Showing posts sorted by relevance for query we're not all the same. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query we're not all the same. Sort by date Show all posts

ROUND THREE OF PL's SERIES: "WE'RE NOT AL THE SAME"

Here's my third installment of this series in which I try to use current news items of a horrific nature to make clear that while we may all be equal under the law and "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights," we are not all the same. We are not all sane, and we are not all at the same level of soul development. Not recognizing that fact is and has been the cause of many enormous difficulties in our world and in our personal lives. If we think that we're all operating with the same quantity and quality of internal resources, then we can only conclude that the insane, violent, greedy/needy perpetrators of the world's most heinous crimes are insane by choice... a conclusion which in itself is insane!

If you are a relatively sane adult, a relatively mature soul, then it is your responsibility to assert yourself in the world in a manner commensurate with your level of development, and likewise, to contain in a firm and supportive way the acting out of the younger, crazier beings on this planet. Sorry, but that is your job, personally in your own lives, and through the people you elect to represent you.

Please, let's finally get this correct, okay?

The Indian father in the first news item below isn't selling his daughter because he's poor. He's doing it because he's primitive, greedy and a low-level sociopath.

Likewise, torturing someone 6 times a day for a month isn't done - ever! - for national security purposes. It is an act of sadism performed by a demented infant soul who finds pleasure in sadistic acting out.

The father who offed his whole family, including himself? Stop! There's no economics involved here. Just insanity.

And really, folks, desperately wanting to own guns, hating people because of their race or sexual orientation or religion, religion in the first place? These aren't the positions of mature souls. They are not. And we need to stop acting like they are.

Read these and tell me what you think.

"Father of Slumdog Millionaire child star Rubina Ali plans to become a millionaire himself-by SELLING his nine-year-old daughter"

"U.S. Waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 Times in One Month"

"Father Kills Wife, 3 Kids, Before Committing Suicide"

Here are the links to my first two installments - WE'RE NOT ALL THE SAME and REPOST: "WE'RE NOT ALL THE SAME."

And finally, click on these pictures and tell me if you and these guys are playing with the same number of chips!






"RICK" & THE "RULE OF 80%"

Here's Rick:

A good friend of mine wondered if people are just hardwired a certain way and can't escape the trappings of their DNA. Nature vs nurture? Or would it be the trappings of negative experiences that give us our penchants?

If 99% of children are abused, is it surprising that so many negative and abusive (intentional and unintentional) acts are committed by loved ones + friends? Sometimes those harmful actions is what we know, what we learned. But do those acts define the whole person and the truth?

I believe in the human spirit and that people, of all walks of life, are generally good hearted. Does that mean they don’t do very hurtful things? No. Does that mean they are balanced? No. Sometimes, spouses/partners and parents, don’t have the tools in their toolbox to “properly” fulfill their role, whatever that is. They had poor role models themselves. Should we condemn them while they’re trying to figure out what tools to get or how to use them?

If love is the essence of all that is and we are all one, then we have no choice but to be forgiving and understanding of the shortcomings we all have. I try to be a good person/husband/father/brother/son/friend/teacher/coach etc. Have I hurt people? Yes. Have I been mean to others? Yes. Have I abused my son? According to Alexander Lowen I have or will.

Does that make me an evil person? Does that exclude me from the “We” in “We are one”? I’d like to think not.

Nobody is perfect but we should strive for perfection. People have hurt me terribly. We all get hurt and are disappointed. We all think, "I'm much worse off than others" or "nobody has had to suffer my pain." It wasn’t until I was able to understand and/or forgive those people and "choices" that I was able to begin healing and feeling that “We are all One” instead of justifying my sad state. Don't get me wrong, I needed to have my pity party and go through that "feel bad for me stage". In this blogger's words, I was stupid. However, stupid was necessary. 6 mos later, I simply just go tired of feeling bad + sad and seeing that person in the mirror. That's when I began to honestly speak about my problems. I was stuck in the mud and didn't call on that team of horses to pull me out until I was ready.

I can’t remember where I heard this, it may have been from a very good therapist I had, but it is the rule of 80%. She used numbers but really forced me to focus on the big picture. She was talking about relationships and if we find in people 80% of what we’re looking for, we should be able to live with or forgive the other 20%. Ironically, I look back and think she was a great therapist for me even though there were a few times I thought, "That session was useless!" Did I dump her? no she was good but, like all of us, she balked at certain times but that 20% didn't come close to the 80% when she really delivered.

What about those relationships we didn’t choose? People such as family members, teachers, religious leaders and doctors that gave us much less and in some cases, even took something from us? Should we be understanding + forgiving and “carry each other”? Or, just be disgruntled curmudgeons?

The answer? Whatever allows you to love and be part of “one”.

“One” by U2

I find many of these lines expose what people sometimes use to navigate relationships. Blaming others is a classic tool so too is playing the savior to what doesn’t even exist or isn’t even important.

“Is it getting better
Or do you feel the same
Will it make it easier on you now
You got someone to blame
You say...
One love
One life
When it's one need
In the night
One love
We get to share it
Leaves you baby if you
Don't care for it
Did I disappoint you
Or leave a bad taste in your mouth
You act like you never had love
And you want me to go withou
Well it's...
Too late
Tonight
To drag the past out into the light
We're one, but we're not the same
We get to
Carry each other
Carry each other
One...
Have you come here for forgiveness
Have you come to raise the dead
Have you come here to play Jesus
To the lepers in your head
Did I ask too much
More than a lot
You gave me nothing
Now it's all I got
We're one
But we're not the same
Well we
Hurt each other
Then we do it again
You say
Love is a temple
Love a higher law
Love is a temple
Love the higher law
You ask me to enter
But then you make me crawl
And I can't be holding on
To what you got
When all you got is hurt
One love
One blood
One life
You got to do what you should
One life
With each other
Sisters
Brothers
One life
But we're not the same
We get to
Carry each other
Carry each other
One...life
One”

LOFF56 & PL ON ALL THINGS BEING RELATIVE & GOD! OR NOT!!

Here's L56:

"For starters, I do hope that Obama turns out to be the Adult Supervision that we need. But realistically speaking I'm not convinced that he'll be more than just a little bit of that Adult Supervision. As you state, (correctly in my opinion), we need a lot. I'm just not convinced that he'll be able to provide all of what we need. There's a lot of Government disfunction that's built into the system and no matter what he does, he's just not going to be able to root it all out. But I'm hopeful that at least some things will improve.
Regarding relativity... again... You said so yourself that for Reaganomics to work, 'the private sector would have to be operating from their healthy, enlightened first nature.' Hypothetically, what if that were true? Wouldn't Reaganomics be correct then? By your own definition the success of Reaganomics is relative to the enlightened nature of the private sector. If the private sector were in fact enlightened in the manner which you speak, would you then consider Reaganomics to be Truth with a capital 'T'?
Clearly, the bulk of the private sector achieving this state of enlightenment is a far fetched prospect at this point. On a more practical level, I believe at one point you mentioned the likes of Bill Gates, who does in fact donate a lot of money to charity. For him, Reaganomics is a completely successful construct for the benefit of all of humanity. Let's cut taxes for Bill Gates, because he actually WILL use that money for good. So relatively speaking Reaganomics is effective... for him...
In the Bill Gates scenario, it's a truth with a lower case "t" because it only applies to him and his likes. For the vast majority of other wealthy private sector people the truth is just the opposite. I believe that you confuse Truth with a capital "T" with an overwhelming majority of one truth versus another truth. In this case let's arbitrarily say it's like 50 million versus one thousand. It's quite a lopsided victory for the truth against Reaganomics versus the truth of Reaganomics. But for Truth to possess a capital 'T', (by my definition), it has to possess complete, one hundred percent compliance.
I'm not about to make a similar defense of relativity out of all of the issues you stated, (though I probably could), cause it would just take up too much space, and I'd start to feel my soul deteriorate because my personal opinion sides with the "correct" side of the issues, obviously. But let me tackle one just to prove the point...
Genocide. Clearly, there was at least one person, Hitler, who decided that genocide had a benefit to the greater good of humanity. No matter what we do, we can't change the truth (with a lower case "t") that Hitler felt this way. We can all shout out for eternity that he was wrong... clearly... but for whatever reason it was his truth. Using the same logic that Truth with a capital "T" must possess complete 100 percent compliance we can't mathematically assess that genocide being wrong is a Truth with a capital "T". Despite the fact that it's probably 500 Billion to one in favor of that. It's still relative. It's very lopsided, but it's relative.
I do believe that the truths when stated in the quote, "We hold these truths to be self evident", is much better defined by the degree of lopsidedness in this truth v. truth battle. It will be self evident when one truth dominates another. I don't think the authors of the Declaration of Independence had in mind the truth that slavery was wrong when they wrote it. In fact many, if not all of them, had slaves at the time. Their truth was that slavery was just fine. By proxy of lopsided victory over time against slavery, they turned out to be wrong. But their Truth with a capital "T", if that's what they were espousing, turned out to be anything but definable, extremely fluid, and ultimately, relative.
Thank about it... 'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal,... Really? Except black people apparently. Self evident truth better be fluid and relative for all our sakes.
Relatively yours,
loff56"

PL:

Okay, here's the thing, L56 - if you are talking at the personal level only, then yes, truth, with a small "t" is relative as is reality, small "r." What I am saying on this blog is that while there are personal and relative truths and realities, which we may believe in and create on a day-to-day basis, there is also Truth and Reality that is absolute. The fact that our founding fathers understood the absolute Truth about humanity's inalienable rights, but couldn't themselves live up to it, yet, doesn't mean it was relative. That's why we kept struggling with slavery and its derivatives through the years, because there was an absolute Truth (oneness) driving us to end the enslavement of our fellow human beings. That Hitler thought his genocide was justified only means he thought it was, not that genocide's violation of the Reality of our oneness with other living beings was relative.

It's the age-old religious "mystery" I'm talking about here, L56 - how can we be doing "God's" will at all times ("Thy will be done"), yet still have free will at all times?
I've posted this a few times before, but here's how I visualize it: God's will is like a powerful river that we're swimmers in, and as such, we can choose to swim with the current or against the current. In either case, someone watching from the banks of the river would see that however we exercise our individual will, we are being taken downstream. In other words, going against the current or going with the flow will determine our relative experience of reality, but nonetheless, the absolute Reality is we're all heading in the same ultimate direction - back towards our oneness with All That Is.

Regarding Obama and his provision of adult supervision for the greedy-needy children in grown-ups' clothes who've wreaked havoc on our country, yes, I agree, it is a daunting task, but hopefully, other true adults will be inspired to join the president and stand up to the crooks and liars until they stand down.

Thanks, L56.

L56 FOLLOW-UP:

"AHA!! So it seems we're defining our positions very simply as the difference between Agnostic and Atheist. Agnostic in the sense that although you may or may not believe in an actual God, you do believe in an absolute will or Truth of some sort that guides us in a direction. And an Atheist in the sense that I believe that there is no entity, God-like or not, and that WE have absolute and total control of 100% of every outcome personally and more broadly based as humanity on the whole.
Your question: '...how can we be doing 'God's' will at all times ('Thy will be done'), yet still have free will at all times?'
My simple Atheist answer is: We Can't. It's one or the other. To me free will is completely free, 100%. If it's tempered by the will of a 'God' or a 'Truth' with a capital 'T' even in the smallest amount it's not 'free'. 'Free' is an absolute term. If something cost one penny, it's not free.
The advantage of my point of view is that your differing view of there being a capital 'T' Truth is 100% compatible with my view of there not being. Because I believe every single person has their own lower case 't' truth which is of equal validity to my truth and of everybody else's truth.
The disadvantage to your belief is that my very rejection of a capital 'T' Truth is completely in conflict with the very capital 'T' Truth that you believe in. According to your absolute Truth, I'm one of those Salmon that keeps swimming aimlessly up stream.
Well, I don't feel like a Salmon. But in the end it's no skin off either of our backs. You can continue to think I'm a Salmon, and I can continue to think that it's totally fine that you think I'm a Salmon."

PL:

You reveal something about where you're coming from, L56, when you talk about the "advantage" of your "point of view" versus the "disadvantage" of what you perceive to be my "belief."

Points of view and beliefs are created by our egos to seek advantages and manage our lives when problems feel too difficult to resolve through ordinary intellectual efforts, especially in childhood. From a place of egolessness, however, one can attain access to the Truth, as I've said before and in so doing attracted some ire. Nonetheless, we have all had the experience, even if just for moments, when we transcend our egos, our intellect, even our bodies to a certain extent, and suddenly just know something to be True.

My efforts to evolve my consciousness in this lifetime have taken me to a place where eliminating beliefs and opinions in myself is the goal, so that I may seek and connect to what is actually True. It is surely a process that I will be in for the rest of this lifetime, and one that at times feels to have advantages or disadvantages. Even so, as I discover more Truth, rest assured sure that I will reveal it!

Oh... and the reason that it seems contradictory to you that one can be taken by the current of God's will while simultaneously having personal free will is because you are caught up in thinking dualistically, the only way in which the ego can think.

Thanks again, L56!

LOFF56 DISAGREES WITH PL'S "THERE AREN'T ALWAYS TWO SIDES..." PL RESPONDS!/L56 COMES BACK!

Here's LOFF56:

"Generally I agree with your assessments in these matters. Your conclusion about Pat Buchanan is spot on. The analogy of watching a car wreck is funny and appropriate. Although...

I have to say that your premise isn't logical. 'There aren't always two sides to an argument.' There HAS to be at least two sides to every argument. Otherwise it wouldn't be an argument! Insanity, hate, and ignorance, whether we like it or not, does exist as an opposition to logic, love and enlightenment.

Writing off the opposition in this manner makes our position just as ignorant as theirs. If we're so sure that our position is correct, then we shouldn't have any trouble proving that with logic and a respectful discourse. If in the end we provide a respectful discourse and they don't then it's simply up to the public to decide for themselves. (That's the Buddhist way.) :-)

If you believe in the premise that every soul on the planet has the potential for enlightenment, you have to look at the prospect that the souls that spew insanity, hate and ignorance (or more appropriately the readers of your blog who potentially buy into that) are simply not well enough educated in logic, love and enlightenment. We would do better to stop labeling people as insane, hateful and ignorant and start finding a way to better educate the world directly in logic, love and enlightenment. Let them decide for themselves. The best we can do is consistently and perpetually provide the best truth possible. Wasting time on labels and tearing down our opposition doesn't add anything to our argument. It's like saying: 'I'm right and you're wrong.' Ok. So what?

In the end I believe people are more interested in why you think you're right than they do about why you think they're wrong."

PL:

Here's the thing, L56, and it's something that many people searching for the "middle way" of Buddhism - or even true Christianity - misunderstand: there is Truth and there is Right, and Buddha and Jesus say it often. But that truth and right isn't dogmatic or part of an institutionalized philosophy or creed, it is what every person truly conducting the search for one's own soul eventually finds out to simply be so.

I mean, come on, L56, you're playing semantics a bit with me when you say things like "There HAS to be at least two sides to every argument. Otherwise it wouldn't be an argument!" I think (hope?) that you know that what I'm saying is that not all positions are valid and that not all positions are even positions. Some "positions" are simply primal expressions of raw, unexamined, untamed impulses.

Furthermore, in true Buddhist practice, yes, all are invited to the path of enlightenment, as they are in any spiritual practice, but the first step towards the truth is always identifying what is false. To give credibility to distortions, lies, fear-based hate and deliberate ignorance posing as ideology doesn't serve to help the person in question to ever want to seek enlightenment. You are imagining something, idealizing at best, that is not based on how human beings actually grow. We need to experience the pain of ostracism and rejection at times to know that we are on a dead end turn in our path to enlightenment.

You can't "reach out" to the likes of a Pat Buchanan with the kind of guidance you talk about until he has fully felt the karmic pain of his own willfulness and bile.

Again - Come on, L56. I love that you are seeking that loving, open-minded place where we all must arrive to eventually, but part of true love, as I've said before to you and Rick, is kicking ass where there is ass that needs to be kicked!

Here's LOFF56's comeback:

"Well, I agree with your first paragraph.

However I don't believe that the point I'm making is semantic. I think it's deeply philosophical. If there truly is just one valid truth, which you say Christianity, Buddhism etc. suggests, than the concept of having a debate at all is logically flawed. For there truly is nothing to debate against, and any 'ass kicking' that we do can only be done in a hypocritical way for we'd be debating against a position that we can only justify by stepping around our belief in an absolute truth. If we concede that a debate must indeed happen in order to help people become enlightened than we must accept the fact that there has to be two sides to the debate. (Two valid sides). I don't think you can have your cake and eat it two in this regard. Either you accept 100% that there is only one truth and therefore any debating of the truth is hypocritical, or you pragmatically accept a second (valid, despite how despicable) position in order to achieve a debate.

I hope I'm not sounding semantic here again, but I believe you can give credibility to a person's position without giving credibility to their argument. The fact of the matter is that they believe what they believe. You can't say that that whole person has no credibility because they believe something that's false. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. And again this is not about semantics this about finding the good in everyone and working WITH that, not AGAINST the bad.

Constantly highlighting the bad qualities as you have a tendency to do with many of the republicans that repulse us all doesn't help us find the overall humanity in the world. Instead it reminds us that there are a lot of unenlightened people out there that are ready to stab us in the back at any moment. I know this is not your intention at all, but the fact is, pointing it out can only have the potential of creating more fear in us than anything else. If you and your readers have achieved a level of enlightenment that can see through their BS, why not just ignore them then?

You are correct, you can't 'reach out' to people like Pat Buchanan. They don't want to be reached out to. At the same time 'kicking their ass' as you say, is equally ineffective if they're not willing to accept the benefit of an 'ass kicking.' This is equally true for any of your readers who still follow those guys. I understand the benefits of your 'ass kickings,' I just think it's being done in a bit of a vacuum. People need to be simply reminded of the good truth and reminded that they should simply ignore the ramblings of the lunatic fringe. After all, if we all learned to just ignore them, after a while they wouldn't be on TV. It's the constant acknowledgment of their stupidity that as you say, 'makes us want to watch the car accident' over and over again. And that I don't think puts us on the path to enlightenment."

Whew! LOFF56 in a seminal piece on: "Semantics, Gun Control, Affirmative Action and the Chicken or the Egg!"

[PL: I'll need to go out to the beach for a few days to respond to this, so for now, I'm just putting it up for my readers to study!]

This is all Loff56 - here it is:

Ooo, ooo, ooo, let me get in on this one...

I know PL's gonna' hate me for this, but Semantics IS important. Language is how we communicate. If we don't do it correctly, our views get misconstrued.

PL: "But it seems that you want to exonerate the diseased collective because of those good individuals..." on Rick trying to explain that there are in fact some good cops out there. PL is correct in stating that you can't say every cop is good if not exactly 100% actually are. But in the same breath PL states: "Being a cop is a psychiatric disorder", and then says there are exceptions. Again, take your own advice, "you can't drag down the good because of the bad."

PL is making the argument again that there is a good reason to generalize (as long as you acknowledge the exceptions). But only if the generalization is something that he agrees with. ??? Right??? Clearly, when Rick generalizes as he did about cops being good, that's apparently wrong, but when PL generalizes that cops are bad, that's OK??? PL is discrediting the semantics of Rick's argument while simultaneously using the same language to advocate his own. Personally, I see the whole generalization is good for the argument as an intellectual, psycho-philosophical side-stepping of just plain being stubborn. Furthermore, PL, you're right to hold Rick accountable for his reckless generalizing, but you have to hold yourself to the same standard.

How about the real truth, plain and simple - however messy it is. Some cops are good, some cops are bad. Period.

When you make the "generalization" argument you reduce the debate to true and false, when in fact it deserves a lot more detailed analysis. Like, why are these particular cops bad? What makes these cops good? How do we make the bad ones like the good ones? That debate would be far more interesting, and far more productive. Though, I'm sure it wouldn't be such of an attention grabber. (I hope that's not what your after PL.) The proof is in the pudding. The response that PL got out of Rick wasn't about why these cops have these problems it was literately about defending the true/false nature of the statement. How is that helpful?

Gun Control - Here's my take on gun control. One side of the argument says that guns kill people, the other says that people kill people. That's basically what it boils down to. Again at the risk of sounding too wishy-washy, here's my response: "People with guns kill people!" Both guns and people are the problem, not one OR the other. If you remember "Bowling for Columbine" Michael Moore pointed out pretty remarkably that there are more guns in Canada per capita (by a lot - don't remember the number exactly) and much fewer murders per capita than in the United States. That's the people problem. There are too many crazy people in this country, (whether they have legal or illegal guns doesn't much matter, they're still crazy). There's also too many guns that are easily available. Moore also points out how easy it is to get a legal gun and ammo in this country. That's the gun problem.

Here's the thing, you have to deal with both. Making it illegal to buy an AK-47 is a smart idea because there's no other use for it but to kill people. I've never seen a deer hunter with an AK-47. But it also lets us know that our government - thus our society - is responsible enough to say that we know what owning an AK-47 is for, and we don't stand for that. Leadership by example. But we also need to improve our education system. Obviously intelligent, productive citizens don't kill each other as often. That's an easy one.

Here's the Chicken or the Egg problem. The old philosophical question asks which comes first - cause after all you can't have an egg without a chicken and you can't have a chicken without an egg. Trying to apply that paradox to the gun control argument makes as much sense as it does with the chicken species. For the chicken and the egg, the way out of the paradox is evolution - they developed together. So too the whole killing people with guns problem is the same. The solution to both problems simultaneously is essential. After all what's the point of educating people not to kill people if our Government says it's ok to own an AK-47? Similarly what's the point of banning AK-47s if we don't educate people to not kill people with illegally obtained AK-47s.

Here's my take on Affirmative Action - First of all I think Pete's right here that there is a difference between racially conscious and racist. But I think perhaps because the number of true hard-core racists in this country is rapidly decreasing, the term "racist" is becoming more and more a politicized inflammatory rendering of what's probably more accurately represented as "racially conscious". I'm half defending Rick's (and many of the other politicians that used that word to describe the situation with Sotomayor and the firemen) use of the word "racist" the way he did in the sense that he doesn't say it to actually mean "to hate another race". However, Rick and co. are no less accountable for the use of that term as a political contrivance. There was no "racism" (reverse or otherwise) going on in that case, and Rick and co. know that, and should know better. Note that I'm not making a judgment about Sotomayor's decision in this case, just pointing out that the use of the word "racism" either way is bogus. Even if you think she was wrong in the case, you're disagreeing with her racially conscious decision, not claiming that she's actually racist.

At the heart of the matter is whether or not being racially conscious through means of Affirmative Action is still a moral imperative.

Personally I think the usefulness and effectiveness of Affirmative Action has almost run its course. I can't imagine that it was ever intended to be a permanent fixture in our society. There's a point where it starts to become counterproductive. And if we're not at that point yet, I don't think its very far off. Obama's take on this is pretty good I think. His encouragement to the black community in saying, "look, we don't need this affirmative action stuff, we have the power to do it on our own", (I'm paraphrasing) is very spot on. The danger of keeping Affirmative Action around is that it will ultimately just serve as a reminder to white people that black people still need an artificial advantage and are therefore still inferior. And for Black people to be reminded that they may in fact still be inferior.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." - MLK Jr.

Well, as long as Affirmative Action still exists we're still judging by the color of their skin. Whether that judgment in this case is helping or hurting doesn't matter, it's still judgment.

That's not to say that Affirmative Action didn't help us bridge the gap to MLK Jr.'s vision, but ultimately it needs to be done away with before this vision is totally seen.

Going back to the Chicken or the Egg. Again, let's fix education and do away with Affirmative Action together, not either/or. Here's the paradox - with Affirmative Action, kids don't need to try as hard in order to succeed so even with a better education system, they're still underachieving. Just getting rid of Affirmative Action without fixing the education system gives them less hope and no tools so underachievement is inevitable. You have to fix both at the same time.

Well, I'm sorry to take up so much space but I just thought that a more detailed driven argument was called for on these issues. I know my solutions can seem convoluted and/or compromised to some, but the truth is that I believe that everyone possess at least a tiny part of some truth, and I'm completely interested in investigating if two (or more) seemingly disparate ideas can actually create a better whole truth than any pure version of any one. I don't consider this a compromise at all but rather a genuine solution to a seemingly unanswerable question such as "Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg?"

REPOST: "WOW! 'THE VILLAGE IDIOT!!' ONE OF THE MOST AMAZING AND IMPORTANT INTERVIEWS I'VE EVER SEEN!!"

The following is a transcript from Rachel Maddow's Sept. 16 show of her interview with Christian Right expert Frank Schaeffer. Schaeffer is a conservative, a Christian, a former Republican who worked for John McCain in his 2000 presidential bid.

A very important part of what Schaeffer has to say, and there are many important parts, is that there are certain kinds of people that you cannot move and shouldn't try to move, but rather, as he says, you should "move past." I have made this point often in pieces where I call for "preaching to the choir." The people who choose to stay behind consciousness-wise must be worked around, not worked with, in a particular lifetime. Otherwise, the entire collective consciousness is held back. The retrogressive forces that are bellowing their resistance to change at all costs right now should be isolated, exposed and in terms of any decision-making for the country as a whole, ignored.

Read this! It's beautiful!!

Here's the interview:

MADDOW: Public Policy Polling released results from its new poll of residents of the great state of New Jersey. The poll found that 18 percent of New Jersey conservatives say they are sure that President Obama is the anti-Christ. No questions asked. Another 17 percent of New Jersey self-identified conservatives say they just aren‘t sure, but they‘re not willing to rule it out. Joining us now is Frank Schaeffer. He grew up in the religious far right. He is the author of “Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right and Lived to Take All or Almost All of It Back.” Mr. Schaeffer, thank you so much for coming back on the show tonight. ... I do not know what possessed this polling firm to ask whether or not people think the president is the anti-Christ, but they did. Does the response rate among conservatives surprise you? More than one in three saying yes or they don‘t know.

SCHAEFFER: Well, I was a child when President Kennedy was assassinated, and my mother thought, because he died of a head wound, foretold in scripture of the anti-Christ he would be resurrected as the anti-Christ. She thought this might be a possibility. So, those of us who come from the evangelical subculture have been weaned with our mother‘s milk on a changing cast list of villains. It might be Kennedy to one generation, Obama to the next.

But I think the larger point this brings up is that the mainstream—not just media, but culture—doesn‘t sufficiently take stock of the fact that within our culture, we have a subculture which is literally a fifth column of insanity, that is bred from birth through home school, Christian school, evangelical college, whatever, to reject facts as a matter of faith. And so, this substitute for authentic historic Christianity, and I may add as a little caveat here, I‘m a church-going Christian, really brings up the question: Can Christianity be rescued from Christians? And that‘s an open question.

And when you see a bunch of people going around thinking that our president is the anti-Christ, you have to draw one of two conclusions. Either these are racists looking for any excuse to level the next accusation or they‘re beyond crazy? And I think beyond crazy is a better explanation.

And that evangelical subculture has rotted the brain of the United States of America and we have a big slice of our population waiting for Jesus to come back. They look forward to Armageddon. Good news is bad news to them.

When we talk about the “Left Behind” series of books that I talk about in my book “Crazy for God.” what we‘re talking about is a group of people that are resentful because they‘ve been left behind by modernity, by science, by education, by art, by literature. The rest of us are getting on with our lives. These people are standing on the hilltop waiting for the end.

And this is a dangerous group of people to have as neighbors, and they‘re our national neighbors. And this is the source of all of these insanities that we see leveled at the president. One way or another they go back to this little evangelical subculture. It‘s a disaster.

MADDOW: It is one thing though to think about these as almost cultish views, to think about these as views that are on the fringes of beyond the edge of mainstream Christianity. It‘s another thing to look at the numbers. I mean, in this same poll, the numbers are also really high on the question of whether or not the president was born in the United States 61 percent of McCain voters in New Jersey expressing doubt that Obama is American, saying he definitely wasn‘t born in the U.S. or they‘re not sure. The birther thing has been disproven. The anti-Christ thing is—it‘s all another kettle of fish. But how do you work to move people off that position? It doesn‘t seem like facts are relevant in trying to move people away from these beliefs.

SCHAEFFER: You don‘t work to move them off this position. You move past them. Look, a village cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot. It‘s as simple as that. And we have to understand, we have a village idiot in this country, it‘s called “Fundamentalist Christianity.”

And until we move past these people—and let me add as a former lifelong Republican—until the Republican leadership has the guts to stand up and say it would better—it would be better not to have a Republican Party than have a party that caters to the village idiot, there‘s going to be no end in sight. The next thing they‘ll do is accuse Obama of being the anti-Christ and then who knows what comes next on and on it goes.

There is no end to this stuff. Why? Because this subculture has as its fundamentalist faith that they distrust facts per se. They believe in an Earth younger of 6,000 years old with dinosaurs cavorting with human beings. They think that whether it‘s economic news or news from the Middle East, it all has to do with the end of time and Christ returns. This is la-la land.

And the Republican Party is totally enthralled to this subculture to the extent that there is no Republican Party. There is a fundamentalist subculture which has become a cult. It‘s fed red meat by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and other people who are just not terribly bright themselves and they are talking to even stupider people. That‘s where we‘re at. That‘s where all of this is coming from.

And it‘s becoming circular. It‘s becoming a joke. Unfortunately, a dangerous joke because once in a while, one of these “looney tunes,” as we see, brings guns to public meetings. Who knows what they do next. It‘s a serious thing we all have to face, but the Democrats and sane Americans just have to move past these people, say, “Wait on the hilltop until the end, the rest of us are going to get on with rebuilding our country.”

MADDOW: Mr. Schaeffer, briefly, is there anybody on the right who could be constructive here if they wanted to be? To the extent that people could be moved off of these conspiracy theories? And I understand your point that they not—it‘s not true that all of them could be. But is there anybody who could be influential to try to stop the impact of these conspiracies?

SCHAEFFER: Look, in the year 2000 I worked for John McCain, to try to get him elected in the primaries instead of George Bush. But John McCain sold out by nominating Sarah Palin who comes directly from the heart of this movement and carries with her all that baggage. So, he sold out. I don‘t see anybody on the Republican side of things these days who has the moral standing to provide real leadership, or who will risk their position to do so."

GOD WHOPPERS!

Here are the top eight God whoppers human beings have made up (from the book, E-SQUARED by Pam Grout):

Whopper #1: God is a him. Even though the progressive churches sometimes refer to God as she, the FP doesn’t really have a gender. We certainly don’t talk about Mrs. Electricity or Mr. Gravity. The more appropriate pronoun would be it. The FP is a force field that runs the universe, the same energy source that grows flowers, forms scabs over skinned knees, and constantly pushes for wholeness. God is more like the force in Star Wars, a presence that dwells within us, a principle by which we live. That’s why Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader have become such a phenomenon. Star Wars is a myth that speaks to us at a deep, gut level. Some part of us knows that “the force” is with us and that we, through our words, thoughts, and deeds, create the world.

Whopper #2: God looks like ZZ Top, makes black check marks after your name, and is basically too busy working on world hunger to care about you. God, if you believe the accepted box, is a little like Boo Radley in To Kill a Mockingbird: this mysterious neighbor constantly peering out the window of his penthouse suite, waiting to catch us doing something “naughty, naughty.” We can’t really see him, but we’ve been properly warned that he’s there. Watching. Judging. Monitoring our every move. If you don’t follow this commandment or if you break that rule, God just might send his angel Secret Service after you to bop you on the head like Little Bunny Foo-Foo. 

Whopper #3: God plays favorites. The FP is a force field that’s equally available to everyone. It’s a natural capacity in all of us, not an exclusive gift bestowed upon a few. In fact, that is the primary lesson Jesus taught. God is within. You are part of God. You can perform miracles. To worship Jesus the way we do is a little like worshipping Benjamin Franklin because he first discovered electricity. Ben Franklin sent that kite up in an electric storm so we could use the principle he demonstrated. He didn’t do it so we’d build temples to him, paint pictures of him, and wear little commemorative keys around our necks. He wanted us to take the principle of electricity and use it—which we do to run radios and computers and air conditioners. Had we stopped with Ben’s discovery the way we did with Jesus’s discovery, we’d all be sitting in the dark. Benjamin Franklin didn’t invent electricity any more than Jesus invented spiritual principles. Lightning and the resulting electricity have always been available. We just didn’t realize it or know how to access it. Galileo didn’t invent gravity when he dropped the wooden ball off the leaning tower of Pisa. He just demonstrated it. Likewise, Jesus demonstrated spiritual principles that he wants us to use and develop. We’ve wasted 2,000 years worshipping this idol of him instead of using the principles he taught us. Look through the Bible and nowhere does Jesus say, “Worship me.” His call to us was “follow me.” There’s a big difference. By making Jesus out to be a hero, we miss the whole point. Jesus wasn’t saying, “I’m cool. Make statues of me; turn my birthday into a huge commercial holiday.” He was saying, “Here, look what is possible. Look what we humans are capable of.” Jesus is our brother, our legacy, the guy we’re supposed to emulate. What Jesus was trying to tell us is that the churches, the religious leaders, and all their blaring rhetoric has drowned out God’s truth. They’ve pulled the wool over our eyes by failing to mention the fact that the FP is not an object of worship, but a very real presence and a principle by which we should live.

Whopper #4: God rewards our suffering and gives brownie points for our sacrifice (better known as “Life sucks and then you die"). Many of us think life is some sort of boot camp for heaven. We believe this short life span is “only a test” for the paradise we’re eventually going to earn. If we hang on and bear it, we’ll someday walk through those pearly gates and be happy. These errors in thinking have been condensed into living facts. Nothing is plainer than the inevitability of sorrows and trials. But what if it isn’t necessary? What if there is no reason to be poor? Or get sick? Or do anything but live an abundant, exciting life? What if these tragic, difficult lives are another rumor made up by the churches and cemented into our consciousness by years and years of conditioning? What I’d like to suggest is that this heaven you’re waiting for is available now. And that you’ve been sold a bill of goods about who you are and what is possible. 

Whopper #5: God is just so demanding. The FP doesn’t judge. It doesn’t punish. It doesn’t think, Well, Sammy C. was a good boy yesterday, helping that little old lady cross the street. I think I’ll answer his prayer about winning the lottery. Those are thoughts Clarence Thomas might think. The FP doesn’t need anything. It requires nothing of us. It makes no demands. It doesn’t like Mother Teresa more than Celine Dion. Only misinformed humans, scrambling desperately to make sense of their world, came up with a God who plays eenie-meenie-minie-mo with our lives, a God who likes and dislikes the same people we do. Our fear has trapped us into a box that plays out our very limited perception. 

Whopper #6: You don’t want to ask too much from God; you certainly wouldn’t want to bug him. As I’ve already pointed out, the FP is not a person; therefore you cannot bug him. The FP is a power, an unseen energetic force. It isn’t finite or limited, so you certainly couldn’t ask too much of it. As the old saying goes, you can take an eyedropper or a bucket to the ocean. The ocean doesn’t care. If anything, we don’t use the FP power nearly enough. This is an all-powerful force we’re talking about here, not some last-minute relief team that comes in to pay the mortgage. The FP is not an adversary that has to be coaxed to the bargaining table. 

Whopper #7: God is just so vague. Au contraire. Once you get rid of the black cloud of rumors and half truths that hide your awareness, you’ll find the unseen force communicates just as clearly as Dr. Phil. Once you rid yourself of the blocks, you’ll be shown exactly what to do and how to do it. Again, we need to condition ourselves to think of God more like we think of electricity. Electricity doesn’t care who plugs in a curling iron. Electricity doesn’t need proof we’re good enough to make toast. 

Whopper #8: God only answers when he’s good and ready. There is never a time when God or “the force” isn’t guiding you. And you do not have to wait for any green lights or “get out of jail free” cards. The big guy is available 24/7 once you’re ready to focus your full attention on it. The FP’s guidance happens (as they say about … well, something else)—through a song lyric on the radio, by a phone call from a long-lost friend. The trick is to pay attention, trust, and as I will continue to repeat, focus your full attention on it. And while we’re on the topic of God’s will, let’s get this out on the table. There is no place in our updated picture of God for a hell of everlasting torment or for a sadist who would or could attempt to put you there. Nor is there any room for the idea that sickness or deformity or death or poverty or limitation of any kind is the will of God. The will of God, for those who insist on using that term, is the ceaseless longing of the spirit in you to become all you’re capable of being. Amen.

"FULL PERMISSION LOVING" IN THE AGE OF OBAMA

This morning, I was looking for something to post that relates to the feelings of renewal and positiveness that I and so many others are feeling right now in the immediate aftermath of Barack Obama's astounding election by a majority of Americans. I found this article that I'd written seven years ago. It has particular meaning now because, with Obama's election, there comes the hope, perhaps even the promise, that the bridge will finally be made between the calls for love and openness heralded but ultimately stifled in the 1960's and this new century. I am very glad to have lived to see this day.

Here's my article, called:

"FULL PERMISSION LOVING"

Growing up in the Sixties, like a lot of people who are now in or just entering their mid-life, I heard a lot of radical messages about love. “Make love, not war” was a popular slogan of the peace movement during the Viet Nam era. “All You Need Is Love”, the Beatles’ anthem, reverberated via satellite around the world offering a singular solution to all of life’s problems. “Free love” was declared to be the new celebratory attitude towards sexuality. I soaked up these messages four decades ago, and felt their rightness inside of my body back then, and I felt so optimistic about the future of the human race. I was glad to be alive in this period of humanity’s evolution. I imagined that these ideas and attitudes would soon be accepted by the majority of people everywhere because the simple wisdom expressed in them was so compelling and irrefutable. As another song from that era proclaimed on Broadway in the musical, “Hair” - “This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius... harmony and understanding, sympathy and trust abounding…”
Today, forty years later, those messages seem either quaintly idealistic or, on the other hand, even more radical than they originally did. Many now seem to seriously doubt the power of love to overcome hatred or to resolve problems in our time, and people certainly have become very cautious, even fearful about celebrating their sexuality. Others assume that experiences of brilliant love and exquisite pleasure are fleeting moments that cannot last, so why bother?
What happened? Has love failed in its promise? Is sex not all that it’s cracked up to be? What actually is the nature of love and the purpose of sex, and why do we doubt or fear the power of these energies so much?
In my experience as a mind-body-spirit psychotherapist, I have found that people usually fear what they desire the most, and that the fear of genuine love and pleasure is ultimately at the core of every character structure. [Note: a character structure is a cluster of psychological defenses, emotional blocks and physical contractions that distort a person’s personality, body and energy flow.] Why would we fear love and pleasure? It seems counter-intuitive to fear what feels so good. Indeed, when I first suggest to a patient that they have a fear of pleasure, the response is usually one of protest: “I definitely want to be in love.” “I totally want to have good sex.” “I wish I could have it all in one relationship!” Their explanation for the lack of these experiences in their lives is that it must be something external causing the problem: “There are no available men/women out there.” “You can’t have good sex when you’re working or raising kids.” “Having it all is only possible in the beginning of a relationship.”
However, at some point in the course of therapy, when the defenses and blocks of a person’s character structure have been loosened and the emotional channels have opened, the truth becomes apparent. People discover that in their newly opened state, real love and sexual pleasure are available to them... and they are terrified of it! The openness becomes symbolic of some great unknown against which we all reflexively contract. As Eva Broch puts it in her channeled “Pathwork Guide Lecture” on the spiritual significance of sexuality: “In the human realm, the power of sexuality can, in its most ideal form, be the greatest ‘representative’ of spiritual existence. There is no other human experience that conveys so fully what spiritual bliss, oneness, and timelessness are.”
Indeed! Following are a few examples from patients of mine who’ve experienced the exhilaration of opening up to one’s love-sex connection, to that bliss, and the fear and confusion they felt as well when it happened.
One adult patient said these things recently in the course of the same week after the energetic connection between the heart (love feelings) and genitals (sexual feelings) was made: “It feels pleasurable to be in my body. How amazing! I have so much energy. I am so connected and grateful to my body.” In a session three days later, the same person said this: “What am I doing? Who am I? I can’t control myself. It can’t be that I was wrong all that time.”
Here is another patient, a woman who had recently fallen genuinely in love: “It’s so wonderful, so big, in every cell... I feel so loved, so adored… I feel amazing, what I’ve always wanted to feel. I cry after cumming every time!” And here’s the same women on a subsequent day: “Can it really stay good? What if this is just an illusion? I could really get what I want? I keep having flashes of becoming cold and indifferent.”
And one more person had these things to say shortly after her initial breakthrough from the protective cocoon of her defenses: “I feel like my heart is melting. It feels like being in love. Something’s happening to me and my anger... something’s freed up in me about it.. it just flows through me and then it’s gone. I think my heart and throat chakra opened together. It’s like a miracle. I have no regrets... I never thought I’d get here, and I don’t feel superior or competitive... I feel everybody’s pain... and I’m not craving sweets because I’m feeling my sweetness!” She expressed some of her fear and confusion this way: “It’s hard to figure out who you are now. Sometimes, I feel panic like it’s all a trick and a boom will hit me. It’s almost too much to feel the pleasure, to be so there.”
So, how do we develop this reflexive reaction against something that feels so wonderful? Perhaps we have to go back to the beginning... of our lives, to understand this particular dilemma of human existence as it is right now.
A newborn infant is an extraordinarily open system, a receptive, sensate being without any body armor, without defenses other than a kind of instinctual withdrawal reaction from pain perhaps. In such a state, everything is felt so acutely, so intensely, both pleasure and pain. If you watch a baby react to stimuli, it is always with their whole body, with the totality of who they are. When experiencing pleasure, like from the loving touch or smile of its mother or the nourishment from the breast, the little baby seems to quiver and melt from ecstasy; when it is hungry or wet in its diaper or otherwise uncomfortable, it seems to shake in agony and outrage.
While in this state of original openness, the child will inevitably experience a certain amount of frustration of its basic needs, and it will be hurt by other painful stimuli as well, such as the anger, fear or anxiety of its parents. The anguish in the child will eventually cause it to begin contracting its body, as its muscle control develops, to try and control the sensation of pain, and it will become a less open system. In a sense, the child has learned at a very visceral level that openness to receiving pleasure means openness to experiencing pain. A secondary response develops that becomes what we call second nature – in this case, a reflex to avoid “too much” pleasure. This becomes one of the final conditioned responses that must be overcome in therapy in order to become able to truly experience and sustain deep love and sexual pleasure.
Here’s Eva Broch again from the same Guide Lecture: “The ability to take frustration and pain are essential ingredients in the ability to love, to give and receive, and to experience bliss. Blocks and prohibitions of true fulfillment exist because within the adult personality, the infant still claims fulfillment according to its mode.”
“Its mode”, we can presume, means to avoid pain at all costs. Somehow, the child seeks to experience love and pleasure while avoiding feeling its hurt and pain…and this is not possible. One cannot stay open and closed at the same time. As that child grows eventually into an adult, it will develop a frustrating compromise solution, keeping only partially open, or opening only occasionally to have a taste of pleasure, followed by closing up quickly again lest pain follow. This is why people have come to believe that love and passion don’t last in a relationship.
When a person falls in love, there is a rush of energy, call it “Eros”, or “Cupid’s arrow.” I’ve come to think of that surge as a “free sample” from the universe to let us know what life could be like without defenses. For a while, regardless of one’s character structure, when we fall in love, our defenses are temporarily blown aside by the force of Eros. We see everything in beautiful colors, feel healthy and invigorated and can only see the best in ourselves and the beloved other person. This is bliss. After a while, however, the free sample is done, and our defenses begin re-asserting themselves, closing us up again. The reason for this is that we intuitively know that staying open to this amount of bliss will allow the stored up old hurt and pain we’ve been holding and hiding from to come up and out, and we reflexively try to stop that. This happens below the surface of consciousness, so we are confused and disappointed, and conclude that passionate love just doesn’t last.
What needs to be discovered, however, is that at the point when the free sample begins to run out, we have the choice to buy the whole package. If we actively seek out a process that will systematically dismantle our defenses so we can keep the emotional channels open, the passionate love can indeed not only last a lot longer, but even grow profoundly deeper. The “price” is, of course, letting all of that old pain out. What makes us recoil from doing that is the erroneous belief that we could not withstand the pain. That belief is from the childish mind, from a time when the hurt of not being loved enough was indeed too overwhelming, maybe even a matter of life and death.
Now, as adults, being disappointed in love is not a life and death matter (believe it or not!). We just react as if it was. To a baby or little child, its parents are the entire universe before whom they are completely vulnerable and upon whom they are totally dependent, without choice. For better or worse, there is nowhere else for a child to turn for love and nurturance than its parents. As an adult, however, one always has options regarding the choice of a love object, and adults also have resources available to improve the quality of a relationship that a child does not.
Furthermore, the pain of emotional deprivation to a being in a tiny, little infant body, with an unformed mind, is devastating and cannot be processed. An adult in an unfulfilling relationship has a big body and a fully formed mind with which to deal with this lack, so the feelings need not be experienced as devastating. When it seems so to an adult, it is an illusion. Though the feelings are real, created by the residual, unprocessed mind of the child inside, the danger is not. Discovering this reality and releasing the old pain is where a full spectrum therapy can help keep.
Does this mean that two people can be guaranteed to be in love “forever” if they free themselves of their defenses? Not necessarily. Being in love can have a natural course of time, short or long, just like any journey two souls may take together. All journeys have endings, even great ones. An essential ingredient of real love is its freedom. Love can be felt, given and received and ultimately followed where it leads, but if one attempts to control or possess it, which would only be done out of fear, the channel closes. This has been talked about in many places, from the Bible to the beautiful writings of Kahlil Gibran to the popular songs of our generation. “If you love somebody, set them free”, Sting sang in his hit single from the 1990s.
Monogamy in a relationship that is not based on fear is “spontaneous”, as Ellsworth Baker said in his book, “Man In The Trap.” What does that mean? To me it means that one is so in love in a singular way with one particular person that on a day to day basis there is a powerful desire to experience all of one’s sexual love energy only through that one other. There is no need for emotional or legal contracts, nor are there feelings of jealousy, ownership, obligation or betrayal under the surface. Just free love, love given freely. In my experience, this kind of spontaneous love with another is one of the most powerful and spiritual experiences we can have in physical form.
From such an open place, when the time of being in love naturally concludes between two people, the sadness felt is “clean,” without remorse or bitterness or defensiveness. One feels a poignant sweetness and a true feeling of being blessed for all that was experienced during the time of connection to the beloved other soul. The “end” of the relationship can be more like a graduation, rather than a tragedy.
To get to such a place requires that a person face their most deeply feared feelings of loss and abandonment stored up from childhood, and see those feelings all the way through to the other side. To be fearless to love, in other words, we must become fearless to lose. Anyone who I have seen become fearless in this way and find their way to genuine, free loving, confirms that the journey was worth the so-called “price.”
So, what has any of this got to do with the world’s problems and the dawning of a harmonious age? Well, I have never seen anybody who has become able to love freely wanting to make war or rob banks or even litter the street. In fact, people who become free in that way are warriors, but warriors who never have to fight in the usual sense. Like Mr. Miyagi, in “The Karate Kid.” They are simply courageous enough to really love and fearless about the illusions around losing. They understand the channeled message in Barbara Brennan’s book, “Hands of Light”, that puts it succinctly: “Hating war is not the same as loving peace.” Nothing is more powerful than an open heart. Nothing is more powerful than love. Finally, even fears of death are transcended when one loves openly.
Perhaps, to come full circle back to the “Summer of Love” days of the late 1960s, that was the meaning of “All You Need Is Love”, and of the final message the Beatles gave to us when it was time to naturally end their relationship with us: “And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.”

Full Permission Loving

Growing up in the Sixties, like a lot of people who are now in or just entering their mid-life, I heard a lot of radical messages about love. “Make love, not war” was a popular slogan of the peace movement during the Viet Nam era. “All You Need Is Love”, the Beatles’ anthem, reverberated via satellite around the world offering a singular solution to all of life’s problems. “Free love” was declared to be the new celebratory attitude towards sexuality. I soaked up these messages over three decades ago, and felt their rightness inside of my body back then, and I felt so optimistic about the future of the human race. I was glad to be alive in this period of humanity’s evolution. I imagined that these ideas and attitudes would soon be accepted by the majority of people everywhere because the simple wisdom expressed in them was so compelling and irrefutable. As another song from that era proclaimed on Broadway in the musical, “Hair”: “This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius – harmony and understanding, sympathy and trust abounding…”
Today, thirty years later, those messages seem either quaintly idealistic or, on the other hand, even more radical than they originally did. Many now seem to seriously doubt the power of love to overcome hatred or to resolve problems in our time, and people certainly have become very cautious, even fearful about celebrating their sexuality. Others assume that experiences of brilliant love and exquisite pleasure are fleeting moments that cannot last, so why bother?
What happened? Has love failed in its promise? Is sex not all that it’s cracked up to be? What actually is the nature of love and the purpose of sex, and why do we doubt or fear the power of these energies so much?
In my experience as a mind-body-spirit psychotherapist, I have found that people usually fear what they desire the most, and that the fear of genuine love and pleasure is ultimately at the core of every character structure. [Note: a character structure is a cluster of psychological defenses, emotional blocks and physical contractions that distort a person’s personality, body and energy flow.] Why would we fear love and pleasure? It seems counter-intuitive to fear what feels so good. Indeed, when I first suggest to a patient that they have a fear of pleasure, the response is usually one of protest: “I definitely do want to be in love.” “I totally crave good sex.” “I wish I could have it all in one relationship!” Their explanation for the lack of these experiences in their lives is that it must be something external causing the problem: “There are no available men/women out there.” “You can’t have good sex when you’re working or raising kids.” “Having it all is only possible in the beginning of a relationship.”
However, at some point in the course of therapy, when the defenses and blocks of a person’s character structure have been loosened and the emotional channels have opened, the truth becomes apparent. People discover that in their newly opened state, real love and sexual pleasure are available to them…and they are terrified of it! The openness becomes symbolic of some great unknown against which we all reflexively contract. As Eva Broch puts it in her “Guide Lecture” on the spiritual significance of sexuality: “In the human realm, the power of sexuality can, in its most ideal form, be the greatest ‘representative’ of spiritual existence. There is no other human experience that conveys so fully what spiritual bliss, oneness, and timelessness are.”
So, how do we develop a reflexive reaction against something that feels so wonderful? Perhaps we have to go back to the beginning…of our lives, to understand this particular dilemma of human existence as it is right now.
A newborn infant is an extraordinarily open system, a receptive, sensate being without any body armor, without defenses other than a kind of instinctual withdrawal reaction from pain perhaps. In such a state, everything is felt so acutely, so intensely, both pleasure and pain. If you watch a baby react to stimuli, it is always with their whole body, with the totality of who they are. When experiencing pleasure, like from the loving touch or smile of its mother or the nourishment from the breast, the little baby seems to quiver and melt from ecstasy; when it is hungry or wet in its diaper or otherwise uncomfortable, it seems to shake in agony and outrage.
While in this state of original openness, the child will inevitably experience a certain amount of frustration of its basic needs, and it will be hurt by other painful stimuli as well, such as the anger, fear or anxiety of its parents. The anguish in the child will eventually cause it to begin contracting its body, as its muscle control develops, to try and control the sensation of pain, and it will become a less open system. In a sense, the child has learned at a very visceral level that openness to receiving pleasure means openness to experiencing pain. A secondary response develops that becomes what we call second nature – in this case, a reflex to avoid “too much” pleasure. This becomes one of the final conditioned responses that must be overcome in therapy in order to become able to truly experience and sustain deep love and sexual pleasure.
Here’s Eva Broch again from the same Guide Lecture: “The ability to take frustration and pain are essential ingredients in the ability to love, to give and receive, and to experience bliss. Blocks and prohibitions of true fulfillment exist because within the adult personality, the infant still claims fulfillment according to its mode.”
“Its mode”, we can presume, means to avoid pain at all costs. Somehow, the child seeks to experience love and pleasure while avoiding feeling its hurt and pain…and this is not possible. One cannot stay open and closed at the same time. As that child grows eventually into an adult, it will develop a frustrating compromise solution, keeping only partially open, or opening only occasionally to have a taste of pleasure, followed by closing up quickly again lest pain follow. This is why people have come to believe that love and passion don’t last in a relationship.
When a person falls in love, there is a rush of energy, call it “Eros”, or “Cupid’s arrow.” I’ve come to think of that surge as a “free sample” from the universe to let us know what life could be like without defenses. For a while, regardless of one’s character structure, when we fall in love, our defenses are temporarily blown aside by the force of Eros. We see everything in beautiful colors, feel healthy and invigorated and can only see the best in ourselves and the beloved other person. This is bliss. After a while, however, the free sample is done, and our defenses begin re-asserting themselves, closing us up again. The reason for this is that we intuitively know that staying open to this amount of bliss will allow the stored up old hurt and pain we’ve been holding and hiding from to come up and out, and we reflexively try to stop that. This happens below the surface of consciousness, so we are confused and disappointed, and conclude that passionate love just doesn’t last.
What needs to be discovered, however, is that at the point when the free sample begins to run out, we have the choice to buy the whole package. If we actively seek out a process that will systematically dismantle our defenses so we can keep the emotional channels open, the passionate love can indeed not only last a lot longer, but even grow profoundly deeper. The “price” is, of course, letting all of that old pain out. What makes us recoil from doing that is the erroneous belief that we could not withstand the pain. That belief is from the childish mind, from a time when the hurt of not being loved enough was indeed too overwhelming, maybe even a matter of life and death.
Now, as adults, being disappointed in love is not a life and death matter (believe it or not!). We just react as if it was. To a baby or little child, its parents are the entire universe before whom they are completely vulnerable and upon whom they are totally dependent, without choice. For better or worse, there is nowhere else for a child to turn for love and nurturance than its parents. As an adult, however, one always has options regarding the choice of a love object, and adults also have resources available to improve the quality of a relationship that a child does not.
Furthermore, the pain of emotional deprivation to a being in a tiny, little infant body, with an unformed mind, is devastating and cannot be processed. An adult in an unfulfilling relationship has a big body and a fully formed mind with which to deal with this lack, so the feelings need not be experienced as devastating. When it seems so to an adult, it is an illusion. Though the feelings are real, created by the residual, unprocessed mind of the child inside, the danger is not. Discovering this reality and releasing the old pain is where a full spectrum therapy can help keep.
Does this mean that two people can be guaranteed to be in love “forever” if they free themselves of their defenses? Not necessarily. Being in love can have a natural course of time, short or long, just like any journey two souls may take together. All journeys have endings, even great ones. An essential ingredient of real love is its freedom. Love can be felt, given and received and ultimately followed where it leads, but if one attempts to control or possess it, which would only be done out of fear, the channel closes. This has been talked about in many places, from the Bible to the beautiful writings of Kahlil Gibran to the popular songs of our generation. “If you love somebody, set them free”, Sting sang in his hit single from the 1990s.
Monogamy in a relationship that is not based on fear is “spontaneous”, as Ellsworth Baker said in his book, “Man In The Trap.” What does that mean? To me it means that one is so in love in a singular way with one particular person that on a day to day basis there is a powerful desire to experience all of one’s sexual love energy only through that one other. There is no need for emotional or legal contracts, nor are there feelings of jealousy, ownership, obligation or betrayal under the surface. Just free love, love given freely. In my experience, this kind of spontaneous love with another is one of the most powerful and spiritual experiences we can have in physical form.
From such an open place, when the time of being in love naturally concludes between two people, the sadness felt is “clean,” without remorse or bitterness or defensiveness. One feels a poignant sweetness and a true feeling of being blessed for all that was experienced during the time of connection to the beloved other soul. The “end” of the relationship can be more like a graduation, rather than a tragedy.
To get to such a place requires that a person face their most deeply feared feelings of loss and abandonment stored up from childhood, and see those feelings all the way through to the other side. To be fearless to love, in other words, we must become fearless to lose. Anyone who I have seen become fearless in this way and find their way to genuine, free loving, confirms that the journey was worth the so-called “price.”
So, what has any of this got to do with the world’s problems and the dawning of a harmonious age? Well, I have never seen anybody who has become able to love freely wanting to make war or rob banks or even litter the street. In fact, people who become free in that way are warriors, but warriors who never have to fight in the usual sense. They are simply courageous enough to really love and fearless about the illusions around losing. They understand the channeled message in Barbara Brennan’s book, “Hands of Light”, that puts it succinctly: “Hating war is not the same as loving peace.” Nothing is more powerful than an open heart. Nothing is more powerful than love. Finally, even fears of death are transcended when one loves openly.
Perhaps, to come full circle back to the “Summer of Love” days of the late 1960s, that was the meaning of “All You Need Is Love”, and of the final message the Beatles gave to us when it was time to naturally end their relationship with us: “And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.”

SEEKING... AND FINDING?

LOFF56:

"Wow, I'm a little befuddled, (and impressed I might add), that you managed to turn this: "I believe every single person has their own lower case "t" truth which is of equal validity to my truth and of everybody else's truth." around into meaning I think with my ego. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'd have to argue that thinking that everyone else is on equal footing with myself is exactly the opposite of thinking with an ego. If you ask me, believing that one knows what 'God's' will is (or at least purports to be riding the river in the right direction as it were) is not only thinking with an ego, but is delusional in any assessment that would make them believe that the Truth with a capital T' that they seek differs in any basic way from any traditional Religion with a capital 'R.'
Furthermore, to bestow an absolute quality to the Truth that you personally seek, is to transfer your personal responsibility to an entity that is larger than yourself (that you created). That's what you do when you 'eliminate beliefs and opinions in myself'. In doing so, you also eliminate personal responsibility.
And it's not that I don't seek truth. I do. I seek my own personal truth with a lower case "t", because that's what I feel comfortable being responsible for.
Then again, maybe I'm wrong. Is the Church of FPL taking new members at this time?"

PL:

Definitely no churches here, L56, so there's nothing to join.

Let me clarify. When I speak of the ego, I don't mean it in layman's terms. Most people only think of ego as making someone act arrogant or self-aggrandizing, but ego can just as well make someone act self-effacing and impotent. This can lead to not taking responsibility for oneself and one's actions.

Here's a great passage attributed to both Nelson Mandella and Marianne Williamson on this subject:

"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.' We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? Your playing small doesn't serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. And as we let our own light shine, we subconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we're liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others."

As you yourself just said, L56: "I seek my own personal truth with a lower case 't', because that's what I feel comfortable being responsible for."

When I seek to eliminate my beliefs and opinions, L56, it is not to avoid responsibility, it is to take full responsibility. Full permission living can only be undertaken when one is ready, willing and able to take full responsibility, and not just for what one is "comfortable" taking responsibility for, but for what we are all really responsible for in the big picture - each other. "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together."

We don't need moral or legal principles to rule our behavior if we are connected empathetically to all others. We won't hurt others because it will hurt us, not because there are judgments or legal repercussions.

Finally, the current of God's will that I speak of is not coming from a parental deity that dictates our actions (again, you're caught in a dualistic paradigm), but rather from the collective consciousness of All That Is. Just as every cell in our body has its own life force and "will," but yet is subject to the greater will of the whole body, as individual "cells" within the entire body of beingness, each of us is uniquely free and yet one with the movement of all.

Now, just as people can create evil and dysfunction or peace and harmony, the cells in our body can create vibrant health or illness, but not without it being part of the person's ultimate intention for itself, even though that intention might indeed be subconscious at times. This is why it becomes so important to make what is subconscious in yourself conscious, so you can have more direct access to where you create your individual life from at this level.

Whew!

Thanks, L56.

And...

LOFF56 again:

"Well, to clarify, I do understand your definition of ego, and it doesn't change the way in which I used it.
I do love the quote from Nelson Mandella and Marianne Williamson. Although I think I interpret it differently than you do. I see the "fear that we are powerful beyond measure" as being a fear of being on our own, away from any comfort that "God" or equally (by your definition) the collective consciousness of All That Is.
And I agree, one must take responsibility for one's own actions and as they put it "let our light shine" in order for others around us to have permission to let their own lights shine. That's very well put. But I just don't believe that someone will get that "permission" if we allow our light to be defined in any way as absolute or part of a greater power.
I like your analogy of the cells in a human body, it does highlight your point particularly well. But I think it breaks down in a specific way. The human body is a concrete entity that we can measure. The collective consciousness (or God depending on your point of view) is an abstract construct subject to the relative interpretation of an individual like you or I. It depends solely on what you believe the entity of your choosing actually has control of. If at all.
This is a pretty in depth discussion, but I hope you realize that you and I are ultimately after the same thing. The same goals for ourselves and humanity. I think maybe our search is the same, but perhaps how we define what we've found is bound up in semantics or the filter of our own egos (now I'm simply defining ego as simply a personal identity). I do find merits in some of your arguments. I hope you find some in mine too."

PL:

I do indeed find great merit in our dialogue, LOFF56, and I believe that many readers of this blog do as well.

I will only respond to the latest by saying this - there are some things that you cannot know with the intellect alone, or even with the intellect at all, as Einstein, considered one of the greatest "intellects" of his century, tried to tell us when he said: "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

A-ROD AND YOU!

Why is THIS news?

Alex Rodriguez, Yankee slugger, was a regular customer at a high priced call girl service, the same one Elliot Spitzer, former governor of New York, frequented. Yeah?

Michael Phelps, Olympic champion swimmer, smokes pot. Regularly. From a bong! Woah!

Roger Clemens took steroids. Whew!

Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick engaged in the training of pit bulls for death matches in which spectators bet on the outcome. Really? What?!

Come on, folks! Who or what do you think professional athletes are? They're the same pampered, narcissistic jocks you felt tormented by in high school, remember? Only now they make millions of dollars and have access to the most exotic new party or performance-enhancing drugs, and the highest-maintenance, gold-digging women. They're not icons of virtue or clean living. They never were. And they're not trying to be role models for anyone, either. They're jocks.

Now, don't get me wrong. I love what these athletes do in their respective sports. They show us the highest levels of performance and achievement that human beings can be capable of, and we need to see that, because so many of us are under-achievers, procrastinators or just downright lazy. Far too many of us have a litany of excuses for why we're not doing what we love to do or why we're not contributing the way we could be.

And what should be equally relevant, then, to the slouchers when watching top flight jocks doing their thing is when these high profile stars show us their other side - their stellar flaws, their glaring imperfections, and their rampant dysfunctions. In other words, they're no better than any of us. They're no more together than anyone else. But like the message from the book I'm reading, "THE WISDOM OF NO ESCAPE," which I blogged about the other day (see "PETE BEST"), tells us, you don't have to wait to have yourself all together to do great things in life.

In other words, you can be a complete fuck-up in one area and a great achiever in another. Mind you, that doesn't mean you'll be happy, or having a satisfying life. If you're out of balance like that, in such a state of disharmony, you'll be paying a price emotionally, mentally, and ultimately physically. Just ask Mickey Mantle. Well, you can't ask him, that's the point. He died prematurely from his alcoholism, even though he was able to hit four home runs in one game while suffering from a crushing hang-over.

So, what's my point? It's that, first, you should be expressing your gifts. Whatever they are, whatever your greatness is, you should be contributing to the collective consciousness, even though you're still struggling with your dysfunctions. Second, if you want to be happy, healthy, wealthy and wise for the long-term, you should be using your gifts as guidance for how to straighten out the rest of your life. When you're at your best, when you're in the zone, you're not in your ego or character defenses, you're not in the past or future, but in the now, in the moment. Check it out. When you're playing the guitar or painting or cooking a delicious meal, you're in a state of free-floating grace. When you're depressed or anxiously obsessing or paralysed with fear, you're trapped in your thoughts, in your ego-mind.

If you can't get out of there by yourself, get help. Set the intention and the right guidance from the right person will come along. But stop making excuses. A-Rod is no more together than you, maybe even less so. But he knows he can play baseball if he wants to. You can do your thing, too.


As Stephen Pressfield says in "The Legend of Baggar Vance: "The perfect shot is already in you."

WARNING! EXTREMELY UPSETTING HEADLINES THAT NEED TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN TERMS OF SOUL AGE!!

In February, I posted two horrific stories (link HERE), stories of unspeakable brutality against two young girls, one in a middle eastern country (Turkey) and one in a third world country (Somalia). I'm adding a third incredible item from today's news. You will find these stories very upsetting, but there is a reason I am posting them here, something that I wish to illustrate.

On the right hand side of this blog there are several links to other sites. One of them is a link to a description of "SOUL AGES" from the book, "UPCOMING CHANGES," by Joya Pope. Understanding this concept - that we are not all the same in terms of our soul ages - is crucial to finding and establishing peace in our world, and in our own personal lives.

We all are aware of the phenomenon of how two people can be of the same chronological age, of the same demographic background, even from the same family circumstances, and yet be so entirely different. I have had this experience as a therapist as well. I am the same therapist with all of my patients, yet a sampling of my caseload would show that no two people, even with the similarities listed above and even demonstrating equal dedication to their healing process, progress at the same rate or to the same degree. This is beyond the nurture-nature debate, and beyond genetics. There is a soul element at work here, and what is clear is that at the soul level, no different than at the physical, we are on a continuum developmentally.

Just as a two-year old child will wantonly take whatever it wants from another toddler, even using physical violence for its aim, completely without any conscience about it whatsoever, even with sadistic pleasure, a "Baby Soul," though it may be in an adult physical body, can likewise live an entire lifetime wantonly using brutality to gratify its primal urges, and even take pleasure in the expression of its brutality.

Which brings me to today's terrible news story:

"Sakineh Mohammadie Ashtiani, a mother of two, could be stoned to death at any moment under the terms of a death sentence handed down by Iranian authorities. Ashtiani, 42, will be buried up to her chest, according to an Amnesty International report citing the Iranian penal code. The stones that will be hurled at her will be large enough to cause pain but not so large as to kill her immediately. Ashtiani, who is from the northern city of Tabriz, was convicted of adultery in 2006. She was forced to confess after being subjected to 99 lashes."

Sorry about that, readers, but I wanted to be graphic enough to make the point. Such behavior in a culture cannot be explained away by differences in political philosophy or religious beliefs, nor does it stand up to scrutiny to claim that these despicable acts are merely the manifestation of sexism (or even sexual repression which I've written about extensively on this blog) or racism or greed or any other psychological disturbances. Not when an entire culture is involved. There has to be yet another element involved for such large scale "insanity."

What is happening in countries or groups that act in this way is not very different in significant ways than what would happen if you put a group of two year olds together in a room and left them there indefinitely without an adult. Now, imagine if those abandoned two year olds had the bodies and brains of human adults, and had access to money and weapons.

Exactly.

So, here we are faced with this situation, assuming, of course, that in our culture we are mainly at least a combination of "YOUNG, MATURE AND OLD SOULS," and so, what should we do?

Well, if an adult entered that room of two-year olds, what would said adult do? Institute sanctions depriving them of milk and diapers? Bomb them? Wipe them all out? No. An adult would first take away any dangerous objects (weapons), then provide basic nourishment and boundaries, and guidance towards future socialization. Yes?

So, why are we at war with Baby Soul countries, where women are so oppressed that they have to cover their faces in public, and where men think that if they kill "infidels" in suicide missions they will be rewarded by getting to have sex in Heaven with 70 virgins?! (Why would any adult man want to have sex with even one virgin?!!?)

We are acting insanely ourselves, it would seem, and beneath our own developmental level, by warring against these people, aren't we? We should be containing them, yes, so they cannot inflict harm on others, but we should also be nurturing and guiding them, right? What gives?

Well, maybe to find the answer, we need to know at what soul age our leaders, who are making these decisions to go to war or not, are operating from.

I have written a lot on this blog about President Obama's status as an emotional "adult," in comparison with the "kids" who'd been running things for so long prior to 2008. Most politicians in the U.S. are "Young Souls," a hallmark of which is enormous egocentrism and a craving for power. "A Young Soul typically has little respect for anyone whose ideas are not their own," writes Joya Pope. "At this consciousness level, if one can make money or gain influence, the long term consequences of any act aren't terribly important. The problem with toxic wastes being dumped all over is one result of being in a Young Soul culture in a hurry to make a buck. While Young Souls are productive, industrious and goal oriented, their vision extends only so far, and they are not likely to question their motives or ethics."

Obama, operating more from a Mature Soul place, is "emotional centered," and according to Pope, to a mature soul, "All the wealth, power and acclaim aren't quite enough; profits and winning no longer have transcendental value." It is the beginning of "generativity", the desire to give back to the world and the next generation, which comes into full force in the Old Soul phase of spiritual development.

I do believe that Obama wants to get us out of the two wars he inherited, and I believe that his impulse is to find a way to reach out to these baby soul cultures and offer genuine assistance to them. That is why he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last year.

On a personal level, this is very relevant information, too. If you find yourself in conflict with someone who "just doesn't get it" or " just doesn't care" or is "out of control" emotionally, you are most likely dealing with a baby soul or a young soul. If you are not also a baby soul or young soul yourself (and you're probably not or you wouldn't be reading this blog), then it behooves you to step up as the mature or older soul in the situation and, regardless of everyone's titles, be the one in the guiding position. Yes, that may mean guiding your boss or parents, even though you've been used to deferring to such "authorities" throughout your life, because in the end, the older soul is the one best equipped to lead, especially in terms of consciousness.

So, sorry about the graphic news items, folks, but our tendency to stay asleep and simply look at such horror stories superficially slows our collective development down. Those of us who are mature or old souls need to step up, or step down from our mountaintop retreats, and assume the role of guides.
 

blogger templates 3 columns | Make Money Online