I think for normal people, "service to all" is a good alternative wording, and its corresponding explanation is a very valuable analysis or supplement to the past wording.
I think if we analyze it further, we may involve three levels of statements like "service to all", "service to part" and "service to self", although "service to all" and "service to self" can also be understood as two directions. Because there seems to be a lack of transition between "service to all" and "service to self", which leads to a lack of transition between good and evil based on this definition. It sounds like if a person does not "service to all" roundly well, then he is "service to self", which means he is evil and has big problems. Or, a person only serves one or a few people very selflessly, and may use some ways that are harmful to society, but literally speaking, this person is almost not "service to self" at all, but "service to others". Of course there are also conventional transitional situations, such as some people may focus on serving their own families and treat family members selflessly; while some people may be more kind, and focus on serving the entire village or community; and some people may have a larger scope, including the entire country, for an isolated civilization, that may technically be equivalent to "service to 15%"; and a person may have different levels of service and identification for different scopes. If a person is "service to 99%", it often means that this person is driven by universal love, but also has some inappropriate prejudice against individual small groups.
I feel "unity" and "separation" can be understood as two directions, but I may be more inclined to understand them as how much percentage of a person's power to influence the environment is used to promote cooperation or harmony among entities or groups in the environment, and how much percentage is used to promote differentiation or disharmony among entities or groups in the environment. In this way, the "service to" system and the "unity/separation" system can be combined to describe a person's polarity, it's a bit like, the former describes how much area the person's sympathy covers, and the latter describes how many thorns, suckers, or fuzz extend outward from the boundary of this area. In this way, a person who cares a lot about the entire country but is more racist or militaristic, may have a similar overall score of good and evil as a person who only cares about his own circle of acquaintances, but is more moderate in diplomatic attitude.
On the other hand, the "service to" system may feel more comfortable after adding transitions, and it may also strengthen the comparison mentality. From a simple point of view, it seems that "service to all" is better than "service to part", "service to part" is better than "service to self", or good is necessarily better than evil, just like getting $80 is better than getting $20, but I want to say that this is not an unconditional and inevitable judgment. In a more complex analysis, a behavior or a role that harms others may service to all appropriately, because most people may want to occasionally experience thrilling or painful challenges or accidents, or at least potential threats, and want to occasionally experience playing tricks on others or bullying others from a superior position, or at least some potential threat advantages, etc. So from this perspective, although it's technically feasible to simply evaluate the goodness or badness of a behavior, a mentality, or even a person, it seems to have little meaning. Just like simply evaluating whether a handful of chili powder is delicious or not, the result is of course not delicious, so what? Should all chili powder be replaced with sugar? Because sugar tastes better? In fact, by adding them appropriately, they all make a banquet or food tour more successful, which is similar to better serving the soul or the source. So from this perspective, it can be expressed that higher perspectives should not simply invalidate lower perspectives, good should not simply invalidate evil, and criticism of evil deeds or evil people should not be absolute. So it may be inappropriate to stand in the good camp and haughtily and insultingly punish the evil people, but according to this theory, it may also be appropriate, because it's also an attractive or valuable experience under certain conditions.
Thank you, Tunia!
I think for normal people, "service to all" is a good alternative wording, and its corresponding explanation is a very valuable analysis or supplement to the past wording.
I think if we analyze it further, we may involve three levels of statements like "service to all", "service to part" and "service to self", although "service to all" and "service to self" can also be understood as two directions. Because there seems to be a lack of transition between "service to all" and "service to self", which leads to a lack of transition between good and evil based on this definition. It sounds like if a person does not "service to all" roundly well, then he is "service to self", which means he is evil and has big problems. Or, a person only serves one or a few people very selflessly, and may use some ways that are harmful to society, but literally speaking, this person is almost not "service to self" at all, but "service to others". Of course there are also conventional transitional situations, such as some people may focus on serving their own families and treat family members selflessly; while some people may be more kind, and focus on serving the entire village or community; and some people may have a larger scope, including the entire country, for an isolated civilization, that may technically be equivalent to "service to 15%"; and a person may have different levels of service and identification for different scopes. If a person is "service to 99%", it often means that this person is driven by universal love, but also has some inappropriate prejudice against individual small groups.
I feel "unity" and "separation" can be understood as two directions, but I may be more inclined to understand them as how much percentage of a person's power to influence the environment is used to promote cooperation or harmony among entities or groups in the environment, and how much percentage is used to promote differentiation or disharmony among entities or groups in the environment. In this way, the "service to" system and the "unity/separation" system can be combined to describe a person's polarity, it's a bit like, the former describes how much area the person's sympathy covers, and the latter describes how many thorns, suckers, or fuzz extend outward from the boundary of this area. In this way, a person who cares a lot about the entire country but is more racist or militaristic, may have a similar overall score of good and evil as a person who only cares about his own circle of acquaintances, but is more moderate in diplomatic attitude.
On the other hand, the "service to" system may feel more comfortable after adding transitions, and it may also strengthen the comparison mentality. From a simple point of view, it seems that "service to all" is better than "service to part", "service to part" is better than "service to self", or good is necessarily better than evil, just like getting $80 is better than getting $20, but I want to say that this is not an unconditional and inevitable judgment. In a more complex analysis, a behavior or a role that harms others may service to all appropriately, because most people may want to occasionally experience thrilling or painful challenges or accidents, or at least potential threats, and want to occasionally experience playing tricks on others or bullying others from a superior position, or at least some potential threat advantages, etc. So from this perspective, although it's technically feasible to simply evaluate the goodness or badness of a behavior, a mentality, or even a person, it seems to have little meaning. Just like simply evaluating whether a handful of chili powder is delicious or not, the result is of course not delicious, so what? Should all chili powder be replaced with sugar? Because sugar tastes better? In fact, by adding them appropriately, they all make a banquet or food tour more successful, which is similar to better serving the soul or the source. So from this perspective, it can be expressed that higher perspectives should not simply invalidate lower perspectives, good should not simply invalidate evil, and criticism of evil deeds or evil people should not be absolute. So it may be inappropriate to stand in the good camp and haughtily and insultingly punish the evil people, but according to this theory, it may also be appropriate, because it's also an attractive or valuable experience under certain conditions.