This is a repost about a piece that was on the Huffington Post by Pilar Jennings, Ph.D., entitled: Ushering Wellness: The Convergence of Buddhism and Psychoanalysis, which talks about the "recent" merging of the principles of psychoanalysis and Buddhism in healing practices.
Here's Dr. Jennings:
"What has changed in recent years, and captured the attention of both Buddhist teachers and psychoanalysts, is the fascinating relationship between these divergent traditions. Today, there are growing numbers of people looking for therapists who respect their need for meditation and spiritual support."
Don't get me wrong. This is great to see being written about, but there are those of us who've been using the techniques and understandings of the sciences of the mind, body and spirit for many decades now. To her credit, Jennings does mention two of my favorite psychoanalytic theorists who embraced metaphysical principles in their writings in the last century:
"The interest in how Buddha Shakyamuni's approach to wellness might converge with Freud's began more than 60 years ago. In the 1950s, psychoanalysts including Karen Horney and Eric Fromm wrote about their growing interest in Zen Buddhism, and its more hopeful vision for how people might come to genuinely enjoy their lives, despite the pain of loss and the power of desire. In the intervening years, many more therapists and Buddhist teachers joined in this conversation, exploring the tools of each path, and seeking creative ways to bring them together."
Here's a quote by Karen Horney from a blog post of mine, a quote in which she is espousing the same understanding as Full Permission Living:
"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."
Karen Horney finishes the passage with this great statement, which I leave you with as we delve into the final week of the decade, a reminder of what it really means to be "working" on yourself:
"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."
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query karen horney. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query karen horney. Sort by date Show all posts
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!
TODAY'S BONUS QUOTE
"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."
Karen Horney (famous psychoanalyst)
I just love the above passage so much. It was written decades before I outlined what came to me as "Full Permission Living." The understanding that our "prime moral obligation" and "prime moral privilege" - to do the self-work necessary to become self-aware - are one and the same, couldn't be said more eloquently than in the above passage.
Thank you, Karen Horney!
Karen Horney (famous psychoanalyst)
I just love the above passage so much. It was written decades before I outlined what came to me as "Full Permission Living." The understanding that our "prime moral obligation" and "prime moral privilege" - to do the self-work necessary to become self-aware - are one and the same, couldn't be said more eloquently than in the above passage.
Thank you, Karen Horney!
IN TREATMENT
Has anyone been watching the new HBO series, “In Treatment?” It’s on 5 nights a week for a half hour as it follows the scenarios between three individual patients and one married couple with their therapist (Gabriel Byrne) and then ends the week with the therapist having a session with his supervisor (Dianne Wiest). Two weeks into it, I have to say that so far, I’m impressed by the subtle intensity of the interactions between the characters, and by the presentation of therapists as “real” people.
It has taken the better part of a century for the western world to begin breaking down the wall between analyst and patient and start exploring in earnest the very human nature of this most powerful and unique type of bond. It is, in the final analysis (sorry, couldn't resist!) the relationship between patient and therapist that effects healing moreso than any particular intrapsychic and historical content that is discussed or examined. I have said many times to patients of mine that what we talk about in therapy is only a vehicle for what’s really happening in therapy.
It’s easier to understand this when you realize that many of our earliest (and worst) traumas hit us at an age when language with words was not our primary way of thinking or relating to the world. In other words, most of our character defenses and dysfunctional adaptations were created during a pre-verbal time, and therefore held mostly in our bodies, and in our feelings and emotions. That is why therapy had to evolve from the highly intellectual (and removed) process of psychoanalysis to more humanistic approaches in which the humanity of the patient and the therapist are understood to be part of the healing equation. Karen Horney, a famous psychoanalyst well ahead of her time over sixty years ago, once referred to the need for therapists to be “wholehearted” in their approach to patients. “In order to approach the ideal of wholeheartedness, we [analysts] must be able to surrender to the work, letting all of our faculties operate while nearly forgetting about ourselves. This is like surrendering ourselves to music or a work of art.” (I would add love to that list.)
Horney continued: “As our knowledge and experience become an integral part of ourselves, we are barely conscious of all that we are while at the same time being all that we are. We can extend the boundaries of ourselves and be more open to the being of others.”
In all relationships, there is an energetic attraction and connection that has brought two people together for a particular purpose, to mutually experience something. That purpose may be accomplished through different forms: parent-child, teacher-student, employer-employee, doctor-patient, colleagues, teammates, friends, lovers, etc. Each of those relationships are as real and valid for growth and learning what it is to be human as any other, even though the exchanges of energy in each may vary greatly.
In the therapeutic relationship, the format is that the therapist and the patient are both focused overtly on the inner life of the patient, with the therapist providing guidance and reflection and a nonjudgmental, accepting environment in which the patient may delve into those inner areas that are unconscious or too painful or frightening to experience alone. (I say “overtly” because the therapist in this situation must simultaneously be focused internally on his or her own feelings and thoughts, while outwardly helping the patient focus on their thoughts and feelings.)
The therapeutic relationship, again, is a real relationship. As in all relationships, feelings are stirred up in each participant according to the dynamics of the interaction and the internal dynamics of each person. As in all relationships in which the two people are not fully actualized, there are degrees of transferences made by each person, relating to the other in a way that is not in accordance with present reality. Ideally, in this relationship, the therapist is aware of his or her tendencies to make transferences to a degree that the patient is not at first.
As in all relationships, the deepest healing occurs when there is trust between the two participants, surrender to the nature of the relationship, and finally, when there is genuine love being exchanged between each person. In her book, “The Intimate Hour,” psychologist Susan Baur courageously posed the question of whether there can ever be a successful psychotherapy without love between therapist and client. The HBO show's characters pointedly debate this subject, and I would add my voice to the discussion by saying that love has to be distinguished from "erotic transference," which frequently occurs in therapy, and is more about the unmet sensual needs for affection from childhood than about real adult attraction. And yes, it is necessary for the therapist to maintain a certain level of anonymity in the therapeutic relationship about the details of his or her personal life so that the patient is not distracted from the purpose of self-reflection, but that does not mean that the therapist isn’t a real person to the patient or that the therapist isn’t really “there” as himself. What the therapist may share about himself personally must always be done with the therapeutic purpose in consideration. (i.e. - for teaching purposes, for challenging idealizations, for bridging a communication gap due to a fear of intimacy, etc.) At the right moment, sharing a personal experience or feeling with a patient can have a deeply healing effect.
So, back to our show, “In Treatment,” I feel that the creators, cast and crew are doing a good job of bringing us inside the once mysterious intimate hour, and I highly recommend it.
PL
It has taken the better part of a century for the western world to begin breaking down the wall between analyst and patient and start exploring in earnest the very human nature of this most powerful and unique type of bond. It is, in the final analysis (sorry, couldn't resist!) the relationship between patient and therapist that effects healing moreso than any particular intrapsychic and historical content that is discussed or examined. I have said many times to patients of mine that what we talk about in therapy is only a vehicle for what’s really happening in therapy.
It’s easier to understand this when you realize that many of our earliest (and worst) traumas hit us at an age when language with words was not our primary way of thinking or relating to the world. In other words, most of our character defenses and dysfunctional adaptations were created during a pre-verbal time, and therefore held mostly in our bodies, and in our feelings and emotions. That is why therapy had to evolve from the highly intellectual (and removed) process of psychoanalysis to more humanistic approaches in which the humanity of the patient and the therapist are understood to be part of the healing equation. Karen Horney, a famous psychoanalyst well ahead of her time over sixty years ago, once referred to the need for therapists to be “wholehearted” in their approach to patients. “In order to approach the ideal of wholeheartedness, we [analysts] must be able to surrender to the work, letting all of our faculties operate while nearly forgetting about ourselves. This is like surrendering ourselves to music or a work of art.” (I would add love to that list.)
Horney continued: “As our knowledge and experience become an integral part of ourselves, we are barely conscious of all that we are while at the same time being all that we are. We can extend the boundaries of ourselves and be more open to the being of others.”
In all relationships, there is an energetic attraction and connection that has brought two people together for a particular purpose, to mutually experience something. That purpose may be accomplished through different forms: parent-child, teacher-student, employer-employee, doctor-patient, colleagues, teammates, friends, lovers, etc. Each of those relationships are as real and valid for growth and learning what it is to be human as any other, even though the exchanges of energy in each may vary greatly.
In the therapeutic relationship, the format is that the therapist and the patient are both focused overtly on the inner life of the patient, with the therapist providing guidance and reflection and a nonjudgmental, accepting environment in which the patient may delve into those inner areas that are unconscious or too painful or frightening to experience alone. (I say “overtly” because the therapist in this situation must simultaneously be focused internally on his or her own feelings and thoughts, while outwardly helping the patient focus on their thoughts and feelings.)
The therapeutic relationship, again, is a real relationship. As in all relationships, feelings are stirred up in each participant according to the dynamics of the interaction and the internal dynamics of each person. As in all relationships in which the two people are not fully actualized, there are degrees of transferences made by each person, relating to the other in a way that is not in accordance with present reality. Ideally, in this relationship, the therapist is aware of his or her tendencies to make transferences to a degree that the patient is not at first.
As in all relationships, the deepest healing occurs when there is trust between the two participants, surrender to the nature of the relationship, and finally, when there is genuine love being exchanged between each person. In her book, “The Intimate Hour,” psychologist Susan Baur courageously posed the question of whether there can ever be a successful psychotherapy without love between therapist and client. The HBO show's characters pointedly debate this subject, and I would add my voice to the discussion by saying that love has to be distinguished from "erotic transference," which frequently occurs in therapy, and is more about the unmet sensual needs for affection from childhood than about real adult attraction. And yes, it is necessary for the therapist to maintain a certain level of anonymity in the therapeutic relationship about the details of his or her personal life so that the patient is not distracted from the purpose of self-reflection, but that does not mean that the therapist isn’t a real person to the patient or that the therapist isn’t really “there” as himself. What the therapist may share about himself personally must always be done with the therapeutic purpose in consideration. (i.e. - for teaching purposes, for challenging idealizations, for bridging a communication gap due to a fear of intimacy, etc.) At the right moment, sharing a personal experience or feeling with a patient can have a deeply healing effect.
So, back to our show, “In Treatment,” I feel that the creators, cast and crew are doing a good job of bringing us inside the once mysterious intimate hour, and I highly recommend it.
PL
Really?
This was written by the founders of our country 232 years ago:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."
This was written by Karen Horney, famed psychoanalyst from the mid-20th Century, on what she called the "morality of evolution:"
"Inherent in human beings are constructive evolutionary forces, which, of their own accord, strive toward self-realization and a spirit of mutuality with others as we naturally mature. With such 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. 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 on ourselves becomes not only the prime moral obligation, but at the same time, in a very real sense, the prime moral privilege."
Really?
Governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed?
Working on ourselves is our prime moral obligation?
Really?
Is that what Mencken, the reknowned journalist of the 1st half of the 20th Century, implied with today's quote - ""Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under" - that to the degree that we allow the dictates of others or others' rules, inner or outer, to control how we behave, what we believe, how we think even, we should be ashamed? That furthermore, to the degree that we submit blindly to the moral authority of others, we are being less than who we truly are?
This was written by me several years ago in defining Full Permission Living for my students:
"In my years of psychotherapy practice, I have discovered along with my patients that within ourselves there is no inborn negativity, no inherent, unbridled destructive impulses that must be forever controlled, no "original sin", no evil nature or permanent dark side. Rather, it is one’s belief in such a personal "badness" and an identification with it that causes people to act in dysfunctional ways that then seem to reinforce the false notion of “being bad.” These distorted ideas lead so many people to feel that they are not deserving of a life filled with love, sensuality, creative expression and material abundance. Many have erroneously concluded, and been told, that if they allowed themselves to do in every given moment what they truly felt like doing, they would inevitably act destructively - with selfishness, malice, excess or recklessness. In reality, it is that very conclusion, in self-fulfilling prophecy, that becomes the source of undesirable behavior. These negative ideas exist in the subconscious and are reinforced by many voices in our cultural environment. We are regularly told, directly and subtly, that we are somehow corrupt from birth and in need of inner and outer suppression. These messages, though popularly subscribed to, are insidious and wrong.
"Indeed, if one frees up and releases long-suppressed, and therefore toxic, feelings held in the body, and uncovers and challenges one’s archaic inner beliefs and images, the individual can be liberated from the self-negating, self-hypnotic suggestions repeated constantly in our minds since childhood. People can, in reality, become truly open systems and as such become able to trust their intuition, gut feelings, and desires without fear and without constant self doubt.
"What is required to achieve this level of openness is an other matter. For the person seeking to live with full inner permission, it will take a number of devoted years of hard work first. Nothing less than an intense period of immersion one’s healing process at all levels of the self - mind, body, emotions and spirit - will suffice to free the human spirit from the prisons we had to create to survive our childhoods and the binds of our cultural histories. This self-work must include the exploration and uncovering of the unconscious mind with all of its limiting and contradictory beliefs, the loosening-up and expressing of suppressed feelings, the unblocking of the physical body, and a relearning of what natural human development is and what its distortions are. It is not easy. But it can and has been done. Individuals can become able to trust what they know and feel and to follow their desires fearlessly. The realization that comes once we are conscious and unblocked is that we are not inherently defective or destructive, but actually made with an inner guidance system that we can indeed rely upon
"The main idea underlying full permission living was expressed quite well actually a long time ago in our fledgling country, though perhaps the message is still not fully understood yet. It is the “self-evident” truth that “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are indeed our “inalienable rights” by birth, as the founders of our country realized in writing about the nature of freedom and natural living over two centuries ago. That all human beings have the potential to become “healthy, wealthy and wise”, as Benjamin Franklin proclaimed, is also a major tenant of full permission living, though as we will see, it does require a little more than “early to bed and early to rise!” We must free ourselves of our accumulated oppressive beliefs, individually and en masse, and the suppression of emotions that have caused us to lead lives of "quiet desperation" or destructive acting out.
"Now, as we begin this new century and millennium, we may be able to realize the dream of personal independence that those great revolutionaries spoke so eloquently about in 1776. Perhaps today, we stand at the threshold of a new era in which humanity can realize itself as well to be a beautiful, magnificently designed self-created expression of all that is, engaged in full permission living as part of the great 'I Am' of the universe."
Really!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."
This was written by Karen Horney, famed psychoanalyst from the mid-20th Century, on what she called the "morality of evolution:"
"Inherent in human beings are constructive evolutionary forces, which, of their own accord, strive toward self-realization and a spirit of mutuality with others as we naturally mature. With such 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. 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 on ourselves becomes not only the prime moral obligation, but at the same time, in a very real sense, the prime moral privilege."
Really?
Governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed?
Working on ourselves is our prime moral obligation?
Really?
Is that what Mencken, the reknowned journalist of the 1st half of the 20th Century, implied with today's quote - ""Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under" - that to the degree that we allow the dictates of others or others' rules, inner or outer, to control how we behave, what we believe, how we think even, we should be ashamed? That furthermore, to the degree that we submit blindly to the moral authority of others, we are being less than who we truly are?
This was written by me several years ago in defining Full Permission Living for my students:
"In my years of psychotherapy practice, I have discovered along with my patients that within ourselves there is no inborn negativity, no inherent, unbridled destructive impulses that must be forever controlled, no "original sin", no evil nature or permanent dark side. Rather, it is one’s belief in such a personal "badness" and an identification with it that causes people to act in dysfunctional ways that then seem to reinforce the false notion of “being bad.” These distorted ideas lead so many people to feel that they are not deserving of a life filled with love, sensuality, creative expression and material abundance. Many have erroneously concluded, and been told, that if they allowed themselves to do in every given moment what they truly felt like doing, they would inevitably act destructively - with selfishness, malice, excess or recklessness. In reality, it is that very conclusion, in self-fulfilling prophecy, that becomes the source of undesirable behavior. These negative ideas exist in the subconscious and are reinforced by many voices in our cultural environment. We are regularly told, directly and subtly, that we are somehow corrupt from birth and in need of inner and outer suppression. These messages, though popularly subscribed to, are insidious and wrong.
"Indeed, if one frees up and releases long-suppressed, and therefore toxic, feelings held in the body, and uncovers and challenges one’s archaic inner beliefs and images, the individual can be liberated from the self-negating, self-hypnotic suggestions repeated constantly in our minds since childhood. People can, in reality, become truly open systems and as such become able to trust their intuition, gut feelings, and desires without fear and without constant self doubt.
"What is required to achieve this level of openness is an other matter. For the person seeking to live with full inner permission, it will take a number of devoted years of hard work first. Nothing less than an intense period of immersion one’s healing process at all levels of the self - mind, body, emotions and spirit - will suffice to free the human spirit from the prisons we had to create to survive our childhoods and the binds of our cultural histories. This self-work must include the exploration and uncovering of the unconscious mind with all of its limiting and contradictory beliefs, the loosening-up and expressing of suppressed feelings, the unblocking of the physical body, and a relearning of what natural human development is and what its distortions are. It is not easy. But it can and has been done. Individuals can become able to trust what they know and feel and to follow their desires fearlessly. The realization that comes once we are conscious and unblocked is that we are not inherently defective or destructive, but actually made with an inner guidance system that we can indeed rely upon
"The main idea underlying full permission living was expressed quite well actually a long time ago in our fledgling country, though perhaps the message is still not fully understood yet. It is the “self-evident” truth that “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are indeed our “inalienable rights” by birth, as the founders of our country realized in writing about the nature of freedom and natural living over two centuries ago. That all human beings have the potential to become “healthy, wealthy and wise”, as Benjamin Franklin proclaimed, is also a major tenant of full permission living, though as we will see, it does require a little more than “early to bed and early to rise!” We must free ourselves of our accumulated oppressive beliefs, individually and en masse, and the suppression of emotions that have caused us to lead lives of "quiet desperation" or destructive acting out.
"Now, as we begin this new century and millennium, we may be able to realize the dream of personal independence that those great revolutionaries spoke so eloquently about in 1776. Perhaps today, we stand at the threshold of a new era in which humanity can realize itself as well to be a beautiful, magnificently designed self-created expression of all that is, engaged in full permission living as part of the great 'I Am' of the universe."
Really!
TODAY'S QUOTE
"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."
Karen Horney (psychoanalyst)
Karen Horney (psychoanalyst)
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH YOU!
Here's something I've said often to patients in my therapy practice:
"There's nothing wrong with you, except for the fact that you think there's something wrong with you."
Put another way, I've distinguished psychotic people from neurotic people like this:
"A psychotic person is crazy. A neurotic person thinks he is." (See the definition of "crazy" below.*)
Okay, what's my point here?
Well, many people who are sincerely engaged in a process of "self-work" have adopted an attitude and approach to it that basically amounts to trying to fix themselves. (Two pieces on the origins of this attitude this can be found in the FPL "Truth About Everything, Part Two: ALL LOVE IS UNCONDITIONAL" and in the Pathwork Guide Lecture: "COMPULSION TO RECREATE AND OVERCOME CHILDHOOD HURTS.") But there is a basic assumption in that approach to the self that is misguided.
You see, we don't need to fix ourselves, but rather, we need to become ourselves more fully. Even more accurately, we need to uncover ourselves. Like a caterpillar, our defensive character structures are the temporary cocoons within which we transform into adult, self-actualized versions of ourselves, like butterflies. Important to remember, though, is that we are not our cocoons, or our character structures. We are, instead, inside of them for a while, until it is the right time to dismantle them, and fly. That dismantling is a more apt way of describing an organic process of self-work that is aligned with our evolution.
This is one of my favorite quotes from famed psychoanalyst, Karen Horney, on what she calls the "tyranny of the 'shoulds":
"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's nothing wrong with you, except for the fact that you think there's something wrong with you."
Put another way, I've distinguished psychotic people from neurotic people like this:
"A psychotic person is crazy. A neurotic person thinks he is." (See the definition of "crazy" below.*)
Okay, what's my point here?
Well, many people who are sincerely engaged in a process of "self-work" have adopted an attitude and approach to it that basically amounts to trying to fix themselves. (Two pieces on the origins of this attitude this can be found in the FPL "Truth About Everything, Part Two: ALL LOVE IS UNCONDITIONAL" and in the Pathwork Guide Lecture: "COMPULSION TO RECREATE AND OVERCOME CHILDHOOD HURTS.") But there is a basic assumption in that approach to the self that is misguided.
You see, we don't need to fix ourselves, but rather, we need to become ourselves more fully. Even more accurately, we need to uncover ourselves. Like a caterpillar, our defensive character structures are the temporary cocoons within which we transform into adult, self-actualized versions of ourselves, like butterflies. Important to remember, though, is that we are not our cocoons, or our character structures. We are, instead, inside of them for a while, until it is the right time to dismantle them, and fly. That dismantling is a more apt way of describing an organic process of self-work that is aligned with our evolution.
This is one of my favorite quotes from famed psychoanalyst, Karen Horney, on what she calls the "tyranny of the 'shoulds":
"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."
[See also FPL's "THE TRUTH ABOUT EVERYTHING, PART SEVEN: THERE IS NO ORIGINAL SIN!" and the description of "Full Permission Living" on the left hand side of this blog]
Hey!
Hey!
There is nothing wrong with you!
Get it?
For many reasons, stemming from past experiences of pain and suffering, and because we have egos that can question the validity of who we inherently are, we have come to believe in our "character defects" and "symptoms," to identify with them even, and to believe in the judgments we impose on ourselves to support those negative beliefs.
So, folks, stop trying to fix yourselves, and open up to being yourselves.
And listen to THIS!
*On being psychotic - continuing the caterpillar analogy, a psychotic person can be thought of as someone who has not grounded themselves in physical reality - i.e. - in the space/time continuum - enough to function here. Consequently, that person imagines themselves to already be the butterfly before the actual process of evolution has occurred, so they are out of synch with time and space, and therefore, to those of us who are grounded and living in the illusion of physical reality, they appear crazy.
Hmm...
Hmm...
TODAY'S QUOTE!
"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."
Karen Horney
Karen Horney
TODAY'S QUOTE!
"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."
(Karen Horney)
(Karen Horney)
TODAY'S "TYRANNY OF THE 'SHOULDS" QUOTE!
"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."
(Karen Horney)
(Karen Horney)
Who are you? I am...
Like many people, you probably begin your answer to that question with these two words: "I am…"
Before you read on any further, write down on a piece of paper your own way of completing that sentence.
What followed next? Was it your name? Depending on your level of vanity, maybe your age came next? Then your profession or marital status?
After that, how else would you fill in the blank: "I am ___?"
This is the first question I ask my students when discussing the subject of the "self".
Who are you?
Some people answer with a role that they play in their lives - "I am…a mother, a father, a teacher, a student, a banker, an actor."
Some fill in the blank with a gender-based identification - "I am…a woman, a man, a boy, a girl."
Others use a description of their current preferences or attitudes in some area - "I am…a person who really values hard work." Or "I am a person who has to strive for perfection." "I am a person who doesn’t like change or surprises." "I am a person who needs to be needed."
Do you fill in the blank with a projection into the future? "I am…never going to finish my dissertation." Or "I am never going to be rich." Or even "I am always going to be in love with you."
Do these fill-ins really adequately define the self, the "I" we are referring to when we begin the statement, "I am?" Is it really a sufficient depiction of our-selves to use such narrow and limited images? And can we honestly project those images of ourselves into the future and fulfill their promises with certainty? Closer examination of the human psyche shows that while most people cling to static pictures of themselves for apparent security and identity, there is always a lurking feeling underneath it all that we are something more, something vast and perhaps somewhat vague.
I have often witnessed in my therapy work with people over the years that as one begins unblocking emotionally, and, therefore, as one is more in touch with the intuitive, feeling and energetic levels of being and living more spontaneously in the present moment, it becomes harder to define oneself in any of the aforementioned ways. At a certain point in their healing journey, when frozen or compacted deep feelings start freeing up and old belief systems get challenged, people start saying things like this:
"I don’t know who I am anymore", or "I don’t feel connected to my lifelong dreams and ambitions anymore", or "I don’t know exactly where I’m heading." "But somehow", they usually continue, "that doesn’t feel so bad. Somehow, I actually feel better, more like…myself." At such a time, a person is more likely to fill in the blank "I am…" with a more immediate emotional or physical feeling, such as, "I am…sad." Or "I am…happy." "I am angry." "I am hungry." "I am tired." "I am hot!" (Sometimes referring to their level of sexual arousal, rather than the ambient temperature!) Etcetera. This is much more in the moment, visceral perhaps, at times, and definitely transient, fluid, often changing from one instant to the next. Yet, the sense one has when expressing from that place is closer to being more oneself.
What happens even further down the self-discovery line? If we extrapolate from here, from "I am…a static role definition" to "I am…a transient feeling in the moment", where would we ultimately end up? Perhaps in that enigmatic place that "God" claimed to be in, according to the Bible, when Moses asked: "Who should I say that you are?" God’s purported answer: "I Am…That I Am." What does that mean?! Beyond definition, roles, even feelings, yet including all of the above, "I am" is simply, but profoundly, the ultimate state of undefined beingness, beyond time even, including all experience at once, past, present and future, all lifetimes of a soul existing simultaneously. As Jane Roberts describes it: "The soul stands at the center of itself, exploring, extending its capacities in all directions at once, involved in issues of creativity, each one legitimate."
Perhaps this is the "place" where we are all "heading" in our personal evolutions, to become conscious of the totality of who we are, which is existence itself. "I am that I am!" (Of course, Popeye tried to say it in his own way, too: "I am what I am and that’s all that I am." Pretty enlightened, that sailorman!)
The implications of contemplating the self in this way are indeed profound. If we ultimately are ourselves, and who we are is just beingness itself, beyond any roles, including, but more than mental, physical or emotional states, beyond definition, then we must also be beyond judgement. Nothing that we do can truly be "bad" or "wrong" inherently, but rather just part of our beingness experienced in the moment. What this kind of understanding means for constructs like morality and deviance, and for someone practicing psychotherapy, helping others sort out a variety of supposed "dysfunctions", is momentous. Some writers in the psychotherapeutic fields, from Karen Horney, fifty years ago, to James Hillman, Thomas Moore and Peter Breggin today, have eloquently written about the injurious effects of judgmental labels placed on "patients" seeking guidance from a therapist, and how the processes of healing, growth and development could be enhanced with a non-judgmental view of so-called "psychopathology".
I often think of a person’s "symptoms" as the particular mechanisms through which an individual’s soul gradually unfolds into a given lifetime, the pacing, so to speak, of the soul entering the body. It is said that a human being could not look upon the face of God or directly hear the voice of God without being annihilated. Perhaps what that means is that the full force of someone’s soul cannot be expressed right from birth when our new bodies and minds are so frail and undeveloped. Maybe, in the same way that a caterpillar creates a cocoon in order to make the transition to a butterfly, human beings create their own "cocoons" in childhood that we in the psychotherapy profession call defenses, personality disorders or character structures. Though they once may have served the purpose of helping us survive our childhood wounds, they become painful and dysfunctional when we have outgrown them. Maybe, then, the various therapy processes are the ways in which we seek help getting out of our cocoons. In any case, what can be judged about all of this as "good" or "bad?" Imagine a butterfly engaging in harsh, self-condemnation or criticism for finding itself in a cocoon that it must now remove in order to grow and live. Ridiculous, right? So, accept your temporary existence in your cocoon on the way to becoming your actualized self, even as you make strides with all due effort to dismantle it.
And remember these favorite words of mine in approaching your life and cocoon-removing self-work during the upcoming holidays from the familiar inspirational prose-poem Desiderata:
"Go placidly amid the noise and the haste,
and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible, without surrender,
be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
and listen to others,
even to the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons;
they are vexatious to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain or bitter,
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.
Keep interested in your own career, however humble;
it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs,
for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is;
many persons strive for high ideals,
and everywhere life is full of heroism.
Be yourself. Especially do not feign affection.
Neither be cynical about love,
for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment,
it is as perennial as the grass.
Take kindly the counsel of the years,
gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.
Beyond a wholesome discipline,
be gentle with yourself.
You are a child of the universe
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore be at peace with God,
whatever you conceive Him to be.
And whatever your labors and aspirations,
in the noisy confusion of life,
keep peace in your soul.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful. Strive to be happy."
Before you read on any further, write down on a piece of paper your own way of completing that sentence.
What followed next? Was it your name? Depending on your level of vanity, maybe your age came next? Then your profession or marital status?
After that, how else would you fill in the blank: "I am ___?"
This is the first question I ask my students when discussing the subject of the "self".
Who are you?
Some people answer with a role that they play in their lives - "I am…a mother, a father, a teacher, a student, a banker, an actor."
Some fill in the blank with a gender-based identification - "I am…a woman, a man, a boy, a girl."
Others use a description of their current preferences or attitudes in some area - "I am…a person who really values hard work." Or "I am a person who has to strive for perfection." "I am a person who doesn’t like change or surprises." "I am a person who needs to be needed."
Do you fill in the blank with a projection into the future? "I am…never going to finish my dissertation." Or "I am never going to be rich." Or even "I am always going to be in love with you."
Do these fill-ins really adequately define the self, the "I" we are referring to when we begin the statement, "I am?" Is it really a sufficient depiction of our-selves to use such narrow and limited images? And can we honestly project those images of ourselves into the future and fulfill their promises with certainty? Closer examination of the human psyche shows that while most people cling to static pictures of themselves for apparent security and identity, there is always a lurking feeling underneath it all that we are something more, something vast and perhaps somewhat vague.
I have often witnessed in my therapy work with people over the years that as one begins unblocking emotionally, and, therefore, as one is more in touch with the intuitive, feeling and energetic levels of being and living more spontaneously in the present moment, it becomes harder to define oneself in any of the aforementioned ways. At a certain point in their healing journey, when frozen or compacted deep feelings start freeing up and old belief systems get challenged, people start saying things like this:
"I don’t know who I am anymore", or "I don’t feel connected to my lifelong dreams and ambitions anymore", or "I don’t know exactly where I’m heading." "But somehow", they usually continue, "that doesn’t feel so bad. Somehow, I actually feel better, more like…myself." At such a time, a person is more likely to fill in the blank "I am…" with a more immediate emotional or physical feeling, such as, "I am…sad." Or "I am…happy." "I am angry." "I am hungry." "I am tired." "I am hot!" (Sometimes referring to their level of sexual arousal, rather than the ambient temperature!) Etcetera. This is much more in the moment, visceral perhaps, at times, and definitely transient, fluid, often changing from one instant to the next. Yet, the sense one has when expressing from that place is closer to being more oneself.
What happens even further down the self-discovery line? If we extrapolate from here, from "I am…a static role definition" to "I am…a transient feeling in the moment", where would we ultimately end up? Perhaps in that enigmatic place that "God" claimed to be in, according to the Bible, when Moses asked: "Who should I say that you are?" God’s purported answer: "I Am…That I Am." What does that mean?! Beyond definition, roles, even feelings, yet including all of the above, "I am" is simply, but profoundly, the ultimate state of undefined beingness, beyond time even, including all experience at once, past, present and future, all lifetimes of a soul existing simultaneously. As Jane Roberts describes it: "The soul stands at the center of itself, exploring, extending its capacities in all directions at once, involved in issues of creativity, each one legitimate."
Perhaps this is the "place" where we are all "heading" in our personal evolutions, to become conscious of the totality of who we are, which is existence itself. "I am that I am!" (Of course, Popeye tried to say it in his own way, too: "I am what I am and that’s all that I am." Pretty enlightened, that sailorman!)
The implications of contemplating the self in this way are indeed profound. If we ultimately are ourselves, and who we are is just beingness itself, beyond any roles, including, but more than mental, physical or emotional states, beyond definition, then we must also be beyond judgement. Nothing that we do can truly be "bad" or "wrong" inherently, but rather just part of our beingness experienced in the moment. What this kind of understanding means for constructs like morality and deviance, and for someone practicing psychotherapy, helping others sort out a variety of supposed "dysfunctions", is momentous. Some writers in the psychotherapeutic fields, from Karen Horney, fifty years ago, to James Hillman, Thomas Moore and Peter Breggin today, have eloquently written about the injurious effects of judgmental labels placed on "patients" seeking guidance from a therapist, and how the processes of healing, growth and development could be enhanced with a non-judgmental view of so-called "psychopathology".
I often think of a person’s "symptoms" as the particular mechanisms through which an individual’s soul gradually unfolds into a given lifetime, the pacing, so to speak, of the soul entering the body. It is said that a human being could not look upon the face of God or directly hear the voice of God without being annihilated. Perhaps what that means is that the full force of someone’s soul cannot be expressed right from birth when our new bodies and minds are so frail and undeveloped. Maybe, in the same way that a caterpillar creates a cocoon in order to make the transition to a butterfly, human beings create their own "cocoons" in childhood that we in the psychotherapy profession call defenses, personality disorders or character structures. Though they once may have served the purpose of helping us survive our childhood wounds, they become painful and dysfunctional when we have outgrown them. Maybe, then, the various therapy processes are the ways in which we seek help getting out of our cocoons. In any case, what can be judged about all of this as "good" or "bad?" Imagine a butterfly engaging in harsh, self-condemnation or criticism for finding itself in a cocoon that it must now remove in order to grow and live. Ridiculous, right? So, accept your temporary existence in your cocoon on the way to becoming your actualized self, even as you make strides with all due effort to dismantle it.
And remember these favorite words of mine in approaching your life and cocoon-removing self-work during the upcoming holidays from the familiar inspirational prose-poem Desiderata:
"Go placidly amid the noise and the haste,
and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible, without surrender,
be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
and listen to others,
even to the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons;
they are vexatious to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain or bitter,
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.
Keep interested in your own career, however humble;
it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs,
for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is;
many persons strive for high ideals,
and everywhere life is full of heroism.
Be yourself. Especially do not feign affection.
Neither be cynical about love,
for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment,
it is as perennial as the grass.
Take kindly the counsel of the years,
gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.
Beyond a wholesome discipline,
be gentle with yourself.
You are a child of the universe
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore be at peace with God,
whatever you conceive Him to be.
And whatever your labors and aspirations,
in the noisy confusion of life,
keep peace in your soul.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful. Strive to be happy."
HAPPY 1-1-11! NOW GET OFF THE "GOLD" (OLD) STANDARD!!
Got some channeled information last night as part of a New Year's Eve meditation that I'd like to share with you.
The question put forward at one point was about money (Ahh, yes, money...), and how to bring more of it into one's life. The answer that came back was quite interesting.
Our evolving relationship to abundance was likened to the change-over in the early 1970's from "the gold standard," in which the value of money was tied to a specific amount of gold held by a country, to a monetary system in which the government could print money without being tethered to a quantity of precious metal. In effect, the gold standard prevented a country from printing "too much" money.
Now, while the wanton printing of money can lead to its own definite problems for a 3rd-dimensional economy, the metaphor being put forth was that we no longer need to base our levels of abundance, individually and collectively, on a fixed amount of physical material or matter, and by extrapolation, on a system of old beliefs and formulas. In other words, like coming off of the gold standard, it is time for us, now, to come off of the old standard that controls our relationship to money.
The short answer to the question of how to bring more money into our lives was given thusly: "Print more!"
Or to be more exact, create and attract more.
Ha! Sounds too easy, right? Well, that's the point. It is easy. The creation/attraction part is what we're doing all the time, in every area of our lives, whether we're conscious of it or not. Nothing happens in our lives that isn't our creation or co-creation. Shit doesn't happen, folks. Not ever.
What we do experience as hard, however, is coming off of our own personal old/gold standards - in other words, surfacing, challenging and giving up our old system of beliefs, so we can enter into life in a whole new way.
That new way has been laid out for us in many different bits of channeled information by many teachers throughout our history, including on this blog, and it comes down to to a few simple principles:
First, become conscious of what you're creating and why you're creating it. These are the first two levels of consciousness in our development after "reflex" - "awareness" and "understanding." (See my blog post "Moving through the Levels of Consciousness" for more information)
Second, become consciously connected to your emotions, and your body, which is where your feelings reside. This connections moves you beyond understanding to a place of "knowing."
Once you have become conscious and connected, knowing, the next level is "being." This place is where a lot of advanced individuals I work with today can and do get stalled in their evolutionary process. This is a place of decisive action, of exerting one's free will in a significantly conscious way.
As the entity channeling last night put it:
"2011 is about doing and being."
In other words, once you have become conscious of your inner life and able to feel your feelings freely, it is now time for action:
Time to print the money!
Instead of leading your life through a process of analyzing and excavating with your mind, this new place calls for following your desires and passion and pleasure-principle, and your five senses, letting your excitement, joy and love direct your course, while simultaneously allowing your mind and ego to return to its original intended purpose of simply observing and documenting your journey, not directing it.
The actions to be taken here are "focusing" and "letting go," which may at first blush seem mutually exclusive, but they're not. Whatever you desire - more financial abundance, greater opportunities for creative expression, deeper love, Eros and sex, more vibrancy in the health of your body - focus on it. Set your intentions to create and bring those elements into your life in whatever way works organically for you - meditating, writing, visualizing, talking to people about what you desire and intend for yourself - then, let go of the focusing until a message/direction/opportunity presents itself to you, which it always will. When it does, take the appropriate follow-up actions, and set your next set of focused intentions. And so on.
This may sound new to you, but it's actually how we operate all the time. If you desire food, for example, you feel the desire, set the intention to satisfy that desire, then go into action - walk to the store, shop, cook, etc. - until the desire is satisfied. Simple, right? Well, it's no different for anything, great or small, that you desire.
So, why would anyone get stalled so close to the "finish line?" Well, "having it all," which is what we're talking about here, being self-actualized at your highest potential, is a place of complete self-responsibility. It means we are conscious of the fact that we, totally and absolutely, create our reality, and there are no other "fall-back" positions. No parents or parental figures that can rescue us from ourselves or give us what we want in spite of our resistance, no excuses, no scenarios in which we are the victims of a cruel or unfair fate.
It is, in reality, a wonderful place to be, that place of full responsibility, or as Karen Horney put it in a recent post I put up, the place of "Prime Moral Privilege."
So, Happy New Year, everyone! Enter into this new decade knowing that you can, just like Cuba Gooding, Jr.'s character in Jerry Maguire, shout out: "SHOW ME THE MONEY!"
And then, you can print it!
The question put forward at one point was about money (Ahh, yes, money...), and how to bring more of it into one's life. The answer that came back was quite interesting.
Our evolving relationship to abundance was likened to the change-over in the early 1970's from "the gold standard," in which the value of money was tied to a specific amount of gold held by a country, to a monetary system in which the government could print money without being tethered to a quantity of precious metal. In effect, the gold standard prevented a country from printing "too much" money.
Now, while the wanton printing of money can lead to its own definite problems for a 3rd-dimensional economy, the metaphor being put forth was that we no longer need to base our levels of abundance, individually and collectively, on a fixed amount of physical material or matter, and by extrapolation, on a system of old beliefs and formulas. In other words, like coming off of the gold standard, it is time for us, now, to come off of the old standard that controls our relationship to money.
The short answer to the question of how to bring more money into our lives was given thusly: "Print more!"
Or to be more exact, create and attract more.
Ha! Sounds too easy, right? Well, that's the point. It is easy. The creation/attraction part is what we're doing all the time, in every area of our lives, whether we're conscious of it or not. Nothing happens in our lives that isn't our creation or co-creation. Shit doesn't happen, folks. Not ever.
What we do experience as hard, however, is coming off of our own personal old/gold standards - in other words, surfacing, challenging and giving up our old system of beliefs, so we can enter into life in a whole new way.
That new way has been laid out for us in many different bits of channeled information by many teachers throughout our history, including on this blog, and it comes down to to a few simple principles:
First, become conscious of what you're creating and why you're creating it. These are the first two levels of consciousness in our development after "reflex" - "awareness" and "understanding." (See my blog post "Moving through the Levels of Consciousness" for more information)
Second, become consciously connected to your emotions, and your body, which is where your feelings reside. This connections moves you beyond understanding to a place of "knowing."
Once you have become conscious and connected, knowing, the next level is "being." This place is where a lot of advanced individuals I work with today can and do get stalled in their evolutionary process. This is a place of decisive action, of exerting one's free will in a significantly conscious way.
As the entity channeling last night put it:
"2011 is about doing and being."
In other words, once you have become conscious of your inner life and able to feel your feelings freely, it is now time for action:
Time to print the money!
Instead of leading your life through a process of analyzing and excavating with your mind, this new place calls for following your desires and passion and pleasure-principle, and your five senses, letting your excitement, joy and love direct your course, while simultaneously allowing your mind and ego to return to its original intended purpose of simply observing and documenting your journey, not directing it.
The actions to be taken here are "focusing" and "letting go," which may at first blush seem mutually exclusive, but they're not. Whatever you desire - more financial abundance, greater opportunities for creative expression, deeper love, Eros and sex, more vibrancy in the health of your body - focus on it. Set your intentions to create and bring those elements into your life in whatever way works organically for you - meditating, writing, visualizing, talking to people about what you desire and intend for yourself - then, let go of the focusing until a message/direction/opportunity presents itself to you, which it always will. When it does, take the appropriate follow-up actions, and set your next set of focused intentions. And so on.
This may sound new to you, but it's actually how we operate all the time. If you desire food, for example, you feel the desire, set the intention to satisfy that desire, then go into action - walk to the store, shop, cook, etc. - until the desire is satisfied. Simple, right? Well, it's no different for anything, great or small, that you desire.
So, why would anyone get stalled so close to the "finish line?" Well, "having it all," which is what we're talking about here, being self-actualized at your highest potential, is a place of complete self-responsibility. It means we are conscious of the fact that we, totally and absolutely, create our reality, and there are no other "fall-back" positions. No parents or parental figures that can rescue us from ourselves or give us what we want in spite of our resistance, no excuses, no scenarios in which we are the victims of a cruel or unfair fate.
It is, in reality, a wonderful place to be, that place of full responsibility, or as Karen Horney put it in a recent post I put up, the place of "Prime Moral Privilege."
So, Happy New Year, everyone! Enter into this new decade knowing that you can, just like Cuba Gooding, Jr.'s character in Jerry Maguire, shout out: "SHOW ME THE MONEY!"
And then, you can print it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
