"We would like to start encouraging you to work more with the idea of 5-D creation, which simply involves alignment of frequency. You are that thing you wish to create. You are already that which you seek to become. You need only remove these filters, these false perceptions, these judgments that you have concerning who you think you are and the stories that you are telling yourself. We see many of you are pushing energetically to get to the other side, to that 5-D level, and it is absolutely vital that you let go of that push to get there. The underlying need is almost always fear based. You are holding judgment about where you are and your current reality. As we always tell you, you have to accept where you are to change where you are. The desire to run from your current situation will always call more of that frequency to you. Anytime you are thinking about the future or the past, you are siphoning off energy."
REPOST: ASCENSION IS NOT A DISORDER!
The subject of this article is of major importance, folks. Entitled "Attention Deficit Disorder And Ascension," by Gregg Prescott, M.S., editor of In5D.com, the piece takes a look at an epidemic that has afflicted the 3rd Wave generation on Planet Earth, gifted young people who have come in already prepared for the ascension to 5D consciousness, ready both energetically and genetically to live in the world we've all just shifted to in the last 2 years.
THIS is from the news article on Natural News.com about Eisenberg's confession:
These advanced souls, unlike the majority of us in the 1st and 2nd Waves, are not going through the same level of clearing "symptoms of the ascension," because they were not wired to function on the principles of the old 3D operating system. But the archaic medical and educational systems, in many quarters, still do operate from that old place of extreme density, and so these young people have had to endure the attempts by the old guard to put them back in the old box.
Nonetheless, since this is 5D, and the raise in consciousness and vibration is not negotiable, these old paradigms will fall by the wayside. Consider that just last year, the so-called "Father of ADHD," Leon Eisenberg, the psychiatrist who came up with the diagnosis, admitted on his death bed that the diagnosis was fictitious.
THIS is from the news article on Natural News.com about Eisenberg's confession:
"On his death bed, this psychiatrist and autism pioneer, Dr. Leon Eisenberg, admitted that ADHD is essentially a 'fictitious disease,' which means that millions of young children today are being needlessly prescribed severe mind-altering drugs that will set them up for a life of drug addiction and failure."
The good news is that these 3rd Wave individuals have the inner guidance, innate wisdom and fortitude to seek out the assistance of older human beings who have awakened, and are there to tell them that there's nothing "wrong" with them. In fact, quite the opposite.
These young people are shining stars, and they are the future of our planet. Listen again to this nine year old sharing wisdom worthy of any guru or yogi.
And please, empty your medicine cabinet!
TODAY'S SHERLOCK HOLMES QUOTE!
Or as I like to put it to people when they're trying to understand why something is happening in the present: simply follow the sequence of events. And especially in this time of ascension of consciousness from separation to oneness, greater good will very often follow from what seems to be awfully bad.
OPEN MARRIAGE... OR OPEN MARRIAGE?
Here's an old one I haven't reposted for quite some time, but it is growing in its relevance as more and more adults are coming to eschew the shackles of tradition and obligatory behavior in relationships. Fewer people are getting married these days, and when they do, it is at a later age. Fewer are having children, as well, and again, when they do, it is at a later age. "Polyamory" and "open marriage" are becoming more prevalent in our culture today, as well.
This is definite progress in the self-actualization movement of our species. In my decades of psychotherapy practice, I have witnessed firsthand the overwhelming statistical reality that young adults with kids rarely commit to their own self-actualization, don't even consider therapy, at least not until they're in their forties and they're looking around and saying: "How the f**k did I end up here?!" Children are an astoundingly all-encompassing, two-decade distraction from one's inner life and self-work.
A while back, I offered my comments on whether or not having an affair was potentially "good" for a marriage. I was responding to an article that was in the NY Times on the subject called, "An Odd Turn of Affairs."
On the Huffington Post there was also an article on the same subject, taken from Tango Magazine, entitled: "Portrait of an Open Marriage," by Jenny Block. The piece has this caption under the title: "Jenny Block reveals an unconventional marriage arrangement that worked."
So, I took a look, because I believe that openness is the key to a good relationship, along with the two partners being genuinely in love with each other, of course.
Here are some samples of what I found in Jenny's piece, interspersed with my interjections and conclusions. Check it out and offer your own comments.
"When my husband and I first started dating, it was obvious even then that our drives were quite different. As much as he enjoyed sex, he didn’t need or want it as often as I did. But I fell so madly in love with him, I figured it didn’t matter. We had an adequate sex life, probably pretty darn good by some standards. Still, there were always things I wanted that I simply couldn’t get from him."
After having an affair that ended with a lot of bad feelings all around, Jennie and a girlfriend of hers talked and decided to try another approach.
"My husband and I had a six-month affair with my close friend. The three of us had sex. He and she had sex. She and I had sex. And, of course, he and I continued to have sex, just the two of us. The arrangement eventually faded out, and we all slipped back into our previous relationships. But my marriage was forever changed. Our experience with her was the catalyst that led us to explore open marriage."
Okay. And how exactly is "open marriage" actually defined and lived out for Jennie and her husband?
"Being secretive, lying, or sneaking around—those would be surefire ways to destroy our marriage. But the extramarital sex itself is not a threat."
I'm with you there, Jenny. Dishonesty is the real killer of all relationships, especially in the form of self-deception.
Jenny goes on to reveal that her husband had decided to be "open" to Jenny having extramarital sex, even though he wasn't interested in partaking himself anymore after the threesome experience. That's pretty open, right?
"My husband hasn’t pursued anyone since my friend. He says he’s too shy to pick up girls, and, really, he doesn’t feel the need. I can sometimes tell that the fact that I do hurts him."
What is Jenny's basic motivation in this situation? Well, her husband's not as into sex as she is and...
"I think of it as the 'playpen effect': You keep a kid locked up in one of those things and all she thinks about is how to get out, how much she’ll love what’s in the other room. But let her roam free and check it all out, and odds are she’ll end up at your feet."
So, now, let's see, Jenny's the kid in the playpen and her husband is who? The parent who can either keep her penned in or set her free? Uh-oh. Time for some rationalizations.
"Lots of people are basically in open marriages: They have illicit affairs. My husband and I simply decided we were ready to be honest, with ourselves and with each other, about what we want and need."
Well, here's the thing, Jenny - honesty, and open marriage, like open anything, should really mean, first and foremost, open to the kind of truth that can only come with real self awareness. Unfortunately, the concept of "open marriage" has been co-opted to merely mean having sex with more than one partner when you're married. Two people can be having sex outside of their marriage, even with the other's knowledge, and not be in a relationship that could realistically be called "open," certainly not if they're unable to be fully honest with themselves or each other.
As in, "don't ask, don't tell?"
"If I’m with another woman, he wants every gory detail. But when I’m with another man, sometimes he’d prefer not to know it happened at all."
Next, Jenny asks herself the excellent and obvious question, and then, gives the telling answer.
"Why am I married, then? Many people have asked me that question. So I’ll tell you exactly what I tell them. As hot as it makes me when a new conquest whispers something scandalous in my ear, nothing thrills me like the sound of my husband’s voice when I hear him say, “Hey, baby, I’m home.”
Hmm... There is a word for that - codependence!
One partner plays the role of the permission-giving parent to the other partner, who acts out the suppressed, vicarious fantasies for said parental partner, and even though the mutual levels of Eros and sex aren't experienced at a self-actualized adult level "At least we love each other, right honey?"
Well, look, by now, anyone who knows me knows that I'm neither a prude, nor a conventionalist, and I have no moral judgement whatsoever about extramarital sex. Most things by themselves are neither good nor bad, marriage and/or extramarital sex included. It's the intentions behind most actions that determine their positive or negative effects.
So, is there a situation in which partners in a marriage could have sex with someone outside of their marriage that would be a functional action of that marriage?
Yes. Of course.
But it would be quite rare in our culture and here's why: You'd have to be talking about two people who are so in love, so hot for each other sexually, so honest with themselves and each other and clear about their intentions that introducing another person into the mix could actually be a spontaneous, creative expression of that high level of Eros in any given moment. It would not be coming out of sexual incompatibility or dissatisfaction with one's partner, nor would it be coming out of boredom in the relationship. It would instead be almost like an overflow of the passion and playfulness in the sex-life of two lovers. And finally, it would mean that both partners experience themselves as adults, not as kids wanting to escape the playpen!
Open marriage? Sure. But how about open everything else, too?
This is definite progress in the self-actualization movement of our species. In my decades of psychotherapy practice, I have witnessed firsthand the overwhelming statistical reality that young adults with kids rarely commit to their own self-actualization, don't even consider therapy, at least not until they're in their forties and they're looking around and saying: "How the f**k did I end up here?!" Children are an astoundingly all-encompassing, two-decade distraction from one's inner life and self-work.
A while back, I offered my comments on whether or not having an affair was potentially "good" for a marriage. I was responding to an article that was in the NY Times on the subject called, "An Odd Turn of Affairs."
On the Huffington Post there was also an article on the same subject, taken from Tango Magazine, entitled: "Portrait of an Open Marriage," by Jenny Block. The piece has this caption under the title: "Jenny Block reveals an unconventional marriage arrangement that worked."
So, I took a look, because I believe that openness is the key to a good relationship, along with the two partners being genuinely in love with each other, of course.
Here are some samples of what I found in Jenny's piece, interspersed with my interjections and conclusions. Check it out and offer your own comments.
"When my husband and I first started dating, it was obvious even then that our drives were quite different. As much as he enjoyed sex, he didn’t need or want it as often as I did. But I fell so madly in love with him, I figured it didn’t matter. We had an adequate sex life, probably pretty darn good by some standards. Still, there were always things I wanted that I simply couldn’t get from him."
After having an affair that ended with a lot of bad feelings all around, Jennie and a girlfriend of hers talked and decided to try another approach.
"My husband and I had a six-month affair with my close friend. The three of us had sex. He and she had sex. She and I had sex. And, of course, he and I continued to have sex, just the two of us. The arrangement eventually faded out, and we all slipped back into our previous relationships. But my marriage was forever changed. Our experience with her was the catalyst that led us to explore open marriage."
Okay. And how exactly is "open marriage" actually defined and lived out for Jennie and her husband?
"Being secretive, lying, or sneaking around—those would be surefire ways to destroy our marriage. But the extramarital sex itself is not a threat."
I'm with you there, Jenny. Dishonesty is the real killer of all relationships, especially in the form of self-deception.
Jenny goes on to reveal that her husband had decided to be "open" to Jenny having extramarital sex, even though he wasn't interested in partaking himself anymore after the threesome experience. That's pretty open, right?
"My husband hasn’t pursued anyone since my friend. He says he’s too shy to pick up girls, and, really, he doesn’t feel the need. I can sometimes tell that the fact that I do hurts him."
What is Jenny's basic motivation in this situation? Well, her husband's not as into sex as she is and...
"I think of it as the 'playpen effect': You keep a kid locked up in one of those things and all she thinks about is how to get out, how much she’ll love what’s in the other room. But let her roam free and check it all out, and odds are she’ll end up at your feet."
So, now, let's see, Jenny's the kid in the playpen and her husband is who? The parent who can either keep her penned in or set her free? Uh-oh. Time for some rationalizations.
"Lots of people are basically in open marriages: They have illicit affairs. My husband and I simply decided we were ready to be honest, with ourselves and with each other, about what we want and need."
Well, here's the thing, Jenny - honesty, and open marriage, like open anything, should really mean, first and foremost, open to the kind of truth that can only come with real self awareness. Unfortunately, the concept of "open marriage" has been co-opted to merely mean having sex with more than one partner when you're married. Two people can be having sex outside of their marriage, even with the other's knowledge, and not be in a relationship that could realistically be called "open," certainly not if they're unable to be fully honest with themselves or each other.
As in, "don't ask, don't tell?"
"If I’m with another woman, he wants every gory detail. But when I’m with another man, sometimes he’d prefer not to know it happened at all."
Next, Jenny asks herself the excellent and obvious question, and then, gives the telling answer.
"Why am I married, then? Many people have asked me that question. So I’ll tell you exactly what I tell them. As hot as it makes me when a new conquest whispers something scandalous in my ear, nothing thrills me like the sound of my husband’s voice when I hear him say, “Hey, baby, I’m home.”
Hmm... There is a word for that - codependence!
One partner plays the role of the permission-giving parent to the other partner, who acts out the suppressed, vicarious fantasies for said parental partner, and even though the mutual levels of Eros and sex aren't experienced at a self-actualized adult level "At least we love each other, right honey?"
Well, look, by now, anyone who knows me knows that I'm neither a prude, nor a conventionalist, and I have no moral judgement whatsoever about extramarital sex. Most things by themselves are neither good nor bad, marriage and/or extramarital sex included. It's the intentions behind most actions that determine their positive or negative effects.
So, is there a situation in which partners in a marriage could have sex with someone outside of their marriage that would be a functional action of that marriage?
Yes. Of course.
But it would be quite rare in our culture and here's why: You'd have to be talking about two people who are so in love, so hot for each other sexually, so honest with themselves and each other and clear about their intentions that introducing another person into the mix could actually be a spontaneous, creative expression of that high level of Eros in any given moment. It would not be coming out of sexual incompatibility or dissatisfaction with one's partner, nor would it be coming out of boredom in the relationship. It would instead be almost like an overflow of the passion and playfulness in the sex-life of two lovers. And finally, it would mean that both partners experience themselves as adults, not as kids wanting to escape the playpen!
Open marriage? Sure. But how about open everything else, too?
THE TRUTH ABOUT EVERYTHING, PART SEVEN: THERE IS NO "ORIGINAL SIN!"
As with all the other Truths About Everything, truly understanding the implications of this one changes things significantly. The idea of "original sin" is a novelty concept of the Catholic Church, an organization that also specializes in sinning, though not very originally or coincidentally. It usually follows that the more you seek to suppress something, the more driven you are to act out the very thing you are suppressing. Of course, the belief in some kind of inherent "sinfulness" in human nature is certainly not limited to Catholics.
Even psychology-minded critics of religion like Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, believed that human beings were "bad" by nature, that is born with inclinations to be aggressive, competitive and selfish, and that these tendencies would plague us all of our lives. In his book, "Civilization and its Discontents," Freud lays out what he believed to be the unavoidable conflict between our primitive desires and impulses, and the need to behave in a socially conscious and cooperative way for the good of society, a conflict which ultimately leaves us... well... discontented.
The truth is, however, that the Church and Freud are wrong. There I said it. Blasphemy, eh? Okay, so let me qualify a little...
It is true that human children are basically savages for the first 5 years of their little lives. By civilized standards, little kids are greedy, sadistic, violent, narcissistic, impulse ridden, ruthless, and pretty much incapable of true empathy. It isn't until around age 6 or 7, when most children start desiring to have a pet to care for, that kids begin developing some small amount of empathy. However, because little children are... well... little, they can't do a great deal of harm to society, so they are given a fair amount of leeway by adults going about the business of socializing and civilizing the little Neanderthals.
Furthermore, it is certainly true that adult human beings as a whole have a history of violence and destructive acting out on a massive scale. No other species so wantonly attacks and kills their own like we do. And we don't just kill when we feel our survival is threatened. We kill out of pride, lust, envy, over differences in philosophies, spiritual beliefs, sexual orientation and skin color. Whew!
So, didn't I just validate the Church and Freud? Human beings from the get-go seem to be pretty... bad! Yes. But... no. You see, we've have made things a lot worse by believing in our own badness, by even developing such a concept.
Linear human evolution, as we think of it, began at a very animalistic level, yes, where violence, as such, was for survival purposes as it is with most animals in nature in this particular line of reality. However, homo sapiens became capable of developing intellects and egos, which allowed us to reflect on our behavior, a potentially positive things, but along with the capacity for reflection came capacities for judgment, shame and guilt (specialties of the Church, btw), and along with judgment, shame and guilt came emotional and psychological disturbances and distortions, which caused our personal and social evolution to become somewhat derailed.
Here's famed psychoanalyst, Karen Horney:
"Inherent in man are evolutionary constructive forces, which urge him to realize his given potentialities, that man by his very nature and of his own accord, strives toward self-realization, and that his values evolve from such striving. With such a belief in an autonomous striving toward self-realization, we do not need an inner straight jacket with which to shackle our spontaneity, nor the whip of inner dictates to drive us to perfection. There is no doubt that such disciplinary methods can succeed in suppressing undesirable factors, but there is also no doubt that they are injurious to our growth. We do not need them because we see a better possibility of dealing with destructive forces in ourselves: that of actually outgrowing them. The way toward this goal is an ever increasing awareness and understanding of ourselves. Self-knowledge, then, is not an aim in itself, but a means of liberating the forces of spontaneous growth. In this sense, to work at ourselves becomes not only the prime moral obligation, but at the same time, in a very real sense, the prime moral privilege."
If you're a reader of the FPL blog, you probably seen that quote before because it's one of my favorites. What Horney is saying here is that if the "whip of inner dictates" - i.e. - judgment, shame and guilt - were not in play in our psyches, we would naturally outgrow our primitive impulses. Again, it is our belief in our own badness that causes us to act badly. In other words, our actual original sin is believing in original sin.
Here's a quote from the home page of Full Permission Living:
"Full Permission Living is the based on the understanding that human beings are, by first nature, sane, loving, cooperative, creative, humorous, intelligent, productive and naturally self-regulating. Full Permission Living rests on the foundation of truth that all people are entitled to live pleasure-filled, spontaneous, lives without guilt, shame or oppressive inner rules and prohibitions. Indeed, we are meant to live with full inner permission to follow our natural inner guidance and our inborn pleasure instinct to seek out gratification in all of our actions and endeavors, and that such a way of living always benefits those around us and those that we love."
That last line is important, folks. Contrary to common (erroneous) beliefs, truly living a life of self-centeredness - i.e. - centered in your true self - will always benefit the people in your life energetically as well. That's the harmony of the way higher consciousness works. The belief in competitiveness and scarcity is exactly that - a belief, an idea, perhaps an experiment or game that we have been playing that we are now beginning in earnest to outgrow.
Hey, we've had some great wars, haven't we? Some spectacular thefts, scandalous cheating, innovative brutality, really taken it to the edge, right? It was stimulating for sure, but if you're ready for the next level of excitement - peace, harmony, bliss, expansive creativity without competition, deep love, Eros and sex, vibrant health and abundance... then keep in mind what Karen Horney's "prime moral privilege" is - to work on yourself - and have a blast!
Even psychology-minded critics of religion like Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, believed that human beings were "bad" by nature, that is born with inclinations to be aggressive, competitive and selfish, and that these tendencies would plague us all of our lives. In his book, "Civilization and its Discontents," Freud lays out what he believed to be the unavoidable conflict between our primitive desires and impulses, and the need to behave in a socially conscious and cooperative way for the good of society, a conflict which ultimately leaves us... well... discontented.
The truth is, however, that the Church and Freud are wrong. There I said it. Blasphemy, eh? Okay, so let me qualify a little...
It is true that human children are basically savages for the first 5 years of their little lives. By civilized standards, little kids are greedy, sadistic, violent, narcissistic, impulse ridden, ruthless, and pretty much incapable of true empathy. It isn't until around age 6 or 7, when most children start desiring to have a pet to care for, that kids begin developing some small amount of empathy. However, because little children are... well... little, they can't do a great deal of harm to society, so they are given a fair amount of leeway by adults going about the business of socializing and civilizing the little Neanderthals.
Furthermore, it is certainly true that adult human beings as a whole have a history of violence and destructive acting out on a massive scale. No other species so wantonly attacks and kills their own like we do. And we don't just kill when we feel our survival is threatened. We kill out of pride, lust, envy, over differences in philosophies, spiritual beliefs, sexual orientation and skin color. Whew!
So, didn't I just validate the Church and Freud? Human beings from the get-go seem to be pretty... bad! Yes. But... no. You see, we've have made things a lot worse by believing in our own badness, by even developing such a concept.
Linear human evolution, as we think of it, began at a very animalistic level, yes, where violence, as such, was for survival purposes as it is with most animals in nature in this particular line of reality. However, homo sapiens became capable of developing intellects and egos, which allowed us to reflect on our behavior, a potentially positive things, but along with the capacity for reflection came capacities for judgment, shame and guilt (specialties of the Church, btw), and along with judgment, shame and guilt came emotional and psychological disturbances and distortions, which caused our personal and social evolution to become somewhat derailed.
Here's famed psychoanalyst, Karen Horney:
"Inherent in man are evolutionary constructive forces, which urge him to realize his given potentialities, that man by his very nature and of his own accord, strives toward self-realization, and that his values evolve from such striving. With such a belief in an autonomous striving toward self-realization, we do not need an inner straight jacket with which to shackle our spontaneity, nor the whip of inner dictates to drive us to perfection. There is no doubt that such disciplinary methods can succeed in suppressing undesirable factors, but there is also no doubt that they are injurious to our growth. We do not need them because we see a better possibility of dealing with destructive forces in ourselves: that of actually outgrowing them. The way toward this goal is an ever increasing awareness and understanding of ourselves. Self-knowledge, then, is not an aim in itself, but a means of liberating the forces of spontaneous growth. In this sense, to work at ourselves becomes not only the prime moral obligation, but at the same time, in a very real sense, the prime moral privilege."
If you're a reader of the FPL blog, you probably seen that quote before because it's one of my favorites. What Horney is saying here is that if the "whip of inner dictates" - i.e. - judgment, shame and guilt - were not in play in our psyches, we would naturally outgrow our primitive impulses. Again, it is our belief in our own badness that causes us to act badly. In other words, our actual original sin is believing in original sin.
Here's a quote from the home page of Full Permission Living:
"Full Permission Living is the based on the understanding that human beings are, by first nature, sane, loving, cooperative, creative, humorous, intelligent, productive and naturally self-regulating. Full Permission Living rests on the foundation of truth that all people are entitled to live pleasure-filled, spontaneous, lives without guilt, shame or oppressive inner rules and prohibitions. Indeed, we are meant to live with full inner permission to follow our natural inner guidance and our inborn pleasure instinct to seek out gratification in all of our actions and endeavors, and that such a way of living always benefits those around us and those that we love."
That last line is important, folks. Contrary to common (erroneous) beliefs, truly living a life of self-centeredness - i.e. - centered in your true self - will always benefit the people in your life energetically as well. That's the harmony of the way higher consciousness works. The belief in competitiveness and scarcity is exactly that - a belief, an idea, perhaps an experiment or game that we have been playing that we are now beginning in earnest to outgrow.
Hey, we've had some great wars, haven't we? Some spectacular thefts, scandalous cheating, innovative brutality, really taken it to the edge, right? It was stimulating for sure, but if you're ready for the next level of excitement - peace, harmony, bliss, expansive creativity without competition, deep love, Eros and sex, vibrant health and abundance... then keep in mind what Karen Horney's "prime moral privilege" is - to work on yourself - and have a blast!
NEED TO LIGHT A FIRE UNDER YOURSELF?!
Stalling in your growth process? Holding onto grudges? Still indulging in victimhood?
WATCH THIS!
WATCH THIS!
TODAY'S "BOOK OF TRUTH" QUOTES!
"There often comes a moment, in the heat of your desperation, when you call a “time-out.” And you withdraw from the cyclone of illusion that swirls around you. And you find, after all that drama, that the stillness within is still there waiting. It never left. You did. And you scattered a mind-boggling trail of chaos behind you. So that, when all else fails—as it inevitably does—you would find your way home."
"You will continue to manifest life circumstances that will put your understandings to the test, long after you have mastered them in theory. For, until these issues are ingrained as knowingness to the extent that they become your reflex responses, you will continue to manifest opportunities to strengthen those new patterns of reaction. By being fully conscious of what you are doing in those moments when you feel those old familiar buttons being pushed, you can begin to dissipate the vibrational charge that is drawing those kinds of circumstances to you."
"For, when life is working for you, it cannot be to the detriment of another being. That’s not how it works. Choices that give the illusion of putting your back against the wall are the very tests that hold the potential of monumental breakthroughs for all concerned. When you honor your own truth, unconditionally, it sets the stage for a chain reaction of transformation, all the way around."
"You will continue to manifest life circumstances that will put your understandings to the test, long after you have mastered them in theory. For, until these issues are ingrained as knowingness to the extent that they become your reflex responses, you will continue to manifest opportunities to strengthen those new patterns of reaction. By being fully conscious of what you are doing in those moments when you feel those old familiar buttons being pushed, you can begin to dissipate the vibrational charge that is drawing those kinds of circumstances to you."
"For, when life is working for you, it cannot be to the detriment of another being. That’s not how it works. Choices that give the illusion of putting your back against the wall are the very tests that hold the potential of monumental breakthroughs for all concerned. When you honor your own truth, unconditionally, it sets the stage for a chain reaction of transformation, all the way around."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
