Today's EXTRA Bonus Quote: Tina Fey on Sarah Palin
"If she wins, I'm done. I can't do that for four years. And by 'I'm done,' I mean I'm leaving Earth."
Repost: "THE MAKE-BELIEVE MAVERICK"
In case you missed it, this Rolling Stone article is a must-read. Find it here: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain
106-YEAR-OLD NUN VOTING FOR OBAMA!
A 106-year-old American nun living in a convent in Rome could well be one of the oldest voters to cast a ballot in the 2008 US Presidential election. Sister Cecilia Gaudette, who last voted for President Eisenhower in 1952, has registered to vote and says she will vote for Democrat Barack Obama. Read the article here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7665925.stm
Today's Quote
"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."
Plato
Plato
Comment on PL's "A VOTE FOR EROS"
"Anonymous" shares her reaction to my "A VOTE FOR EROS" post:
"Hi Peter,
I don't have anything much to add to this, but to say I thought this was brilliant! I find it amazing in this day and age that we still don't understand the importance of "eros" in our lives. So much so that we can't tell the difference between real marriages (like the Obamas) and the political partnerships posing as marriages (like the Clintons, the Bushes - all of them). Then we're "shocked" when we learn of their extramarital activities. Thanks for this post.
"Hi Peter,
I don't have anything much to add to this, but to say I thought this was brilliant! I find it amazing in this day and age that we still don't understand the importance of "eros" in our lives. So much so that we can't tell the difference between real marriages (like the Obamas) and the political partnerships posing as marriages (like the Clintons, the Bushes - all of them). Then we're "shocked" when we learn of their extramarital activities. Thanks for this post.
PL on "RELIGULOUS" and SELF-EVIDENT TRUTHS
I saw Bill Maher’s documentary, “RELIGULOUS,” yesterday. It’s Maher’s very unvarnished and unabashed critique of religion, all religion, which he sees as both unfathomably infantile in its beliefs and dangerously destructive in its effects. The documentary ends with an ominous depiction of the “End Times,” the destruction of the Earth predicted and so cravenly desired by most religious fundamentalists in one way or another. Bill’s last spoken line of the film is: “There it is - grow-up or die!” He was not trying to be funny.
Indeed. It is pretty easy to demonstrate the horrible, ravaging effects organized religions have had on humanity throughout history, what with vicious crusades, witch burnings and Inquisitions, exclusion and bigotry of all varieties, rampant sexual abuses, many, many “holy wars,” and their worst crime of all – the promulgation of guilt for feeling normal human desire.
Organized religions, almost by definition, invariably distort the teachings of the spiritual teachers they were founded upon, and as part of the bastardization process, religions pretend that all of the great masters of spirituality weren’t in fact saying the exact same things. But of course they all were. And how could it be otherwise? The Truth must be the Truth or it’s not the Truth. And if it’s the Truth, it will eventually appeal to all. But in Zen-like fashion, these leaders of the soul make it clear that if you have to trumpet your truth and force others to abide by it, it can’t be the truth because, as Jesus said, Truth is Love. If your message is being delivered hatefully, or with attempts at control, no matter what the words, it’s not the truth. Truth does not set people or nations against each other. Only egos can do that because egos seek to separate and discriminate. The Truth unites.
One thing I was reminded of, and that was very clear to me while watching Religulous, is that religious people always fall into two categories: the followers and the leaders. And those two groups can be easily be understood by their "character structures" or "soul ages."
Most fervent devotees of any religious leader are “Baby Souls” with deeply entrenched “Oral Character Structures.” In other words - and words are important - these emotionally arrested folks want to be... saved. Yep. Saved. That’s what every single oral character, without exception, wants – to be saved by an idealized parent or parent-substitute. And it’s what all fanatically religious believers hope for - salvation.
And who is all too willing to take on that aggrandized role? You got it (I hope, if you’ve been reading my blog!) – the adolescent “Young Soul” with a full-blown “Psychopathic Character Structure.” Yeah, you know, your Go-To Guy! The pompous, heavily decked-out, snake-oil charlatan with all the answers and a trunk full of promises. The one whose ego is so outsized that he needs hundreds of thousands of devoted acolytes (and dollars!) to make him feel even remotely whole.
So, all of this being said, here’s where Bill Maher’s Religulous falls flat. While Bill rightly nails the destructive absurdity of religion, he demonstrates no genuinely spiritual perspective at all. And so his critique comes off as sarcastic, curmudgeonly and hostile, and therefore less credible. Real spirituality isn’t superstitious - it’s quantum physics, it’s non-dualistic reasoning. It’s understanding what Carl Jung called “meaningful coincidences,” which pointed to a “collective consciousness” at work in the universe. I would go so far as to say that Bill’s premise that any belief in the unseen is ridiculous, if not “religulous,” is potentially as destructive as religion itself. (Believing that statistically impossible synchronistic events are merely coincidence is as superstitious as believing that a parental god-figure is dictating everything.)
Here is what I’ve found to be true through my experiences of self-exploration and through the exploration of the inner lives of many people, and through the observation of humanity’s journey through history and through the study of various sciences over the years. It’s very simple, but profound. There are three Truths, and when we all arrive to a place of knowing these truths, there cannot be greed and need, war and hate, separation and isolation.
I hold these Truths to be self-evident:
Love is the essence of All That Is.
We create our own reality.
We are all one.
That's it.
Happy Sunday.
PL
Indeed. It is pretty easy to demonstrate the horrible, ravaging effects organized religions have had on humanity throughout history, what with vicious crusades, witch burnings and Inquisitions, exclusion and bigotry of all varieties, rampant sexual abuses, many, many “holy wars,” and their worst crime of all – the promulgation of guilt for feeling normal human desire.
Organized religions, almost by definition, invariably distort the teachings of the spiritual teachers they were founded upon, and as part of the bastardization process, religions pretend that all of the great masters of spirituality weren’t in fact saying the exact same things. But of course they all were. And how could it be otherwise? The Truth must be the Truth or it’s not the Truth. And if it’s the Truth, it will eventually appeal to all. But in Zen-like fashion, these leaders of the soul make it clear that if you have to trumpet your truth and force others to abide by it, it can’t be the truth because, as Jesus said, Truth is Love. If your message is being delivered hatefully, or with attempts at control, no matter what the words, it’s not the truth. Truth does not set people or nations against each other. Only egos can do that because egos seek to separate and discriminate. The Truth unites.
One thing I was reminded of, and that was very clear to me while watching Religulous, is that religious people always fall into two categories: the followers and the leaders. And those two groups can be easily be understood by their "character structures" or "soul ages."
Most fervent devotees of any religious leader are “Baby Souls” with deeply entrenched “Oral Character Structures.” In other words - and words are important - these emotionally arrested folks want to be... saved. Yep. Saved. That’s what every single oral character, without exception, wants – to be saved by an idealized parent or parent-substitute. And it’s what all fanatically religious believers hope for - salvation.
And who is all too willing to take on that aggrandized role? You got it (I hope, if you’ve been reading my blog!) – the adolescent “Young Soul” with a full-blown “Psychopathic Character Structure.” Yeah, you know, your Go-To Guy! The pompous, heavily decked-out, snake-oil charlatan with all the answers and a trunk full of promises. The one whose ego is so outsized that he needs hundreds of thousands of devoted acolytes (and dollars!) to make him feel even remotely whole.
So, all of this being said, here’s where Bill Maher’s Religulous falls flat. While Bill rightly nails the destructive absurdity of religion, he demonstrates no genuinely spiritual perspective at all. And so his critique comes off as sarcastic, curmudgeonly and hostile, and therefore less credible. Real spirituality isn’t superstitious - it’s quantum physics, it’s non-dualistic reasoning. It’s understanding what Carl Jung called “meaningful coincidences,” which pointed to a “collective consciousness” at work in the universe. I would go so far as to say that Bill’s premise that any belief in the unseen is ridiculous, if not “religulous,” is potentially as destructive as religion itself. (Believing that statistically impossible synchronistic events are merely coincidence is as superstitious as believing that a parental god-figure is dictating everything.)
Here is what I’ve found to be true through my experiences of self-exploration and through the exploration of the inner lives of many people, and through the observation of humanity’s journey through history and through the study of various sciences over the years. It’s very simple, but profound. There are three Truths, and when we all arrive to a place of knowing these truths, there cannot be greed and need, war and hate, separation and isolation.
I hold these Truths to be self-evident:
Love is the essence of All That Is.
We create our own reality.
We are all one.
That's it.
Happy Sunday.
PL
Bonni's Response to Joe Sixpack
"Bonni" left this response to a quote from David Brooks on the whole "Joe Sixpack" in politics notion.
This was Brooks' quote:
"Once conservatives admired Churchill and Lincoln above all — men from wildly different backgrounds who prepared for leadership through constant reading, historical understanding and sophisticated thinking. Now those attributes bow down before the common touch. No American politician plays the class-warfare card as constantly as Palin. Nobody so relentlessly divides the world between the 'normal Joe Sixpack American' and the coastal elite."
Here's Bonni:
"The trend toward 'the stupider and more uneducated the better' really, really disturbs me. I honestly cannot figure out why people think it's better to have an uneducated, clueless, out of touch, or just plain ignorant person in charge of the government than to have an educated one who might actually be able to make intelligent decisions. Who wants 'Joe Sixpack' in the office of the presidency? 'We don't need no book lernin! Edumacation is fer sissies!"
This was Brooks' quote:
"Once conservatives admired Churchill and Lincoln above all — men from wildly different backgrounds who prepared for leadership through constant reading, historical understanding and sophisticated thinking. Now those attributes bow down before the common touch. No American politician plays the class-warfare card as constantly as Palin. Nobody so relentlessly divides the world between the 'normal Joe Sixpack American' and the coastal elite."
Here's Bonni:
"The trend toward 'the stupider and more uneducated the better' really, really disturbs me. I honestly cannot figure out why people think it's better to have an uneducated, clueless, out of touch, or just plain ignorant person in charge of the government than to have an educated one who might actually be able to make intelligent decisions. Who wants 'Joe Sixpack' in the office of the presidency? 'We don't need no book lernin! Edumacation is fer sissies!"
THE STAGES OF HEALING, PART SIX: AUTONOMY VERSUS TERMINATION
How does the therapeutic relationship end?
“Termination” is the ominous term used to describe the end-phase of conventional therapies. In this phase of therapy, the patient is thought to go through the final throws of separation and individuation issues, played out in transference with the therapist. This is also supposed to be a time when the patient will temporarily regress into a final crisis, until finally arriving to a state of autonomy. A requirement here, in traditional thinking, is that the patient and therapist must sever all contact after a formerly agreed-upon last session. Thus, the absoluteness of the word, “termination.”
Yet, it seems obvious that if a patient needs to have such an absolute cut-off dictated to them by a dictating “authority figure”, the implication is that the patient is still quite prone to dependency... so, how “successful” could the therapy have been? (Ironically, termination is thought of as one of the most important phases of the treatment process and yet, it is the least talked or written about in the psychotherapy profession.)
There often is a crisis period that occurs in the later stages of a full-spectrum healing process as well, but it is not precipitated by the pending “termination” of the relationship with the therapist. This crisis occurs within the context of the therapy at its own natural time, without needing to have set an ending date to initiate it. It occurs naturally when the person is strong enough and no longer needs to be defended and armored against deep feelings. It is a deeply healing crisis. It can be a final grieving for the losses of one’s early life, or a final release of the terror caused by childhood traumas, or perhaps a final expression of anxiety as a patient’s sexual feelings emerge in full force.
The actual ending, in whatever form it takes, of the therapeutic relationship becomes kind of anti-climactic, then, more like a transition experienced with a celebratory sigh and embrace, not with a somber tone of severance. Because neither the patient nor the therapist are neurotically dependent on one another, the ending need not be compulsorily absolute. What actually ends at the “end” of a successful therapy is the continued making of transferences to the therapist – and for that matter, to any other people in the patient’s life. The patient acknowledges comfortably at this point that the therapist and he or she are “equals”, adults who are not in need of parental figures anymore. So, the therapeutic relationship, like every relationship, can end or transform gracefully, according to the nature and purpose of the connection between the two individuals.
“Termination” is the ominous term used to describe the end-phase of conventional therapies. In this phase of therapy, the patient is thought to go through the final throws of separation and individuation issues, played out in transference with the therapist. This is also supposed to be a time when the patient will temporarily regress into a final crisis, until finally arriving to a state of autonomy. A requirement here, in traditional thinking, is that the patient and therapist must sever all contact after a formerly agreed-upon last session. Thus, the absoluteness of the word, “termination.”
Yet, it seems obvious that if a patient needs to have such an absolute cut-off dictated to them by a dictating “authority figure”, the implication is that the patient is still quite prone to dependency... so, how “successful” could the therapy have been? (Ironically, termination is thought of as one of the most important phases of the treatment process and yet, it is the least talked or written about in the psychotherapy profession.)
There often is a crisis period that occurs in the later stages of a full-spectrum healing process as well, but it is not precipitated by the pending “termination” of the relationship with the therapist. This crisis occurs within the context of the therapy at its own natural time, without needing to have set an ending date to initiate it. It occurs naturally when the person is strong enough and no longer needs to be defended and armored against deep feelings. It is a deeply healing crisis. It can be a final grieving for the losses of one’s early life, or a final release of the terror caused by childhood traumas, or perhaps a final expression of anxiety as a patient’s sexual feelings emerge in full force.
The actual ending, in whatever form it takes, of the therapeutic relationship becomes kind of anti-climactic, then, more like a transition experienced with a celebratory sigh and embrace, not with a somber tone of severance. Because neither the patient nor the therapist are neurotically dependent on one another, the ending need not be compulsorily absolute. What actually ends at the “end” of a successful therapy is the continued making of transferences to the therapist – and for that matter, to any other people in the patient’s life. The patient acknowledges comfortably at this point that the therapist and he or she are “equals”, adults who are not in need of parental figures anymore. So, the therapeutic relationship, like every relationship, can end or transform gracefully, according to the nature and purpose of the connection between the two individuals.
Some Morning Pundit Quotes
Bob Herbert:
"For the nitwits who vote for the man or woman they’d most like to have over for dinner, or hang out at a barbecue with, I suggest you take a look at how well your 401(k) is doing, or how easy it will be to meet the mortgage this month, or whether the college fund you’ve been trying to build for your kids is as robust as you’d like it to be."
David Brooks:
"No way to deny it. The current Republican party hates intelligence and competence. It's become a Know Nothing spectacle led by Sarah Palin. I will ignore my own years of neglect of this topic, and instead concentrate on where the GOP is heading. Neither subject, btw, is pretty."
Gail Collins:
"Remember how we used to joke about John McCain looking like an old guy yelling at kids to get off his lawn? It’s only in retrospect that we can see that the keep-off-the-grass period was the McCain campaign’s golden era. Now, he’s beginning to act like one of those movie characters who steals the wrong ring and turns into a troll."
"For the nitwits who vote for the man or woman they’d most like to have over for dinner, or hang out at a barbecue with, I suggest you take a look at how well your 401(k) is doing, or how easy it will be to meet the mortgage this month, or whether the college fund you’ve been trying to build for your kids is as robust as you’d like it to be."
David Brooks:
"No way to deny it. The current Republican party hates intelligence and competence. It's become a Know Nothing spectacle led by Sarah Palin. I will ignore my own years of neglect of this topic, and instead concentrate on where the GOP is heading. Neither subject, btw, is pretty."
Gail Collins:
"Remember how we used to joke about John McCain looking like an old guy yelling at kids to get off his lawn? It’s only in retrospect that we can see that the keep-off-the-grass period was the McCain campaign’s golden era. Now, he’s beginning to act like one of those movie characters who steals the wrong ring and turns into a troll."
Today's Quote (by guess who?)
"Once conservatives admired Churchill and Lincoln above all — men from wildly different backgrounds who prepared for leadership through constant reading, historical understanding and sophisticated thinking. Now those attributes bow down before the common touch. No American politician plays the class-warfare card as constantly as Palin. Nobody so relentlessly divides the world between the 'normal Joe Sixpack American' and the coastal elite."
David Brooks
David Brooks
THIS MORNING'S MUST READS
"DIAGNOSIS: GREED," by Judith Warner, a page one story about Dr. Charles B. Nemeroff, a prominent psychiatrist at Emory University, who violated federal research rules regarding conflicts of interest and made millions of dollars consulting for the pharmaceutical industry.
"THE TRUTH ABOUT DRUG COMPANIES," by Marcia Angell,a book about "How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It."
"FAKE BALANCE & McCAIN'S DESPERATE FEAR CAMPAIGN," by Bob Cesca, a blog post about the modern Republican Party and the press. "Why am I so shocked? After all, this is the modern Republican Party. This is the party of Jesse Helms and Alex Castellanos (see White Hands). This is the party of the Southern Strategy. This is the party of Lee Atwater and Willie Horton. This is the party that ignored thousands of people at the Superdome in New Orleans. This is the party of "Harold! Call me!" and the party of Karl Rove and Steve Schmidt who, eight years ago, accused Senator McCain of fathering a black baby out of wedlock. This is the party of Bobby May. It's the party that's presently banking its fortunes upon the expected racism of low-information rural white voters. Just like always. And yet, for some reason beyond comprehension, the establishment press continues to regard it as a very serious political party."
"THE PALIN PROBLEM," by Jon Meacham, in Newsweek Magazine. "Yes, she won the debate by not imploding. But governing requires knowledge, and mindless populism is just that—mindless."
"THE TRUTH ABOUT DRUG COMPANIES," by Marcia Angell,a book about "How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It."
"FAKE BALANCE & McCAIN'S DESPERATE FEAR CAMPAIGN," by Bob Cesca, a blog post about the modern Republican Party and the press. "Why am I so shocked? After all, this is the modern Republican Party. This is the party of Jesse Helms and Alex Castellanos (see White Hands). This is the party of the Southern Strategy. This is the party of Lee Atwater and Willie Horton. This is the party that ignored thousands of people at the Superdome in New Orleans. This is the party of "Harold! Call me!" and the party of Karl Rove and Steve Schmidt who, eight years ago, accused Senator McCain of fathering a black baby out of wedlock. This is the party of Bobby May. It's the party that's presently banking its fortunes upon the expected racism of low-information rural white voters. Just like always. And yet, for some reason beyond comprehension, the establishment press continues to regard it as a very serious political party."
"THE PALIN PROBLEM," by Jon Meacham, in Newsweek Magazine. "Yes, she won the debate by not imploding. But governing requires knowledge, and mindless populism is just that—mindless."
1ST ENDORSEMENT IN 75 YEARS BY ESQUIRE: BARACK OBAMA!
"We thought this election would be a serious fight over the future of this country, but only one candidate showed up."
Check out the article in Esquire @ http://www.esquire.com/features/esquire-endorsements-2008/esquire-endorses-barack-obama
Check out the article in Esquire @ http://www.esquire.com/features/esquire-endorsements-2008/esquire-endorses-barack-obama
Todays Quote
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln
LANDSLIDE? MAYBE WE'RE NOT THAT STUPID!
This is beautiful! A young evangelical, conservative Republican explains in the Atlantic Magazine on-line why he won't be voting in this presidential election. He's 24 years old. I was 26 when I stopped voting, and like this person, it was not out of apathy or laziness. Like this young man, I could not bring myself to vote for either party, not for any of the mealy-mouthed wimps and prevaricators the Democrats put up starting in 1984, nor for any of the prehistoric, mentally challenged Republicans. So, my vote was: "abstain." In 2008, not coincidentally, I am now voting again, while many conservatives are probably abstaining. This is excellent. It bodes well for a victory for Barack Obama.
This bodes equally well, too: yesterday, in line at my bank (yes, it's still open), I overheard two white, working-class types, a man and a women, talking about the election. You know, these are the folks the pundits have been relentlessly saying Obama is having trouble with. The guy was wearing a plumber's uniform and had a classic Brooklyn accent to go along with his thick neck. The woman, sporting excessive make-up and big hair, spoke with the same accent, though she had a reasonable neck. The point is, in simple terms, they were commiserating about why they were voting for Obama. My thought at that moment? "Landslide. It's going to be a landslide! I may have to apologize to my readers, after all, for my 'How Stupid Are We?' series."
Anyway, here's more of an excerpt from the young conservative in The Atlantic:
"I am 24 years-old. I majored in Finance, was in the College Republican group, campaigned for George Bush, my dad owns a successful small business, I am evangelical, and I live in Colorado, a swing state. All of this would seem to bode well for the Republican Party easily capturing my vote this year, especially in a year where it may be more necessary than others.
"However, last night while I watched the debate I decided to not vote in the presidential election this year. I know this may sound like a ridiculous forfeit of a hard-earned American right, but I honestly cannot bring myself to vote for either candidate. There has been such a pattern of disappointment coming out of the Republican Party in the last several years that has all recently come to a head for me, and become consuming enough that I can no longer ignore it and simply check the correct box.
"Balking on the environment, denying basic human rights to our prisoners in the war on terror, becoming more concerned with government telling you what you can or cannot do in your bedroom than, you know, keeping government small, all contributed to this new apathy in me. But I think the first moment that I ever squared with it was when McCain announced Palin as his VP candidate. My thought at the time was, “this sure will mobilize the base, but it is not a base I want anything to do with.” The succeeding month has only proved this initial notion terribly correct.
"My only hope, I suppose, is that as the Republican Party is cast into the political wilderness in a few weeks they do some serious soul-searching and find people like me who are already there."
Wow! I salute you! When I didn't vote for Al Gore or John Kerry, I thought the same thing - the Democrats, and the country, need some time in the "wilderness." Many of my friends thought this was reckless of me, what with the wars, corruption, financial debacles, and horror show the Bush-Cheney years have wrought, but I say - it could have been even worse if we had eight years of wimpy Democrats deadlocked with greedy, psychopathic right wingers, only to arrive at 2008 without a clear mandate to throw them all out. Maybe now, we're ready to take a quantum leap towards a more enlightened future. Just maybe.
This bodes equally well, too: yesterday, in line at my bank (yes, it's still open), I overheard two white, working-class types, a man and a women, talking about the election. You know, these are the folks the pundits have been relentlessly saying Obama is having trouble with. The guy was wearing a plumber's uniform and had a classic Brooklyn accent to go along with his thick neck. The woman, sporting excessive make-up and big hair, spoke with the same accent, though she had a reasonable neck. The point is, in simple terms, they were commiserating about why they were voting for Obama. My thought at that moment? "Landslide. It's going to be a landslide! I may have to apologize to my readers, after all, for my 'How Stupid Are We?' series."
Anyway, here's more of an excerpt from the young conservative in The Atlantic:
"I am 24 years-old. I majored in Finance, was in the College Republican group, campaigned for George Bush, my dad owns a successful small business, I am evangelical, and I live in Colorado, a swing state. All of this would seem to bode well for the Republican Party easily capturing my vote this year, especially in a year where it may be more necessary than others.
"However, last night while I watched the debate I decided to not vote in the presidential election this year. I know this may sound like a ridiculous forfeit of a hard-earned American right, but I honestly cannot bring myself to vote for either candidate. There has been such a pattern of disappointment coming out of the Republican Party in the last several years that has all recently come to a head for me, and become consuming enough that I can no longer ignore it and simply check the correct box.
"Balking on the environment, denying basic human rights to our prisoners in the war on terror, becoming more concerned with government telling you what you can or cannot do in your bedroom than, you know, keeping government small, all contributed to this new apathy in me. But I think the first moment that I ever squared with it was when McCain announced Palin as his VP candidate. My thought at the time was, “this sure will mobilize the base, but it is not a base I want anything to do with.” The succeeding month has only proved this initial notion terribly correct.
"My only hope, I suppose, is that as the Republican Party is cast into the political wilderness in a few weeks they do some serious soul-searching and find people like me who are already there."
Wow! I salute you! When I didn't vote for Al Gore or John Kerry, I thought the same thing - the Democrats, and the country, need some time in the "wilderness." Many of my friends thought this was reckless of me, what with the wars, corruption, financial debacles, and horror show the Bush-Cheney years have wrought, but I say - it could have been even worse if we had eight years of wimpy Democrats deadlocked with greedy, psychopathic right wingers, only to arrive at 2008 without a clear mandate to throw them all out. Maybe now, we're ready to take a quantum leap towards a more enlightened future. Just maybe.
DESIRE CAN'T BE ELIMINATED!
"MBS" TO PL: "I have learned to seek my happiness by limiting my desires, rather than attempting to satisfy them."
MBS's previous comment on my Stages of Healing series was this: "Happiness is not achieved by the conscious pursuit of happiness; it is generally the by-product of other activities."
PL to MBS:
Okay, so there's a theme here, and I feel that I need to be a bit pedantic about it. MBS, you're espousing a typical distortion of Buddhist philosophy, which is that the goal of a spiritual life is to inhibit and/or transcend human desires somehow. As happens with all of the great spiritual masters, Buddha's teachings, like Jesus's, have been mangled to suit the aims of the human ego's grandiosity which presumes in its attempts at "rising above" our humanity that All That Is/God/Nature is flawed and needs correcting by hubristic homo sapiens.
I don't think so. God doesn't make mistakes, or sadistically infuse us with powerful desires that we must then overcome or "limit." Jesus made a point of associating himself with "sinners" and reminded us that none of us should throw stones at those who are lustful.
Mark Epstein, my favorite Buddhist writer and psychotherapist wrote a brilliant piece called, "OPEN TO DESIRE.," in which he elaborates on how Buddha's teachings on desire and suffering ("dukkha") have been distorted. Here's an excerpt from Epstein:
"The problem with denying any aspect of the self is that it persists as a shadow. Clearly, it is not possible to eliminate desire by pretending it is not there. It resurfaces, insistently. With a regularity that has been mirrored in more traditional Western religious communities, those who believed they were stronger than their desires were proven wrong."
Beautifully said, Mark. Desire, which is what motivates human beings to seek, causes "suffering" in the sense that as long as we are growing and evolving, we can never be fully satisfied. But only if we judge suffering as something "bad," or fear it as something unbearable, do we then feel a need to eliminate desire.
Epstein finishes his piece with this French quote:
"Chassez le naturel, il revient au galop." (Chase away the natural, and it comes back at a gallop.)
MBS's previous comment on my Stages of Healing series was this: "Happiness is not achieved by the conscious pursuit of happiness; it is generally the by-product of other activities."
PL to MBS:
Okay, so there's a theme here, and I feel that I need to be a bit pedantic about it. MBS, you're espousing a typical distortion of Buddhist philosophy, which is that the goal of a spiritual life is to inhibit and/or transcend human desires somehow. As happens with all of the great spiritual masters, Buddha's teachings, like Jesus's, have been mangled to suit the aims of the human ego's grandiosity which presumes in its attempts at "rising above" our humanity that All That Is/God/Nature is flawed and needs correcting by hubristic homo sapiens.
I don't think so. God doesn't make mistakes, or sadistically infuse us with powerful desires that we must then overcome or "limit." Jesus made a point of associating himself with "sinners" and reminded us that none of us should throw stones at those who are lustful.
Mark Epstein, my favorite Buddhist writer and psychotherapist wrote a brilliant piece called, "OPEN TO DESIRE.," in which he elaborates on how Buddha's teachings on desire and suffering ("dukkha") have been distorted. Here's an excerpt from Epstein:
"The problem with denying any aspect of the self is that it persists as a shadow. Clearly, it is not possible to eliminate desire by pretending it is not there. It resurfaces, insistently. With a regularity that has been mirrored in more traditional Western religious communities, those who believed they were stronger than their desires were proven wrong."
Beautifully said, Mark. Desire, which is what motivates human beings to seek, causes "suffering" in the sense that as long as we are growing and evolving, we can never be fully satisfied. But only if we judge suffering as something "bad," or fear it as something unbearable, do we then feel a need to eliminate desire.
Epstein finishes his piece with this French quote:
"Chassez le naturel, il revient au galop." (Chase away the natural, and it comes back at a gallop.)
WOW! DAVID BROOKS IS RIGHT, EVEN THOUGH HE'S RIGHT!!
David Brooks, the very conservative writer and pundit for the NY Times, spoke frankly about the presidential and vice presidential candidates Monday afternoon, calling Sarah Palin "a fatal cancer to the Republican party" in an interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg.
Woah! A FATAL CANCER TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!
Furthermore, Brooks adds: "Palin is absolutely not ready to be president or vice president. It is important to have people on the conservative side who celebrate ideas, who celebrate learning. But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices. I think President Bush has those prejudices."
Go David! But he doesn't stop there. He goes on to profusely praise Barack Obama!
Check this out:
"Obama has the great intellect. I was interviewing Obama a couple years ago, and the thing that separates Obama from just a pure intellectual: he has tremendous powers of social perception. And this is why he's a politician, not an academic. A couple of years ago, I was writing columns attacking the Republican congress for spending too much money. And I throw in a few sentences attacking the Democrats to make myself feel better. And one morning I get an email from Obama saying, 'David, if you wanna attack us, fine, but you're only throwing in those sentences to make yourself feel better.' And it was a perfect description of what was going through my mind. And everybody who knows Obama all have these stories to tell about his capacity for social perception."
Tell it like it is, Mr. Brooks! Quite refreshing the truth is, huh?
Woah! A FATAL CANCER TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!
Furthermore, Brooks adds: "Palin is absolutely not ready to be president or vice president. It is important to have people on the conservative side who celebrate ideas, who celebrate learning. But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices. I think President Bush has those prejudices."
Go David! But he doesn't stop there. He goes on to profusely praise Barack Obama!
Check this out:
"Obama has the great intellect. I was interviewing Obama a couple years ago, and the thing that separates Obama from just a pure intellectual: he has tremendous powers of social perception. And this is why he's a politician, not an academic. A couple of years ago, I was writing columns attacking the Republican congress for spending too much money. And I throw in a few sentences attacking the Democrats to make myself feel better. And one morning I get an email from Obama saying, 'David, if you wanna attack us, fine, but you're only throwing in those sentences to make yourself feel better.' And it was a perfect description of what was going through my mind. And everybody who knows Obama all have these stories to tell about his capacity for social perception."
Tell it like it is, Mr. Brooks! Quite refreshing the truth is, huh?
Today's Best Post-Debate Quote
"My admiration for Obama has grown. Not only for his lucid intelligence, his excellent preparation, his understanding that eight years of 'deregulatin' dudes' (as Sarah Palin might put it) has accelerated this financial mess, but also his amazing ability not to grunt, sigh or punch his opponent. When McCain lies with a straight face and pretends he has never had anything to do with the GOP, I'd slug him. But Obama is a prince among debaters. He just smiles elegantly and awaits his chance for a reasonable response. His calm blows me away. I'd hate to debate him. I'd be raising my voice and tearing my hair (as we did at Jewish dinner tables on the Upper West Side when I was a kid) but he'd be cool as the proverbial cucumber. He will make a great president. His temperament is superb."
Erica Jong
Erica Jong
Today's Quote
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence."
Einstein, Albert
Einstein, Albert
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
