When you have gone so far that you can’t manage one more step, then you’ve gone just half the distance that you are capable of. – [Greenland Proverb]
As I inferred (first read Lucifer’s Law), the above view is pure unadulterated evil, thriving on the most vulnerable of humanity. I say this for the mere fact that it was contemplated and shamelessly proliferated in the first place.
The humane compassionate view would be to fully accept that each and every one of these individuals affected by such horrific circumstances, had not done a single thing to have deserved their fate, other than that they truly were the unfortunate victims of circumstance. Furthermore, when it comes to the normal causality of such events, we must appreciate that it may very well have been you or I (or our children) that were so afflicted.
It is to realise that one’s chances of being a victim is not enhanced by one’s race, social standing, religion, whether one preys often, or state of happiness. But rather if the prevailing physical circumstances were exactly equal, we all will have equal odds that such a horrific circumstance may befall us.
But far more important to our sanity: is that it is downright psychologically dangerous to accept such inane rhetoric as a plausible worldview to base one’s concept of reality on.
This danger is highlighted by the following extract from M. Scott Peck’s The Road Less Travelled and beyond.
We all go around suffering from Theomania, the illusion that we can be the scriptwriter in the drama of our lives, and we become furious, depressed, or terrified when things don’t go as we would have written the script. In fact, many of us are never able to adjust to the reality that life is larger than something that is just a show. In this failure to adjust, we fail to learn. But for real learning and growing, we have to come to terms with the fact that, as someone once put it, "life is what happens when you've planned something else".
Unfortunately because of their Theomania, those who incorporate versions of reality as that proposed by The Secret more often than not develop unrealistic expectations of God or “The Universe” that clearly are not reflective of reality as it actually is.
To put the work “The Universe” would ‘expect’ from us before it may be prepared to give us a meaningful spontaneous return, consider the following.
Only once you have given all that you possibly can give, perhaps then, maybe, you can begin to experience some luck. But most fall way short of the mark, not being prepared to do what is required to get there.
This quote by Chris Moon I stumbled upon while watching the Discovery Channel documentary I Shouldn’t Be Alive.
If your opinion is still that there is such a “Law of Attraction”, bear in mind that while doing United Nations relief work, Moon became the only known Khmer Rouge hostage survivor.
Years after this harrowing experience, while removing landmines in Mozambique he was very close to death when a landmine explosion ripped off his leg hundreds of miles from the essential medical care needed to survive. Despite the incredible odds that were stacked against him, he dug deep to find the inner fortitude to once again survive.
Since his ordeals he continued with his benevolent work, one of these being that he runs ultra-distances to raise money and awareness for social causes.
Moon’s example clearly suggests that a whole lot of unconditional giving (and indeed suffering while doing so) may first have to take place. And yet despite it, that one may not necessarily receive any significant material reward from the universe or anyone or anything else in return at all.
That is except in doing the act itself which ought to be the only sought after return.
This particular instance should completely dispel the notion that there is such a definite law. In any event we should not live our life expecting an attraction or reward from the universe at all. Though the irony is, because of the certainty implied by the name, that it is a law promising an attraction or reward of some sort or other for the supposed good we do, the very law itself (if there indeed is such a law) most likely will be the very obstacle preventing its outworking to begin with. The mental dynamics being similar to that discussed in Motivational Psychology.
And while it may be so that events somehow seem to manifest partly because of our intentions, that it is so should be of relatively little consequence. What is truly important is not that we are to receive because of our actions. Rather, that we in the first place were prepared to give the abundant gift of who we are.
© Newton Fortuin - 2007
Extract from
The Scourge of our Time: The Demise of Critical Thinking in the Age of “The Secret”
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
podunkmarte
TheBadScot
Frank Apisa
ordinaryjoe
Jan Sand
Drewonimo
Salon.com
Comments
"we should not live our life expecting an attraction or reward from the universe at all." "Rather, that we in the first place (we)re prepared to give the abundant gift of who we are." sounds fine
As you said "do not worry about what the results might be, just do the work that needs to be done". That's the best way to maintain one's sanity I think.
peece...
dj
Kahlil Gibran also had an interesting take on it with this "For what is evil but good tortured by its own hunger and thirst?” This is the caption of The Devil, the first off The Seven Shades of Darkness.
This one in particular reminds me of the stage in my life when, seeking a modicum of reality as it relates to life, I began to question the beliefs I was raised with.
Those efforts lead me to my life's philosophy that you so eloquently gave words in your last post.
“Seeking happiness is like seeking the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, while the rainbow was the pot of gold all along.”
It’s startling, when it’s realized, just how damaging “theomania” really is.
This all reminds me of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson speaking about the terrorist attacks in the U.S. - “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."
Absurdity at its best. We certainly couldn't point the finger at decades upon decades of horrific foreign policy, now could we.
Yeah, it's funny how much of the hate mongering in your country emanates from the religious right - the electing of Bush for two terms being one case in point. And of course Palin the next time round as Obama becomes increasingly demonised for not fixing the previous regimes mess fast enough to their liking. Hypocrisy and self righteousness I think are the true evils against humanity.
But we sit here like the 800 pound gorilla bullying the world’s neighborhood and ignoring the signs that we’re screwing the world up in a big way. But it ain’t our fault. No siree.
Someday, just as on the grammar school playground, one of those kids is going to get fed up with the obnoxious bully and punch him in the nose.
Oh, that’s right. They did already – 9/11 style.
Bob, I've just finished listening to Martin Rees, world famous astronomer, about his book The Final Century, and he was talking about a global world consciousness/interconnectivity taking place at this time, but then he facetiously remarked, "that's of course with the exception of the bible belt in America". I suppose that sadly puts your nations dilemma in a nutshell, it's that the good open minded folks I've met on the forum probably represents a good majority of the folks of your country, but it's the damn right wingers that seems to bring it all down every second or so term when their guy holds sway. Just check this site out to see a case in point -- Stupid Black People.
I'll never shed that detestable feeling. Never! It's like an odor that just won't go away; you carry it everywhere you go. You hope people can't smell it on you when you're in public. You hope it doesn't rub off on your family. You hope something dies so you can rub yourself on it to mask the smell of it.
Man! I can't even gather together the phrases that sufficiently vilify the nature of that beast. The "devil" himself would probably avoid it.
I was raised in the Mormon Church. I did my two-year missionary thing, the first two weeks of which were training sessions on how they wanted the missionaries to proselytize when they go out into “the field.”
The year was 1971, several years before the church "received a revelation from God that it was now OK to allow blacks to hold positions within the church’s priesthood." Oh, they could become members and pay their tithing alright, after all, black money is as good as white money, but they “weren’t ready to become validated members by participating in the priesthood.”
Anyway, during the two week training, one of the instructors wanted to address a sensitive issue. “If, when you’re going door-to-door and you encounter a black person, you are not to use the official approach to garner interest in the church. Instead, you are to say to the person that you are conducting a questionnaire and make up some questions.”
No, I am not making this up.
I was already questioning the validity of religion as it was, but this was what nailed it for me and sent me on the trek leading me where I am today.
Religion is a farce made up of charlatans and thieves, robbing people of their hard-earned money, “paying their way into heaven” while lining the pockets of dishonest jackasses. And the unfortunate thing is, those Bible-thumping morons give them their money freely.
I suppose, in the scheme of it all, I have the Mormon Church to thank for my enlightenment, in a strange sort of way (I also have them to thank for sending me to California where I met my wife and became engaged while I was a “celibate missionary.” :-)
As far as I'm concerned, religions are the scurge of the Earth and the root of almost all moral evil.
I have a controversial suggestion to make...controversial at least in THIS century. My friend and i were discussing the variouus calamities that had befallen us, two of the best, brightest, most all-around WUNDERBAR (wonderful) characters around...
I came up with a wild idea: what if...what if..the religious people of yore were on the right track, and we WERE somehow judged after death? Not by being sent to heaven or hell...but maybe...!...a hell of self-love, of our own karmic making//or , more likely,a purgatory of some form....where more growth is needed...
I have heard of "saints" having glorious deaths where they report what they see as glorious...who die beautiful deaths....my parents, who suffered all their lives, both had peaceful deaths...
Is it just wishful thinking, or..maybe some people get their suffereing done here on earth, or on this plane of reality...and some cruise, only to have to pay up after mortal cessation...
whaddaya think?
jim
Perhaps in that moment of death, their realization of what kind of person they were is what gave the saints and your parents their peace of mind. I know I would die happy if the people I care about and the people I came in contact with remembered me as a "good" person.
But the problem then becomes; who defines "good?"
My father and I rarely got along. He was an absolute bigot and an abusive jackass. In those rare moments when I can actually use my brain, I wonder how he will feel when he dies (or if he already did so, I haven't spoken to him in over 20 years). I then think what my daughter and wife and all those I’ve come in contact with will think of me when I'm gone and at that final moment; will I be at peace or in hell?
Can you imagine the hell your mind would go through if you suddenly realized, at that very moment, with no chance whatsoever to change the past or even make amends that you were a worthless human being who had nothing to show for your existence other than misery? And conversely, how wonderful you would feel at that same moment if you knew you would be remembered as a good human being?
What if Ted Bundy (and George Bush :-) did/will in that very moment realize that they were responsible for needless slaughter and grief. That would surely be hell to pay.
I think about these things constantly, probably because some of the old "life after death" stuffed into my brain as a child simply won't go away, won't let me rest.
But then, like you, I wonder, is there indeed a "piper to pay" in the form of karma on a new plane?
And, has humanity grotesquely twisted that simplicity into what we see as the various theological concepts and convoluted messes we now have?
I actually find some comfort in Socrates' final words to the Athenians during the “Apology.” (paraphrasing) He warned his accusers that they would suffer far greater than he, for they murdered him and those who follow him (Socrates) will scorn them for their deed and their deaths will be far more uncomfortable than his, whereas he will be remembered, at the very least as someone of value.
He even mentions in the “Apology” that death is one of two things, either you simply cease to exist and at the very worst, it’s a completely relaxed, endless sleep. And who wouldn’t like that?
Or, there is some mutation of the soul from this place to another.
I firmly hope that the latter is the case, but what is knowable is and what isn’t, isn’t. I don't think we'll ever know, at least while we're "here." And that’s where religions have created a mess from which they can no longer escape by trying to provide an answer for virtually everything through their illogical, ill conceived concepts of “Gods,” Evils, Satans, etc. that conflict with one another on so many levels it seems absurd that anyone could believe it.
Does there need to be an answer for everything? I feel so much better thinking not (probably because I’m lazy and don’t want to find an answer for everything :-)
The human mind/spirit is an insatiable sponge looking for understanding, but the problem is, when we can’t find a concrete answer, if there is indeed one, we, as we have since the first footprints appeared in the dirt/snow, simply assign our own understanding to it to satisfy our own comfort requirements.
The human mind/spirit is an insatiable sponge looking for understanding, but the problem is, when we can’t find a concrete answer, if there is indeed one, we, as we have since the first footprints appeared in the dirt/snow, simply assign our own understanding to it to satisfy our own comfort requirements.
And what a life story, it must've taken a lot of courage to have escaped that, and particularly having reached the stage of your life where you are at now. Gives me hope that things can indeed change but unfortunately it seems many if not most still prefer to be blind dumb followers.
I think it is also interesting to consider this through the eyes of the ancient philosophers, and their search for the good life. For Plato, virtue was a kind of mental healthiness; a life orientated towards what is intrinsically good and worthwhile. For Aristotle, all the goods of which a life can consist - material, social and intellectual - only made sense if they, in turn, led us to that which is 'the best in us', namely that which is divine: best action is 'whatever choice or possession of natural goods - bodily goods, wealth, friends and the like - will most conduce to the contemplation of God'.
The thing is we're in the realm of speculation here, but there is enough evidence to suggest that consciousness does survive of death, and even that it may be self conscious. I will post at another time.
My speculation on this however is as follows. Should their be a survival of consciousness then it is obvious that that that essence of our being would not be engaging in world of sensory stimulation. Hence if our preoccupation had been for material gratification, whether one is a dictator consumed with personal power, or egoistic aggrandizement, or just merely pursuing trivial stimulation of whatever kind, the basis of your being would be completely taken away from you, and you will find yourselves adrift in a sea of emptiness.
Thus the issue of finding meaning, of selflessness, of interconnectedness, of community, of spiritual/mental growth, becomes all important. We then are engaging in a world beyond our narrow insular self based on the fragile foundation of our physicality and our ego.
Clues that there is a deeper world of meaning can be derived from a definition of synchronicity given in the previous post:
Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events which are causally unrelated occurring together in a meaningful manner. In order to count as synchronicity, the events should be unlikely to occur together by chance.
The concept does not question, or compete with, the notion of causality. Instead, it maintains that just as events may be grouped by cause, they may also be grouped by their meaning. Since meaning is a complex mental construction, subject to conscious and subconscious influence, not every correlation in the grouping of events by meaning needs to have an explanation in terms of cause and effect.
That events are ordered beyond space and time, but more importantly within some complex meaningful plane, is prima facie evidence that meaning is an aspect of creation that is all important in the greater scheme of things. Our previous discussion on conscience also telling, that our cells explicitly respond to truth. This suggest to me that our souls can be views as a sort of jar that we are to fill in our lifetimes, and that we can fill it with toxicity, or we can fill it with meaning and truth. So while the rewards may not be apparent on the surface, at least based on the tidbits we can discern, our life has meaning beyond our perceptive transitoryness on the surface of reality.
XTC Dear God lyrics
Dear God,
Hope you got the letter,
And I pray you can make it better down here.
I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer,
But all the people that you made in your image,
See them starving on their feet,
'Cause they don't get enough to eat
From God,
I can't believe in you.
Dear God,
sorry to disturb you,
but I feel that I should be heard loud and clear.
We all need a big reduction in amount of tears,
And all the people that you made in your image,
See them fighting in the street,
'Cause they can't make opinions meet,
About God,
I can't believe in you.
Did you make disease, and the diamond blue?
Did you make mankind after we made you?
And the devil too!
Dear God,
Don't know if you noticed,
But your name is on a lot of quotes in this book.
Us crazy humans wrote it, you should take a look,
And all the people that you made in your image,
Still believing that junk is true.
Well I know it ain't and so do you,
Dear God,
I can't believe in,
I don't believe in,
I won't believe in heaven and hell.
No saints, no sinners,
No Devil as well.
No pearly gates, no thorny crown.
You're always letting us humans down.
The wars you bring, the babes you drown.
Those lost at sea and never found,
And it's the same the whole world 'round.
The hurt I see helps to compound,
that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost,
Is just somebody's unholy hoax,
And if you're up there you'll perceive,
That my heart's here upon my sleeve.
If there's one thing I don't believe in...
It's you,
Dear God.
Along those lines:
"The christian faith fromthe beginning, is sacrifice: the sacrifice
of all freedom, all pride,
all self-confidence of spirit;
it is at the same time subjection, a self-derision,
and self-mulitlation".
These are harsh harsh words... and we immediately
backtrack on them (at least i do)
when we think of our good, true blue, honest
religious friends....or...our non-religious friends still infected
by the christian bug, which to me seems to be the
antibody to christ himself...christ came, and the Body Collective
produced this antichrist bug to combat it...
we think of our good friends, "decent" people, in whom nothing new ever arises,
because it cannot. It is precluded
from doing so. There is simply no ascendency.
A horizontal hell....
as Newton says: a sense-bound existence , once in awhile risen above....a society's value system built upon the morality of sense-gratification...utilitarianism,
or nihilism...take yr choice...
Again the issues are not that simple. I wrote a chapter about these and will include it in a follow-up comment as soon as I find it.
What man actually needs is not a tensionless state but rather the striving and struggling for some goal worthy of him. What he needs is not the discharge of tension at any cost, but the call of a potential meaning waiting to be fulfilled by him. — [Viktor Frankl]
it is interesting that, despite the common New Age interpretation of Buddhism, Buddhism paradoxically also embraces the reality of suffering in a similar way that Christianity and Judaism does. In fact Peck’s opening to The Road Less Travelled, “Life is difficult”, was derived from the Four Noble Truth’s Buddha taught, that “Life was suffering”. Linking this to the sections on Motivational Psychology, The Duplicitous Mind, The Cure and Happiness Delirium, accepting this omnipresent reality, being at the heart of its psychological curtailment. The important distinction being, in the West it is interpreted as being about the pursuit of the end of suffering and the attainment of nirvana; while the original view was foremostly about the acceptance of the omnipresence of suffering.
It is further noteworthy that the notion of the cessation of suffering, is not only a New Age interpretation, but one embraced by many Buddhists in the East as well. Again, the problem being the belief in reincarnation which is not an original Buddhist view but one which filtered in from Hinduism.
The problem being implicit in the assumption that one’s relative state of suffering – such as having a birth defect or finding oneself in poverty – is indicative of a lower incarnation, while one’s relative state of bliss being indicative of a higher one.
Because of this view, depending on the ideology one ascribes to, it is perceived that one’s relative level of comfort is evidence of one being more blessed by God and hence being more in God’s favour, or that one is a more advanced incarnation than those with less means.
However, supposing that we do pass through different incarnations, what is missed in this simplistic interpretation is that: a higher incarnation should not be reflected by the absence of a state of suffering; but rather that it should be reflected by any individual’s innate or developed capacity for suffering.
Logically speaking then, a lower state of humanity should therefore not of necessity be reflected by the presence of suffering, but rather by the inability to suffer the circumstances which are prevailant in one’s life. In this respect, Christ’s willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice for human evolution being indicative of a supreme – almost supernatural – incarnation. Other examples would include Socrates, Joan of Ark, Ghandi, Mother Theresa as well as Siddhartha.
In Man’s Search for Meaning Frankl makes a distinction between what he calls Existential and Neurotic Suffering. Existential suffering being the suffering brought about by our objective circumstances and which is not the mere creation of our minds—in other words it is real suffering brought about by real events and circumstances. Neurotic suffering is considered unnecessary or ‘wasteful’ suffering as the woeful mind is not truly reflected by outside reality. In this regard it definitely is a neurotic preoccupation to purposefully seek out situations in which one would suffer merely because one may perceive any form of suffering as being reflective of being on a higher rung of humanity or that one will be viewed more favourably in the eyes of god.
On the other hand, in the very notion that life is meant to be pain free, comfortable, euphoric, devoid of any strain, we can find the root cause of most of the ills of our time. This notion in particular, is what the advertising industry thrives on.
This argument therefore most certainly is not about the glorification of suffering as seeking suffering for suffering’s sake is definitely a morbid mental pathology—in fact it is neurotic. Rather as iterated many times before, it is about facing one’s circumstances head on, even if it at times means one has to suffer dreadful for it. And moreover, if such suffering is absolutely unavoidable, that one accepts its consequences with as much courage and dignity one can muster in order to constructively contend with it.
Here the issue is not that of maintaining a state of morbidity, but to the contrary, that despite one’s unfortunate predisposition – such as having a fatal disease, or being in a financial crisis – one yet finds the inner fortitude to be a source of upliftment to those around one.
Linking this understanding to the greater discussion on The Secret, the question one should answer is: how it is it at all possible to achieve one’s goals if one is not prepared to suffer the existential consequences of pursuing them?
The associated words to this form of willing suffering being: to endure, to persevere, to struggle and to sacrifice.
In truth, supposing there is a universal law that responds to our state of mind, based on observable successes, these would be the mental conditions the universe overwhelmingly seems inclined to respond to. Thus there may very well be a Law of Suffering which is juxtaposed to the tensionless state proposed by the Law of Attraction—that is at least if one is to follow the rhetoric of The Secret. In fact one can almost say that a direct mathematical correlation exists between the size of one’s goals and the extent to which one is prepared to suffer for them.
And should you have any doubts about this, how do you suppose China became the world’s greatest Olympic nation (the Olympic Games having been a tour de force providing a glimpse of what is yet to come)? Or how Michael Phelps achieved his phenomenal eight Olympic Gold medals? Or for that matter, how any Olympian is able to be an Olympian in the first place?
Lance Armstrong’s victory over what should have been fatal cancer, perhaps best typifying this struggle. Armstrong admitting that he would in all likelihood not have won a single Tour de France title – let alone seven – had he not had what should have been a terminal disease.
To make sense of this understanding one may very well change the adage: “once you have found something to die for, you have found a reason to live”; to “once you have found something worth suffering for, one has found a purpose in life”. Thus our relative preparedness to suffer existentially for that which we believe to be worthy of our sacrifice, or to face the unavoidable with every bit of courage we can muster, is the simple paradoxical mental rectification we are obliged to make if we are to indeed live a life of meaningful bliss.
Pardon my French, but fuck the Judeo Christian monstrosities
Fuck frankl
etc...
This is Emmerling
and Fortuin...
Christ suffered ...doubt.
he was faced with an insane society...
he was a bum...he turned water into wine by a mass hypnotic
suggestion is my guess...he was a magician in superstitious times
he sscrewed with their heads for their own good.
as i do You do we all do. Angies "flame people"...they are an endangered species... every flame person i know is suffering 100 plagues...i see them every day, wrapd
in bureau cratic tape,
around their necks,
strangling them..
ack
GODDAMMIT...
THINGS MUST CHANGE...
I SEE CHILDREN SUFFERING IN T HE MOST ENLIGHTEDNED
SOCIETY ON EARTH
SO CVALLED..
DOUBLE ACK
spent whole day worrying about library books...
earlier: finally got some fucking money. got paid stipend by mental health advocacy class i take 75 dollars...went into bank to cash...just as i signed the money order, the damn power in the bankk went out...came on again...i stepped up to bank clerk..lights went out again...had to shlep all the way across town to cash it. got a hassle there too. they had to call the bank manager over. i said,"ack, money order=good ass cash, yes?" they said, "well, we'll cash it this time, but not again"...WHAT THE HELL? i am living an absurd comic/tragic masterpiece of a life...
anyway, re suffering:
Kafka:
"you can hold back from the suffering of the world, you have free permission to do so...
and it is in accordance with your nature
(especially mine...jme)
But...perhaps...
THIS VERY HOLDING BACK
is the one suffering that
you could have avoided"....
aphorism no.99
and! furthermore! on my favorite subject, SUFFERING....
"everything great in the world comes from NEUROTICS....
they alone have founded our religions...
and composed our masterpieces. NEVER WILL THE WORLD KNOW ALL IT OWES TO THEM NOR ALL THAT THEY HAVE
SUFFERED
TO ENRICH US".......REMEMBRANCE OF THINGS PAST
(UNLESS WE tell em...JME)(ha!)
NOW! enough bitching and moaning (like a woman..ha?!)
Aldous Huxley in "the perennial philosophy"....p 228
(THIS IS MY VIEW...JME)
"" the urge to separateness
OR, CRAVING FOR INDEPENDENT AND INDIVIDUALIZZED EXISTENCE....
MANIFESTS ITSELF ON ALL LEVELS OF LIFE...(EG, THE CELLULAR & PHYSIOLOGICAL....OR THE INSTINCTIVE.... UP TO THE fully conscious....))
1. it can be the craving of A WHOLE ORGANISM for an INTENSIFICATION
of its SEPARATENESS from the environment....
and from the DIVINE GROUND...."
OR.....!....
2. IT CAN BE THE URGE OF A part
WITHIN AN ORGANISM
FOR AN intensification
OF ITS OWN PARTIAL LIFE....
AS DISTINCT FROM ...
and consequently at the expense of..
the life of the organism as a whole..."
1. in the first case we speak of: impulse, passion, desire, self will,
SIN...
2. IN THE SECOND PLACE WE SPEAK OF: WHAT IS HAPPENING=
ILLNESS, INJURY,
FUNCTIONAL OR ORGANIC DISORDER......
The point is:
in both cases the CRAVING FOR SEPARATENESS
results in SUFFERING....
NOT ONLY FOR THE CRAVER, BUT ALSO FOR THE CRAVER'S SENTIENT ENVIRONMENT...
EITHER: ORGANISMS IN THE EXTERNNAL WORLD (PEOPLE WHO "CATCH" YOUR SUFFERING LIKE A VIRULENT CONTAGION...JME)
OR....OTHER ORGANS WITHIN THE SAME ORGANISM....
Inone way, suffering is entirely private; in another way,
fatally contagious....
Suffeirjn and moral evil
have the same source....
a craving for the intensification
of the separateness which is the
primary datum...mode....
of all creatureliness.....
he goes on to give numerous organic & personal & interpersonal examples...
ack!
jim
Here’s that story again:
A wealthy merchant gained an audience with the Buddha hoping to find an answer to the 88 problems he claimed were keeping him from happiness. My wife loves me, but not as much as she should, he said. My children respect me but not as much as I deserve. My granaries are filled to the overflowing, but it will cost too much to build another in these tough economic times. On and on he went until at last he had exhausted himself and the Buddha with all 88 of his litany of woes.
I'm sorry, but I cannot help you, said the Buddha. How can that be, said the man, you are supposed to be the wisest man on Earth. Surely, you can solve my simple problems.
Perhaps, said the Buddha, but even if I could, you would still have the 89th problem. Nay, good sir, you are mistaken, said the man, I have but 88 problems.
No, it is you who are mistaken, said the Buddha, you have 89 problems, and the last is that you want to have no problems. No one is wise enough to solve that problem.
It all starts with taking control of you mind, by learning/developing patience. Meditation usually is the key, but even long distance running, martial arts—but for practical purposes mediation is a must if one has an issue with patience.
Can you sit on the same place for 30 minutes without twitching because of the discomfort or thinking about anything else, only paying attention to your breadth?
I'm sure you would not be able to do that for ten seconds. But that is where you've got to start, every day, and every time you feel bored and in need for stimulation--the need for stimulation being your poison I'm sure. I suggest this is what you do. If you are diligent and are prepared to suffer the momentary discomfort, you would be able to master it within a month. And with it you would become the master of your mind as you increase the gap between stimulus and response, don’t forget Pavlov, the dog has very little control of its impulses, the stimulus and response are almost intertwined. You’d begin to observe your thoughts and emotions like clouds passing overhead without attachment, and choose the one’s you wish to go with, and withhold on the one’s that will lead you to despair.
In being able to choose an appropriate response to a stimulus is the very difference between ourselves and animals as we have the power to choose a different response, and suffering feeling the temporary high, the stimulus, is one of the ways we gain mastery. This is in fact the only way we break though our self containing cocoon, into selfhood, there is no other easier way.
And about “he (Christ) was a bum” I sincerely doubt it. He was a rabbi, and people paid him in kind for his teachings and counsel. What is also apparent is that he certainly enjoyed a good party, and was a jolly well all-round nice guy, until you messed with that which he found sacred, such as desecrating the temple.
The question I ask of you is this: are you prepared to suffer your internet, tv, weed, a regular plate of food, access to the library and a roof over your head for the freedom of being an unencumbered soul. If not you’ve got to suffer the indignity of a 9 to five job and so many other things most people would rather not do as they too would prefer doing exactly as they please. But very few people are prepared to pay the price to be an unencumbered soul, and what value to yourself and society are you then anyway.
See Christ was always prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for his convictions, he was prepared to absolutely suffer for truth. Ask any bum whether they are prepared to do that. What you should not miss in the story/legend/myth of Christ, and still is the bedrock of Christianity today (but also Buddhism Islam and Confucianism) despite the dogma and false ideology, is that he ultimately was a very disciplined, principled, man. And that this is all important in a spiritual/religious sense.
Why I mentioned these is that you are exposing your underlying beliefs (which has nothing to do with any dogma or religion or philosophy) that are at the root of 99% of your problems.
Actualy, I have practiced my own idiosyncratic type of meditation for 20 yrs now or so. I can certainly sit still for 30 minutes. I can pay attention only to my "breadth" (ha) in a very disciplined manner. It is on this accursed medium, the Internet, that I tend to lose my equilibrium. Yesterday, when I was suffering my litany of difficulties i was really not terribly affected. It was only in hindsight, as I considered what I could have been doing...enriching my mind with fascinating dialogue with you, for example, or sitting alone & gaining peace within---as you suggest I am unable to do, but that in truth, I am very capable of---THIS is when I felt suffering: the suffering of one who has very little time left, doing what he loves (&at this pt needs) to do. I despise running around like the proverbial chicken with his head cut off, but...I negotiate myself into doing exactly that.
"Christ was a bum" was fascetious. I only meant that if we looked at his life objectively, from our capitalist value system, we would judge the details of his life as being similar to that of a vagrant, today. I was trying to make an ironic point. I today shall endeavour to be more patient , more thoughtful...to live in every minute particular of my life, if only to prove to YOU that I can do it. And myself , as well. I know my comments read like those of a lunatic at times, but it is a stylistic choice most of the time. Not only to make it more breathlessly readable (and con the reader into thinking I am unhinged...& thus a bit more interesting than the 1000 other masters of abstraction on OS) but...because I find the typos, for which i suppose i am infamous, to be not only self-revealing, but of universal import.
I am not sure I agree with you about the "need" for suffering. In your example,Buddha said, in effect, "it is the fact that you see your problems AS problems , that IS the problem", no? Thetime-bound, linear-thinking, personal ego is first "expanded" by its identifying with a group....then with all human beings...then with all sentient beings...then...identification itself falls away. In this present society, icertainly see your point: the world is so constructed economically that it depends , to keep spinning, for everyone to be a narcissistic consumer, buying products...things upon things upon more things...to buttress the false sense of self. We buy things in order to feel more substantial, because at core we are empty, and fear extinction. To stave off the fear of death, we seek a form of immortality through "owning". What we own=us. We reason that if we got alot of stuff--- good, permanent STUFF---we cannot possibly die. The stuff is permanent, we feel...this ameliorates the sense of distressful impermanence we at root know to be our "essence"...and rightly so.
My point is: the necessity for suffering is not a universal verity, I believe. If the society were not geared to taking advantage of our death-fears through rampant consumerism, and was more spiritually- supportive, more reflective of eternal truths, then ...suffering would not be the requirement for ultimate bliss.
James
It is also a superficial way in which we measure others personal capacity in the world. You for instance have been superficially judged, and I’m certain very few people appreciate the complexity and depth of your being. So you suffer the rejection as your mode of existence is far less than your human capacity is capable of. Is this unfair? No I don’t think so. We cannot make a deeper assessment of everyone as this is not possible, it’s only possible for those we engage with closely, those in our inner circle. It is the person who wishes to be taken seriously’s responsibility to suffer what is required for entry. If this is not a price one is prepared to pay, one must be prepared to suffer the indignity of isolation, poverty, and even ridicule. This most certainly unfair.
Nevertheless, irrespective of how you conveyed your thoughts I value our interactions as they are substantive thoughts of considerable depth. And it certainly is not mere platitude, which too is an aspect of our superficial interactions. As you put it, “the narcissistic consumer” who is not prepared to experience meaningful depth, but rather to do things merely to show that they’ve read or rated, or that they are part of a particular author’s readership, but often had not absorbed the essence of what is being communicated—the mass consumer of OS material without ingesting a single grain of truth. To do that takes a significant measure of suffering, to put a bit of yourself – your prejudices, opinions and programming – aside and enter another’s world, and even to feel it as best we can, instead of merely being a voyeur on the surface. To go deeper requires effort, to suffer momentary gratification for a higher ideal. But to do so for someone in our real world is so much more special. So this is another sense in which suffering, a delaying of gratification, is needed.
However as I indicated before, suffering also is a sort of paradox. When we suffer for the sake of suffering it is neurotic, perhaps even delusional, and often we do so for self righteous and ultimately self serving reasons. And very often we act out of fear, heavenly redemption or fear of god. However when we avoid legitimate or existential suffering, we are being in denial.
From your comments I can agree with this:
The necessity for suffering is not a universal verity, I believe. If the society were not geared to taking advantage of our death-fears through rampant consumerism, and was more spiritually- supportive, more reflective of eternal truths, then...
I must add that the omnipresence of suffering is a universal verity. And I think this is where you miss the mark in your argument:
Suffering would not be the requirement for ultimate bliss…
See, suffering is not a requirement for eternal bliss, but in your comment is the very pathology which is the universal theological pathology, it is the striving for eternal bliss. Bliss should be the consequence, the result, the fruits of our labor, because suffering ceases to be suffering when bliss is not the object of our endeavors.
See the suffering of the world – that is not existential suffering such as when you loose your sight or a loved one – ends when what is perceived to be suffering is fully accepted or one has the willing to suffer, or the courage to fight, a good fight.
To reiterate what I said in Paradoxic Bliss:
In the very notion that life is meant to be pain free, comfortable, euphoric, devoid of any strain, we can find the root cause of most of the ills of our time. This notion in particular, is what the advertising industry thrives on.
This argument therefore most certainly is not about the glorification of suffering as seeking suffering for suffering’s sake is definitely a morbid mental pathology—in fact it is neurotic.
Here are some thoughts to consider:
The trick with happiness, therefore, is a very simple one: it is never to expect it, but to delight in it whenever it comes.
Or put another way: if your life isn’t about being happy, you likely are already happy.
You shall be free indeed when your days are not without a care nor your nights without a want and a grief. But rather when these things girdle your life and yet you rise above them naked and unbound. – [Kahlil Gibran]
Happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue, and it only does so as the unintended side-effect of one's personal dedication to a cause greater than oneself or as the by-product of one's surrender to a person (or persons) other than oneself.
Happiness must happen: you have to let it happen by not caring about it. [Viktor Frankl
And the one at the top of this post:
No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness, the good he seeks. — [Mary Wollstonecraft]
I have been pondering your latest response all morning. It seems to me sometimes that we two are engaging in some kind of role-playing stagecraft. I looked back over some of my fervid comments, and wondered what had possessed me to be so...exuberant, when in "real life" I am a calm, collected, sane man, in recovery from a devastating mental illness, making large strides in reclaiming my life, but still facing ( surmountable) obstacles.
Newton, the fact is that when I read your comments, I find no significant philosophical, nor, for that matter, theological differences between us. The misunderstandings we seem to generate come from differences in choice of language, tone, etc.I have a few theories regarding this. Lately, I have discovered a ..poetic strain inside me that I always knew was there, but never employed. Eros' poetry, perhaps, and my ...enthusiastic immersion in it, have addled my brain, perhaps. I have discovereed that my thoughts are veering off into non -communicable realms. The limits of language vex me sorely, sometimes. I react precipitously because I feel there is a lack in abstract scholarly language----which you, my friend, have mastered---that I must violently oppose. No doubt it is a case of transference: I see in your seamless prose what I am capble of, yet choose, for some perverse imaginative reason, not to pursue.
Don't worry about my thought -processes overly, friend. they are sound and well. This dialogue regarding suffering, which we are engaging in just as I am undergoing (unnecessary) suffering I have brought squarley, karmically upon myself, has roused my romantic emotions. I agree with you regarding bliss. I made a faux paus in saying suffering need not be a "requirement" for bliss. Poor choice of words, that. bliss is, as you say, an outcome...not a goal to be pursued, notwithstanding what our Madison Avenue friends tell us. Bliss is the ...flowereing, or burgeoning , ofthe powers of the human being. Bliss is not an emotion. It is a self-experience of one's own being, exercising its powers of truth, love, and goodness to the fullest. For Being is good, it is Truth, and it is of course Love.
As to the vexing question of why good, true, loving people must suffer: I believe it is because of the interconnection of all Being, especially human being. We each feel separate and lost in our private being; and this is inculcated from childhood, in our rapacious societal structure, in the mistaken belief that "enlightened self-interest" is the optimal mode of private and public behavior.
It flies in the face of the ultimate nature of things. Consider the society metaphorically as an organic human body. Let us say that the good man is symbolized by a good, loving heart. No matter how perfectly the heart strives to function, if there is a greedy, gluttonous stomach---eating all the wrong things with careless abandon----the heart will suffer the consequences, and will, no matter how true it tries to be, degenerate. This in turn will affect all other organs, and the system as a whole.
A clumsy metaphor, but I like it. Ignorance and wickedness are usually the result of a separate part of a whole seeking ascendancy, or its own private self interest. I think the organic view of things sheds much light onour dilemma...our paradox...
James E
I find that at times I feel constrained when I find myself (self) consciously writing in an organized, scholarly fashion - Something I am quite accomplished at, given I have been published within the APA peer-reviewed journals (the criteria on every level is quite strict, as you both may know) - so I can keep up with the best of 'em, in regard to scholarly and academic writing.
I feel constrained and notice that I would like during such times to just writhe about the stage like Tom Jones in his hey-day, nothing but soul and sweat and even an intentional "outburst"/(forward thrust) or two...Like I see James E. write at times.
James, I am not surprised at all that you are able to write in the manner that you do (above) - all reined in, sensible, and eloquent. I wonder, is one style more satisfying to you than another? I wonder also if you have in the past, or are now, dabbling in writing your own poetry?
Newton: I wonder, do you write in alternate styles as well, outside of the more "scholarly" realm? It is just something I am curious about, for reasons I am not quite clear on yet.
Now, if I may offer my own contributions: I wish to insert something into this comment of James:
"? Thetime-bound, linear-thinking, personal ego is first "expanded" by its identifying with a group....then with all human beings...then with all sentient beings...then...identification itself falls away"
James, I mentioned to you before the western psychological concept / theory known as "Object-Relations" theory. Once ejected from the womb, thrown squarely into the realm of "subject/object," our vision takes in symbols / objects, and we internalize these objects, "mother" being one of the first, and "breast," etc. There is an interesting theory on addiction that discusses the concept of "good breast / bad breast" (because the infants mind cannot but help "splitting" the world into "Pain / Pleasure" (Hungry / Fed) (Scared / Comforted), etc. ) For example, for the alcoholic, the drink initially acts as "the good breast" (with all that implies on the most primitive level) - but slowly, as the "dis/ease" progresses, the good breast turns bad, like Barbara Stanwyk's character in "Double Indemnity" (a "must see" classic film noir, by the way). So we are actually interacting with not just the group (family system, primarily, upon birth) "out there", but we are interacting with internalized objects "in here" (intrapsychically) - And this might all tie into some of Newton's work regarding the 7 Shades and what-have-you, although I cannot be sure about that.
In becoming aware of the internalized objects (which of course are then projected upon externalized objects, initially in "split" form: "good mommy / bad mommy" - "I'm bad / I'm good", etc) one then has the task of learning to recognize the symbols for what they are, and the splits for what they are. Attempting to simply "transcend" all of this egoic intrapsychic tangly web (as many seek to do via New Age techniques, etc) results in what is known in the T/P field as a "spiritual bypass." But how to untangle the "gordian" intrapsychic knot without becoming trapped in it, like some hapless Hitchcockian character?
There are many paths that lead to the river, and many rivers that lead to the ocean, and there are many oceans as well. This is why I spend time, MUCH time, just BEING with my clients (and my own self, for that matter) so as to get a sense of one's TRUE s/Self Nature - Where is it wanting to flow? Where is the life-flow energy becoming blocked (depression)? Where is energy perhaps being dispersed at too fast a rate, uncontrolled (mania)?
Where is the life energy perhaps spilling into multiple tributaries, creating a sense of confusion and inner fracturedness, hopelessness, or a sense of powerlessness? All of this is applicable to even "organic" mental illness sufferers.
Next: A discussion of decision-making processes and "choice points" and the point I made in a previous thread (that did not get picked up by others, but that's okay) that there are perhaps "infinitesimal decision-making points" - And that one's life path may not be able to be so carefully orchestrated that chaos and "suffering" can be avoided. In fact, the chaos, or, the "distress-signals" themselves may be the very condition that leads the body/mind/spirit/emotion back toward a more "balanced," "at-ease," "flowing" state. For example, most of my Asian clients come in initially via their M.D.s due to unexplained physical ailments. These physical ailments are in fact "distress signals" but also "health-seeking signals," alerting the self that something is going dangerously out of balance. When an addict just out of detox visits me, they are shocked when I say that I see their addiction as a "health-seeking process," a process that, if they follow its subtle signals, can restore them / RETURN them to Self.
I could go on and on, but this is my two cents worth. In summary, because I can write in so many voices, I chose on my own blog to stick with poems and the occassional photo, realizing that my schizophrenic / Dissociative Identity Disordered presentation would not likely result in much of a blog following. Not that poetry does either, but it is a place of release and relief for me - all the words that are left out, and the deciding of what to keep in...
I am not re-reading this and am posting as is, without correction or edits - here goes...!
I have spent a great deal of my life inhibiting myself verbally, and now I find myself making up for lost time!
By the way, I think you're fibbing us, Angie, when you say you sent this out w/o rereading or editing. If it is true that indeed you did, then you make Newton and I look like cub reporters for the high school newpaper, in terms of professional writing skill!
peece,
dj
a complex, layered, textured, varied, interesting space contrasting with just plain good wholesome: plain good wholesome is necessary when one is ill. the other, when one is well. you cannot possibly live on jello (I love Julia Roberts movies, I love to see that sunshine smile open and engulf me in a nice feel good sensation, it always makes me think of my mother)
why is this all turning into italics when I do not mean it to be in italics? you did something to the page template?
Newton through your replies to JME, I saw a man that is good, with a lovely mind - I don't like diamond minds, that is glinty and hard and dangerous :) so said 'lovely' - it is meant in the best possible way. expect you would understand. it is a compliment.
Eros, great to read you here
By the way, I think James can hold his breath the longest...
peece!
dj
expect this wd give insight into the process (and choices) involved in not getting trapped undoing the psychic Gordian knot and getting even more fragmented
On that note, I was telling Newton via a PM that at times I work with my clients (and these clients can be from any culture, including Eastern and Western) using the I Ching, re-envisioning the 64 hexagrams as a multi-directional, multi-dimensional "field," or intrapsychic "matrix," one with infinite "points of entry". For the (transpersonal, in my case) therapist, these "points of entry" might initially serve as my "intervention" point with a client who is experiencing "stuckness", but ultimately, my task is to help the client learn over time to self-assess, self-"intervene," and then align/realign with the true Self-nature, both individuall and collectively (you might think of this as "following the Tao" - but there are many other ways to conceptualize this process). Working within such a conceptual, intrapsychic "field" will look different for every client. In the East there is a saying that implies that the teacher changes shape to meet the student. So in the case of my clients, if I have a "cloud" client, I become a cloud. If I have a "mountain" client, I become a mountain - etc, etc. I am a shape-shifter, yet always grounded firmly within my own n/Nature.
How this all ties into decision-making processes: Each moment is eternal, with all the potentiality of a "Big Bang" - with the attendant creative chaos and force of expansion/expression. The I Ching can be helpful in that it is strategic in nature and is designed to assist with decision-making processes. I currently am working on integrating this (novel) way of understanding and working with the I Ching with Western psychological concepts promoted by Erik Erikson's, his 8 developmental stages in particular, stages which we (my colleagues and I) re-envision as being NON-LINEAR in nature and in process, versus linear. Here is the abstract for the article - Note the emphasis on decision-making processes as related to lifespan development, which is particularly evident within the last few paragraphs. For now we are calling this "Change Theory," but that is just a working title. For me, all theories are simply sandboxes to play in - just attempts to describe r/Reality as it is unfolding, beyond even symbols:
This paper introduces a Change Theory of Transpersonal Lifespan Development that reinterprets the original insights and studies put forth by Erik Erikson (1950) in his groundbreaking "Eight Stage Life Cycle Theory," as well as the ancient Eastern sacred wisdom practice of true Self-cultivation suggested by the 64 hexagrams offered within the Confucian Psychology of I Ching. The Change Theory presented reconceives Erikson's eight stages of psychosocial development from a “nondual” perspective by further asserting that an adaptive and discerning transpersonal patterning must be established in relation to Erikson's first stage "Trust vs. Mistrust” if a given individual is to successfully navigate a myriad of other paradoxical lifespan developmental tasks. In this way, Change Theory furthers Erikson's original psychosocial model by postulating that true Self-development occurs not only within an eight stage developmental paradigm, but also via a constant infinitesimal decision-making process that involves a moment-to-moment realignment with our true Self-nature in response to various changes both within and without as we attempt to adjust to internal and external stressors.
This Change Theory further proposes that in addition to there being eight major life-cycle stages, there are also sixty four transpersonal stages, or dimensions, manifesting within our "everyday" lifespan development. Within these sixty-four stages, or dimensions of change, we find ourselves moving toward, away from, or against our own true Self-nature that seeks to develop and emerge as the experience of well-being in conjunction with our true Self-developmental process. More specifically, when we are moving toward our true Self-nature, we are aligning ourselves with an ordering process experienced subjectively as a feeling of well-being. When we are moving against, or away from, our true Self-nature, we are aligning with a disordering process that may progressively lead to various degrees of psychopathology as categorized in the DSM-IV-TR. With this understanding, Change Theory assumes that a nondual continuum of "Order vs. Disorder" itself manifests as a significant lifespan developmental stage, crisis, or task. This continuum manifests as a dynamic, multidirectional, multidimensional reordering process, thereby infusing this “developmental conflict" with all the energetic potentiality inherent in our everyday life choices as we continually seek realignment with our true Self-nature.
With this understanding, our disordering tendencies can now be seen as a nondual (nonsplit), health-seeking process designed to realign our everyday lifespan development with our original true Self-nature. In this manner, clinician and client alike are better able to predict short and long-term “life consequences” as each becomes increasingly aware of transpersonal centering or choice points that determine one’s own “destiny,” “life-path,” or “prognosis." In addition, it is now recognized that it is precisely through these centering points, choice points, or “seed moments” created by the "tension between the opposites" inherent in any number of critical developmental conflicts that our true Self-nature seeks to expand toward an ever widening sense of capital "P" Perfection so as to intentionally and consciously manifest the embodied experience of "order" and well-being. With such increased awareness, clinicians may now address a given client’s "presenting problem" or clinical condition by helping him/her to practice transpersonal guiding principles and methods designed to assist in the realigning of one’s life toward a higher sense of purpose, meaning, harmony, balance, and fulfillment within each "eternal" or therapeutic moment.
By reinterpreting Erikson's model and the dynamic psychology of the I Ching in this way, this Change Theory of human lifespan development proposes that a transorder stage exists within the nondual continuum previously mentioned, and it is with such understanding that the field of transpersonal psychology is encouraged to define, redefine, and perhaps also refine these and other relevant discoveries addressing our true Self-development and realization. With that said, the authors of the Change Theory presented here believe it is of the utmost importance to emphasize that just as the transordering process itself can move us toward an ever expanding felt-sense experience of well-being and "Perfection" via the intentional process of realigning continually with our true Self-nature, (a process that has the potential to transform our “original” transpersonal patterning), it is equally true that we may also be moved toward the experience of increasing disorder and psychopathology if we allow ourselves to become restricted in relation to our true Self-development when engaged in the resolution of transpersonal crises and conflicts should we become attached to limiting views of Self and Reality.
Thank for for coming to my defense...we have established that blurting is a fine quality to have. I am personally redeemed!
Rolling, delighted beyond words to read the contributions of your overflowing Heart/Mind...you bring to mind a favorite Van Morrison song, where he sings, "if my heart could do the thinking/and my head begin to see/i'd look upon the world anew/ and know what's truly real"...
Now if we could only lure Arthur James here on a regular basis, we'd have quite an amalgamation of imagination..
Jimenace..it's funny you mention holding yr breath...that happens to be one of my personal techniques for re-centering myself, if i feel ...um...well, that one of my "change moments " is going awkwardly astray....the OUtbreath is a cleansing, reorienting mental space wherein i reconnect with the total Gestalt of my overall situation, etc etc blah blah
(AND A MOST IMPORTANT PERSONAL NOTE; I AM NOT, NOR HAVE I EVER BEEN, A POT HEAD, WEED ADDICT, ETC....I HAVE NOT INDULGED IN MONTHS NOW, AND THOUGH I FEEL THAT ONE TEENY TINY HIT WOULD TOTALLY FREE MY BEING FROMALL ANXIOUS ENCUMBRANCES...AND THOUGH I FEEL IT IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY THAT THC IS NOT BEING GIVEN TO MENTALLY DISTURBED PEOPLE....I DO NOT go around giving pot to disturbed people, etc etc....nuff said about that....it's like having
the damn polio virus declared illegal in an epidemic
akin to the 1950-60's scare..ack)
I am deeply intrigued by "Change Theory", and I'm glad you have FINALLY given us some details to chew on, Angie, after laying hints
hither & yon, in PMs and comments. Where,pray tell,can an interested mental health " consumer"
(as we call them in my line of work, which is street-level
recovery-support)
(god i hate that..."consumer")
where can an interested consumer get some more description of one of his..heh..therapeutic options? Any change-theorists on the East Coast, or only goddamn neurobiologists?
Now, this "transordering process"...obviously it unfolds in the NOw...you deal with the client in his here&now-ness...
you reorient him to a more satisfying
conjunction with his total organism/field...
(i am familiar with erikson, but overall much prefer Gestalt therapy...Perls et al..wondering: how much gestalt do you incorporate?)
so: at the end of the hour (i assume you have a 50 min. hour, si?)
we have a fellow who is more functionally proficient
in the eternal now, so to speak...
but: i have found that as people awaken to the possibility
of feeling good, they are at serious risk of
making the most absolutely WRONG decison they can...for example,
a manic-depressive comes into a transpersonalist's office
(this sounds like the beginning of a newage joke..)
and sez: "ack, i am way down, dr"
You "realign " him, and he is suddenly out of his funk, which i agree is a self-protective mechanism...
in fact, all mental- illness- so- called is self protection..a la another of my heros, rd laing....like newtons's cocoon metaphor, which i employ to my disturbed buddies...
even alcoholism...have you read bateson's "theory of alcoholism", angie? exquisite stuff...
anyway, we have a manic depressive, call him, oh, Jimbo...
Jimbo is now all fixed up for the present, but his mind is exploring the vast new vistas of personal and interpersonal & even universal (archetypal) identity...
isn't he now at more...risk...for aberrant behavior...i e "hypomania"...including delusions, erotomania especially..?
My friends have all had seriously weird symbolically-over-enhanced "episodes" that catch the attention of dimwitted law enforcement & even more dimwitted mainstream psyche-I-atrists...
they are duly drugged to oblivion...
and perhaps, if they are lucky like my pal Riz,
surface 10 yrs later...
how do you protect the people you
suddenly bring back from the dead? is my question....
they are vulnerable...perhaps even more so than when they bagan....
all protected in their cocoons...
the world is tough...it still runs on darwinian rules/ and sweet awakened souls
are easy fucking marks, i've found...to the archetypal energies within themselves and others..which is the same thing..in the Collective Soup (love that phrase!)
Jim
dylan:
"i spoke like a child/
you destroyed me with a smile/
while i was...sleeping/
i'm sick of love/
and i'm in the thick it/
this kinda love:.../
i'm so sick of it"
"Love Sick"...1st song on "time out of mind"
van morrison..
if my hear t could do the thinking
and my head begin to FEEL
i'd look upon the world anew
and know whats truly real
(sayyy...how does music, which is sort of "eternal"...fit into change theory?)
am sorry James.
I think this line by Rolling sums it all up nicely: "the more 'stable' one Is - the farther we can range to the 'edge'".
The issue with disorders for the most part is a very simple one--with the exception of irreparable brain damage. Often it is linked to the fundamental beliefs we hold about the nature of reality, and by changing that belief we can heal ourselves--the two polar opposites being that bliss is our birthright, a belief common in bipolars, and that we should suffer for eternal redemption, a neurosis implanted by religion.
But it often it is an aspect of a particular type of brain, and in the west doctors prescribe medication to control the brain's proclivity. Though very often it can be regulated by identifying the stimulus that causes the response, and modifying our thinking and behavior accordingly by reprogramming our thinking process as in NLP. Bipolar's particular problem is that they exhibit too much personality, too much exuberance, too much self expression, and are continually striving for attention or to maintain that rush, that high, that bliss, and then are devastated when the moment dissipates to ordinariness. The way it is addressed in the western world is by medicating the personality, to reduce it to dullness, to maintain a perpetual state of ordinariness.
Another way to do this, is that instead of succumbing to fly to exuberant highs, to rather hold back, to control the emotion, to subject the chemical impulse to one's will, and not to go for the instant gratification of that thrill. Others may perceive you as less interesting or less entertaining, but so what, at least one is in charge of one's mind. But instead in the mastery of one's mind, to allow that life force to be released in a way that maximizes one's personal capacity in the world, one's effectiveness, instead of it serving as mere entertainment, as a mere stimulus for others often at one's own expense. See, all that serves is to satisfy the shell layer of our being, the Sensor, our cocoon. Indeed bliss is exactly that, a sensory overload of endorphins, and drug addicts seek that high by using hallucinogenic drugs, Bipolar's have a faulty valve so to say that releases almost indiscriminately, but yet is a capacity that can be nurtured with some discipline. Though instead of it merely being a drag, the pathology results from actively seeking the high, as any addict does. See, the high must not be sought, it must be reveled in when it comes, and indeed, the seeking of it is the aspect that becomes one's personal hell in the end.
And indeed, when one has developed that level of mastery in control of one's cognitive device the more stable one becomes, and thus the farther we can range to the edge, confidence that one has one's foot firmly on the breaks, and that the breaks can be fully relied upon.
Whether one wants to be the slave of one's neurology is a matter of choice, one can certainly can succumb to one's whim and mistakenly belive oneself to be free, but than become a prisoner of the consequences of one's actions. But what must be born in mind is that freedom can only coexist with responsibility, one's ability to respond. And furthermore, that the only thing we are truly responsible for -- ultimately -- is our sanity.
“In this way, Change Theory furthers Erikson's original psychosocial model by postulating that true Self-development occurs not only within an eight stage developmental paradigm, but also via a constant infinitesimal decision-making process that involves a moment-to-moment realignment with our true Self-nature in response to various changes both within and without as we attempt to adjust to internal and external stressors.”
“More specifically, when we are moving toward our true Self-nature, we are aligning ourselves with an ordering process experienced subjectively as a feeling of well-being… Disorder" itself manifests as a significant lifespan developmental stage, crisis, or task. This continuum manifests as a dynamic, multidirectional, multidimensional reordering process, thereby infusing this “developmental conflict" with all the energetic potentiality inherent in our everyday life choices as we continually seek realignment with our true Self-nature.”
“In this manner, clinician and client alike are better able to predict short and long-term “life consequences” as each becomes increasingly aware of transpersonal centering or choice points that determine one’s own “destiny,” “life-path,” or “prognosis." In addition, it is now recognized that it is precisely through these centering points, choice points, or “seed moments” created by the "tension between the opposites" inherent in any number of critical developmental conflicts that our true Self-nature seeks to expand toward an ever widening sense of capital "P" Perfection so as to intentionally and consciously manifest the embodied experience of "order" and well-being.” – Refer to The Release for a synopsis.
While your discussion focuses on how a clinician would view their patient, what I attempted to do is develop a methodology and language that allows one to look at these aspects from within, and to establish a personal philosophy that may heal/prevent these pathologies within oneself.
Thanks for sharing.
BTW, I've added 1 to 4 of the video link, and covers much of the discussion we've had until now about thought processes, including a previous discussion on conscience.
It doesn't surprise me that your two theories converge. I have some questions which I'd like you both to drop everything else in your lives to answer...
1. More details on these "centering points". Centering on what? Tension between opposites , in specific developmental spaces?
2. How does "object relations" theory fit into all this? I am doing a little homework on it presently, and wish I'd found it long ago, I'll tell you...
3. Is there a bodily emphasis in either of your theories? On e of the reasons I so admire Gestalt is that it offers astonishing insights on how the mind's activities are reflected in the musculature. Especially re. "anxiety", which Perls calls a "breathing disorder". Where do you think the point of entry should be: body or mind? Or is it client-specific?
4. "Destiny"? What kind of psychological concept is that!? do either of you believe in it, and if so, what is it?
5. A little personal therapy here, please...(i'll pay you next week...) You both know me fairly well...what is my problematic "centering point"? don't hold back...expand on "energy being blocked" (depression) and "uncontrolled dispersion" (mania)
6.Newton..."bliss is a sensory overload of endorphins..."!? Not exclusively this, I hope....this doesn't jive with what you've said previously...
7. The I Ching! 64 hexagrams, eh? 64 points of what, exactly?
8. What is an example of a "transpersonal crisis"?
9. Angelique...please..as a favor...drop the academic language & do a post or comment in "Tom Jones" mode...
10. You too, Newton...
11. Define "perfection". Is this in any way akin to Christ's injunction: be ye perfect, like your Father in Heaven?
12. What's a "Big Bang" moment? The creation of a new subjective universe?
13. Refer me to some damn paper or something on the internet...
thank you,
James E
Yet, in my own mind, I am often referencing/resourcing not just the I Ching, but the Tao Te Ching: The first assists with living in community and understanding nature/human nature; the latter book and its wisdom assists with understanding trans and "non"ordered (and paradoxcial) states that go beyond mere intellect or even human concerns (although these are addressed neatly as well). The translations are CRITICAL - there are many bad ones out there. So, Newton, I am actually working similarly to you with my clients - helping them to identify / frame / reframe their own personal "narrative" - this is what I meant when I said if my client is a cloud, I, for that one hour (and I work the FULL hour) become a cloud as well - It is difficult to explain - a completely intuitive process for me, and yes, "GESTALT" in many ways, James.
Because I am not overly attached to my own abstracts, theories, and articles, I am not going to expand further on what I have offered, above, but as I am able, James, I will contemplate how to most meaningfully respond to the questions you pose - these are good ones, but I want to speak from my own position, versus shared positions with my colleagues...My perspective changes daily.
James, I have a question for you: As someone diagnosed with Bipolar (which, from a "Chi flow" perspective would imply intensive "overflow," uncontrolled, do you believe that the organic aspects of this condition limit the beneficial aspects of, say, meditation, breathing, and other sorts of "practices" that might aid in regulating "flow," and that in such cases psychotropic medication is the most helpful option (or, it seems in your case, weed seems helpful as well?)
I know of a man who once was a pianist with the Austrian symphony. He developed severe schizophenia. Refused meds. Quit the symphony and intuitively followed an impulse to go around the world studying drumming patterns of various indigenious groups who drummed. He eventually distilled this into what is now known as Ta Ka Ti Na (google it). Oddly, his brain healed via this process of being immersed in drumming patterns, although it was definitely an organic illness.
Anyway, I ask because I notice that even in the "Transpersonal Psychiatric and Psychological Handbook" there is an apalling lack of meaningful exploration of how various therapies (including transpersonal) aid a person in cases of genuine organic illness - it seems to be studiously avoided, or lumped under "spiritual emergency" or similar. I think that the T/P field itself is not sure how to address it. For example, I do not invite newly recovering addicts into learning meditation techniques - They do not have the ego strength to enter the void, so to speak, and it can actually be dangerous. Yet many therapists are not aware of this. By the 2nd or 3rd year I refer them to work with a highly skilled meditation teacher, but the first year is really spent on finding all the "stuck" points in regard to psychoemotional development and sensitively addressing these...
Object relations theory is a psychodynamic theory within psychoanalytic psychology. The theory explicates the dynamic process of developing a mind as one grows in relation to real others in the environment. The "objects" being referred to in the title of the theory are both real others in one's world, and one's internalized images of others. Object relationships are initially formed during early interactions with the primary care givers. These early patterns can be altered with experience, but often continue to exert a strong influence throughout life. The term "object relations theory" was formally coined by Fairbairn in 1952,[1] but the line of thought being referred to was active in shaping psychoanalysis from 1917 onwards.[2] Object relations theory was actively pioneered throughout the 1940s and 50s by British psychologists Ronald Fairbairn, Melanie Klein, D.W. Winnicott, Harry Guntrip, and others.
Objects are initially comprehended in the infant mind by their functions and are termed "part objects". The breast that feeds the hungry infant is the "good breast." The hungry infant that finds no breast is in relation to the "bad breast." Through repeated experience, internal objects are formed by the patterns emerging in one's subjective experience of the care taking environment. These internalized images may or may not be accurate representations of the actual, external others. With a "good enough" "facilitating environment" part object functions eventually transform into a comprehension of whole objects, which corresponds with the ability to tolerate ambiguity and to see that both the "good" and the "bad" breast are a part of the same "mummy."
I did not like yesterd's post bec, I read words, and your last line was "He was committing himself to the asylum" , (I read the synopsis of Le Roi de coeur, I know the story and why it became a cult movie in Nam) (America only accepted it later).
You were not writing a review of the film. Your post is about You, Riz and Dave, you call them three Hamlets. So, that line is not, cannot just be about the film or the irony, your mind is doing something else on another plane here is what I felt.
Secondly, the assumption that war as a machinery is all 'bad' is an addled, childish idea propagated by the West. In the East, mind you despite the fact that Hinduism, one of the major world religions, does not have a History of 'religious aggression' - yet it says in our literature, war is ok, there can be a good and a bad war. The Gita is all about that.
Faced with the fact that he would be killing his own blood reltaions in the great mythical war, Arjuna, stood back hesitated. This is when Krishna educates him about what war really is all about.
If there are choices, and human life is all about making these choices to preserve, conserve, nurture, propagate, then there always will be war, inside and outside of our minds. If it is in the mind, it would manifest in our bodies, engage our whole beings.
So the irony of King of Heart's situ works if only you accept that war is bad or that this war was bad. Otherwise, his committing himself to the asylum can only mean two things:
1) he is giving up
2) he is giving in
none of which is desirable in the human context of duty-responsibility driven life that we chose to live. We figured out through hundreds of years of death, destruction and strife, that this 'duty-responsibility driven life' serves our purpose best, ensures survival and health best.
So, coming from you, it did jolt me. I was very disturbed.
It is not your writing. Like someone says there in the comment thread in an earlier post perhaps, no one here tells stories, or does the stream thing so well when you are in form James. There is no doubt about that at all.
Only I did not like what happened here in that post or what it said to me: and I often do miss the point of course, like I almost did in Jimenace's poem. I never did read Vertigo as vertigo until I read the comment thread!
So I could be terribly wrong but the feeling remains.
What goes on in our minds when we write is still a mystery, the way we choose words, the reason we choose refs and words - half the time we write we are projecting ourselves outside of the microcosmic little world of our own minds, we also tend to codify, no one really wants to expose it all in so many plain words, but the desires and fears and feelings are right there anyway.
We do write for ourselves, we are not professionals assigned to entertain and make a living out of this.
When you write this:
"Be good and strong and pure of heart."
you are not subscribing to this view at all, you are testing it, and I at first, in context, thought, nearly laughing at the idea inside of your mind.
But then people who wage wars do not always think of themselves or their cause as "good, strong, pure of heart", they know who they are sometimes, and know they are doing it for petty, limited causes is why you perhaps need something like 'inquisitions' in place to repress questions, curb insight.
Riz's ""Yes, yes." is impatient, "Yeah man, we know all that, also know it doesn't bloody work anyway, so stop with the platitude nad let's go get some real stuff, Tennis, women, now that is real...it works"......
Let's finish with the movie anyway, since we cannot change things yet. "And were rewarded with a nude shot of Alan Bates" . We were (at least Riz wanted) looking for flesh, flesh it is all we got in the end. Fine.
the post seemed to say from the ending: "The King of Heart ejects himself out of the other matrix - we noticed that, right now we wish to think only of this idea, give in, or give up."
There is no reinventing here, no integrating. Changing world view towards what? Another fallacy ridden fragmented reality?
I never do have the patience to edit comments or letters, a post yes, I do it several time AFTER posting, like James you did with the last one, 3 times I think you did it. altho I wrote I wdnt, I did read it more than once, is why I noticed the additions at the top and bottom or if you didn't maybe I missed them the first time :)
Newton, you were right. Am glad.
8 War
There is no calamity greater than lightly engaging in war. To do that is to risk losing all that is precious. Thus it is that when opposing weapons clash, he who deplores it conquers.
He who would assist a leader of men in harmony with the unvarying way will not advise mastery by force of arms. Such a course is sure to bring retribution.
A master of the art of war has said, "I do not dare to host aggression; I seek the hospitality of defense. I do not dare to advance an inch; I prefer to retire a foot." This is called gaining ground without advancing, baring the muscles without exposing them, flourishing a weapon one does not have; advancing against the enemy in the direction of no-enemy.
Skilled in the unvarying way, a wise leader is not the aggressor; skilled in warfare, he is cool headed; a victor, he does not humiliate his foe; commanding men, he humbly applies his art. In not contending lies his strength. By the efforts of others, his work is carried out, following the unvarying way of the heavens.
A skillful leader strikes a decisive blow and stops. He does not further assert his mastery. He will strike the blow but not follow this with arrogance. He strikes as a matter of necessity, not from a wish for mastery.
Wherever an army camps, briars and thorns spring up. When an army passes, famine will follow.
Now weapons, however beautiful, are instruments of evil omen—hateful, it may be said, to all creatures. Therefore they who follow the unvarying way do not like to employ them.
As instruments of evil omen, those sharp weapons are not the instruments of the superior man—HE USES THEM ONLY ON THE COMPULSION OF NECESSITY (emphasis mine). Calm and repose are what he prizes; victory by force of arms is to him undesirable. To consider this desirable would be to delight in the slaughter of men; and he who delights in the slaughter of men cannot get his will in the world.
On occasions of festivity to be on the left hand is the prized position; on occasions of mourning, the right hand. The lesser army officer has his place on the left; the commander in chief has his on the right—the place of mourning. He who has killed multitudes of men should weep for them with the bitterest grief; so the victor in battle has the place of mourning. The superior man ordinarily considers the left hand the most honorable place, but in time of war the right hand.
And James about ""bliss is a sensory overload of endorphins..."!? Not exclusively this, I hope....this doesn't jive with what you've said previously..." In fact I made a mistake, it should have been neurotoxins. Ecstasy may in fact be primarily derived from endorphins while bliss could be a peaceful state of being as well, and a whole different potion would be required. That's why the seeking of any emotional state is linked to a sensory state of being, and why Truth, conscience, is a state beyond mere sensory relation to reality. To relate it to the video, even when he had a clear opportunity to escape, Moon rather opted for certain death (and the associated sensory pain) than to betray his higher being. The choice he was faced with was, do I obey my sensory truth, or my higher Truth. As Rolling indicated, he hadd an inner war raging inside of him, and he chose the noblest aspect of himself, and the depression (depressing reality though not necessarily a neurological imperative which too is a choice) of the camp and the prospect of a certain death. See, the lesson for us all is that he could make that higher choice in the direst of circumstances, so did Frankl in the Nazi death camp, and so we all can in our ordinary lives.
By the way, the war Rolling was referring to is the balancing of the tension of the opposites, in other words, to balance the needs of our Integrator for a higher connection beyond own physical limitation, and our sensor's striving for bliss and the more survivalist aspects of our being. This of course is implicit in Angie's theory as well.
To put us all out of our miser with this Italics, and because we re now on the topic, I will be posting a piece titled The Tension of Opposites.
Here is how Horney viewed the roots of intrapsychic "wars" (conflict), for any who are interested (I realize I am likely spitting into the wind here but since being hospitalized my sleep schedule is off so I am posting mostly for myself and discoursing with myself and am likely "off-topic" - my apologies, Newton!)
New Paradigm: Social and Cultural Factors (Karen Horney)
Horney rejected Freud’s derivation of neurosis from the clash between culture and instinct. In Freud’s view, we must have culture in order to survive, and we must repress or sublimate our instincts in order to have culture. Horney did not believe that collision between the individual and society is inevitable but rather that it occurs when a bad environment frustrates our emotional needs and inspires fear and hostility. Freud depicts human beings as inherently insatiable, destructive, and antisocial; according to Horney, these are not expressions of instinct but neurotic responses to adverse conditions.
Horney described basic anxiety as anxiety that results from feelings of insecurity in interpersonal relations. Unlike Freud, she did not believe that anxiety is an inevitable part of the human condition. It results from cultural forces. Research on parenting styles and attachment emphasize the importance of an affectionate and warm relationship between children and parents.
There are pathogenic conditions in the family that make children feel unsafe, unloved, and unvalued rather than the frustration of libidinal desires, according to Horney. As a result of this, children develop basic anxiety, a feeling of helplessness in a potentially hostile world, which they try to reduce by adopting such strategies of defense as the pursuit of love, power, or detachment.
Although Horney devoted much of The Neurotic Personality of Our Time to the neurotic need for love, she gave a good deal of space to the quest for power, prestige, and possession that develops when a person feels hopeless about gaining affection.
Horney’s paradigm for the structure of neurosis is one in which disturbances in human relationships generate a basic anxiety that leads to the development of strategies of defense that are not only self-defeating but in conflict with each other, since people adopt not just one but several of them. This paradigm formed the basis of Horney’s mature theory.
Perhaps the most significant aspect of Horney’s new version of psychoanalysis was her shift in emphasis, both in theory and in clinical practice, from the past to the present. She replaced Freud’s focus on genesis with a structural approach, arguing that psychoanalysis should be less concerned with infantile origins than with the current constellation of defenses and inner conflicts.
Horney divided defensive strategies into two kinds: interpersonal, which we use in our dealings with other people, and intrapsychic, which we employ in our own minds.
Horney came to see the central feature of neurosis as alienation from the real self because of oppressive forces in the environment. The object of therapy is to “restore the individual to himself, to help him regain his spontaneity and find his center of gravity in himself” (1939, p.11). The real self is not a fixed entity but a set of intrinsic potentialities - including temperament, talents, capacities, and predispositions - that are part of our genetic makeup and need a favorable environment in which to develop. It is not a product of learning, since one cannot be taught to be oneself; but neither is it impervious to external influence, since it is actualized through interactions with an external world that can provide many paths of development.
There are certain conditions in childhood that everyone requires for self-realization. These include “an atmosphere of warmth” that enables children to express their own thoughts and feelings, the goodwill of others to supply their various needs, and “healthy friction with the wishes and will” of those around them.
When parents’ own neuroses prevents them from loving the child or even thinking of the child as the particular individual they are, the child develops a feeling of basic anxiety that prevents him from relating himself to others with the spontaneity of his real feelings and forces him to develop defensive strategies (1950, p.18).
These defense strategies permits them to cope with the world with a certain amount of gratification. Many of these strategies continue into adulthood. We use them to minimize feelings of anxiety and to assist us in effectively relating to others.
Where they become exaggerated or inappropriate, these strivings may be referred to as neurotic needs or trends. Neurotic needs are the result of the formative experiences that create basic anxiety. The trends are not instinctual in nature but highly dependent on the individual’s formative experiences of being either safe or insecure in the world.
Horney developed 10 neurotic needs or trends, which lead to three ways of relating to others: moving toward people (compliance), moving against people (hostility), and moving away from people (detachment). These types of behavior, as a result, can lead to three basic orientations toward life: the self-effacing solution, an appeal to be loved; the self-expansive solution, an attempt at mastery; and the resignation solution, a desire to be free of others (1950). Research on attachment patterns in infants suggests a distinct similarity between Horney’s three basic orientations and young children’s behavior.
Normal and mature individuals resolve their conflicts by integrating and balancing the three orientations, which are present in all human relations.
Hypercompetitiveness
Hypercompetitiveness, a sweeping desire to compete and win in order to believe one is worthy, is rife in American culture. It leads to anxiety and neurosis and has a negative effect on growth and development.
As a result of her theory, Ryckman, Hammer, Kaczor, and Gold (1990) developed a Hypercompetitive Attitude Scale to evaluate the soundness of Horney’s concept and found empirical backing for it.
I extracted the following in The Release which summarizes my own view:
Our fate is the life we’ve been born into; our destiny is what we choose to make of it.
As the experiment in The Heart of the Matter suggests, we seem to be able to sense our future, and so it in a way seems to suggest some predetermination. Though it should not be seen this way, the future is malleable as we have infinitely many futures to choose from, thus we choose our destiny every second, so every second we are literally choosing a different future. Our intuitions simple are tools to guide us towards an optimal path at any point in time, but we are yet the decision maker. We may still choose to go down the limited path of the sensory overload of our Sensor, albeit that our deeper drives can send us down a path of doom as well if we are not aware and become the master of the forces of our unconscious mind…
Newton: If I were to refer to my own model, then I agree with you regarding this definition of "destiny." As stated before, within each moment is an opportunity to choose, to "move," to "follow". How we move, what we follow, where me move to / toward /away / against (Horney again) helps to determine and shape our "destiny." I also agree we can become imprisoned by our own unconscious forces (perenially moving toward or away - often toward what we desire in the moment, and away from what we fear...In the East there is a story that one need only ACKNOWLEDGE both desire and fear, but not go to or away from either - simply keep heading down through the middle of the Gate - this is how one enters into "Nirvana" - Example: "Hello Deisre, I know you; Hello, Fear, I know you" - but continue down the middle, right between them, without being drawn toward or away from one or the other.
So what are we following? From a Taoist perspective, one is following "the Tao" no matter what is happening. One can not help but follow the Tao, even when we feel we are flowing against it. Perhaps we must distinguish between the thrill of temporary highs and "pleasures" (desires fulfilled), versus the deep "at-ease" experience of "Constancy."
I will need a whole 'nother post on "constancy" so I will stop here, but leave this tid-bit. How might "constancy" and "following a thread" (or "threads") relate to "Destiny"?
the reason Bates commited himself to the asylum is pretty damn simple: love...
Love trumps war...
War = at root, and I am talking ROOT, is misdirected sexual tendencies, always...
Sex and death....
i have no intention of expading on this because if you think about it, it is obvious..
unless i decide to expand on it...
ha
if you see 'love' into it, then thts wht I wish to know, as this isn't about Bates, it is about you, your creation (tht charcter with Riz I mean).
questions accepting your ans: love of what?
love usually always is shown to lead to an 'other' , third plane of existence where there is some kind/form of integration happening, which in fact results in resolution of conflict or at least surpassing it (at least in movies about love and conflict) leading everyone to see that the 'third' 'other' world exists, it can be reached.
in this case, the asylum probably symbolises the haven of understanding and sensitivity to each other's otherness that he returns to.
but why does he become naked? is that symbolic opening up to the 'other way of being', 'the other point of view' in order to better integrate? don't ans, it doesn't matter. am quite happy to let it go
Do you really think this whole journey from:
a cell> earthworm (male female united in one physical space> differentiation of two diff forms
was to create more conflict, danger for survival or in fact to reduce conflict, minimize threat to the seed, easier comfortable existence, so one could get some time to think and grow?
Newton, I think we are adding layers to a discussion YOU led people to have, if you notice, I have learned quite a bit just by reading you guys ;) so no sorry or thinking this is hogging space (er I am if you think am littering this space: sorry)
The following extracts from The Virtue of Nonviolance: from Gutama to Gandhi emphasizes Gandhi’s and the Gita’s views on this topic, and supports your previous assertion.
Gandhi then reiterates one of his most basic principles, that it is worse to be a coward than to commit violence. True Hindu dharma “does not under any circumstances countenance running away in fear. In this world that baffles our reason, violence there will then always be.” Gandhi is essentially conceding the point that the Gita may indeed be an account of a battle in which Arjuna’s duty is to fight his cousins or be condemned a coward… Arjuna’s karma yoga consists in not a renunciation of action but only in the fruits of action. What Gandhi draws from the Gita is a basic philosophy of active nonattachment. Ghandi states that the unmistakable “unmistakable teaching of the Gita” is that “he who gives up action falls. He who gives up reward rises.”
Note that the above is a very clear argument against views such as the Law of Attraction of The Secret which argues for our attention to be focused on the reward which we wish to attract, and hence is also directly supporting the general argument in Lucifer’s Law and Theomania.