the elevated spirits who have come to visit you over the millennia, over the years. Be still because, in being still, you allow the higher vibrations of your soul, of your heart, to activate and you push away the thought- forms that are around you. You do not activate them, you do not feed them with your own energy.
Carefully considering the above, and in the interests of working towards a more harmonious, more spiritually and more God-minded society and world, remember you are never, ever compelled to rate anything. You can choose to opt out - to simply refuse to take part. You can decide that today and tomorrow and every tomorrow after that you have absolutely no intention of hurting anyone...
...As Joseph says:
If you cannot become loving instantly then become neutral, and in being neutral (when you put your cars into neutral gear they cannot go anywhere), if you put your desires into neutral, then the mind is stalled, the mind is in neutral: it is not putting out any contributions negatively to what is happening in your world.
...So, and bearing in mind the devastating potential of our anger, wouldn't it be better for us to decide to be kind in all our cyber-dealings, and to remain neutral when given the opportunity to criticise? A bag of sweets that doesn't completely satisfy is hardly a reason to vent our anger and make this planet a more violent place...
...When all's said and done, unless we decide to put a spin on it, it's simply a bag of sweets.