Here's Anonymous' comment on an FPL "classic" from a few years ago:
"Thank you for your knowledge, guidance & light as I work to dismantle my cocoon!"
PL:
Thank you!
LOFF56 ON WHY PL DOESN'T WORK FROM 4D FULL-TIME!/PL RESPONDS BY HEALING LOFF56!!
Here's LOFF56:
Hmmm,
I guess then, what I'm asking is more on a personal level for you, Peter Loffredo. Given what you've learned writing this Blog, (and I do believe that blog writing is more about expressing what we are currently learning than what we already know), would your first line of attack (for lack of a better phrase) when trying to heal an individual or a group be more akin to Dr. Len's approach, this 4D approach as you're calling it? Or would you assess the situation and deal with it on a 3D or 4D basis depending on what you deemed to have the most efficacy? Given that you're suggesting that 4D trumps 3D, why would you ever go back to solving a problem in a 3D kind of way? To use another simplistic analogy, if the goal is to drive a nail, and you're given a choice between a hammer and a rock to do the job, why would you ever choose the rock? Only if the hammer wasn't an option would you try to use the rock, right? But it seems, for you at least, that the proverbial hammer is now always an option.
OK, let me be more blunt about the question. Given what you now know about the efficacy of this 4D approach, would you ever go back to "kicking ass"? And I realize that this is a very linear question, so I'm hoping you can step back for a second to answer it in a very linear "yes" or "no" fashion. Lol
Here's PL:
And another great question, L56. Thank you!
But here's the thing - to be able to use a Fourth Dimensional approach full time, you have to be operating in fourth dimensional reality full time. I'm getting there, but I'm not fully there yet. How do I know I'm getting there? Well, just from the perspective of my work as a therapist, over the years, I am definitely finding that as I've done more and more work on healing myself, my patients have accelerated their personal healing journey proportionately. And like the therapist in the article, I am doing less intervention and less application of technique but getting more and more powerful results. So, I actually do use the 4D "hammer" approach over the 3D "rock" approach as much as possible.
What I was saying in my prior post is that I understand that a part of me (including a part of my spiritual self) has found the 3D approach interesting and fun to work with for a while, and so that is why the apparent "delay" in moving fully to 4D. Also, in linear reality things take time.
Stay with me, though. I'm going. I expect to arrive to the place that Dr. Len is at in the very near future. In fact, I'm healing you right now, L56, without even being in the same room as you!
Hmmm,
I guess then, what I'm asking is more on a personal level for you, Peter Loffredo. Given what you've learned writing this Blog, (and I do believe that blog writing is more about expressing what we are currently learning than what we already know), would your first line of attack (for lack of a better phrase) when trying to heal an individual or a group be more akin to Dr. Len's approach, this 4D approach as you're calling it? Or would you assess the situation and deal with it on a 3D or 4D basis depending on what you deemed to have the most efficacy? Given that you're suggesting that 4D trumps 3D, why would you ever go back to solving a problem in a 3D kind of way? To use another simplistic analogy, if the goal is to drive a nail, and you're given a choice between a hammer and a rock to do the job, why would you ever choose the rock? Only if the hammer wasn't an option would you try to use the rock, right? But it seems, for you at least, that the proverbial hammer is now always an option.
OK, let me be more blunt about the question. Given what you now know about the efficacy of this 4D approach, would you ever go back to "kicking ass"? And I realize that this is a very linear question, so I'm hoping you can step back for a second to answer it in a very linear "yes" or "no" fashion. Lol
Here's PL:
And another great question, L56. Thank you!
But here's the thing - to be able to use a Fourth Dimensional approach full time, you have to be operating in fourth dimensional reality full time. I'm getting there, but I'm not fully there yet. How do I know I'm getting there? Well, just from the perspective of my work as a therapist, over the years, I am definitely finding that as I've done more and more work on healing myself, my patients have accelerated their personal healing journey proportionately. And like the therapist in the article, I am doing less intervention and less application of technique but getting more and more powerful results. So, I actually do use the 4D "hammer" approach over the 3D "rock" approach as much as possible.
What I was saying in my prior post is that I understand that a part of me (including a part of my spiritual self) has found the 3D approach interesting and fun to work with for a while, and so that is why the apparent "delay" in moving fully to 4D. Also, in linear reality things take time.
Stay with me, though. I'm going. I expect to arrive to the place that Dr. Len is at in the very near future. In fact, I'm healing you right now, L56, without even being in the same room as you!
EXCELLENT QUESTIONS POSED BY A CONFUSED LOFF56!/PL RESPONDS!
Here's LOFF56:
Yeah, you've completely lost me on this one PL.
Sunday's post about "The World's Most Unusual Therapist" was very fascinating, and I'm totally getting where you're going with that. I totally get that whole, work on yourself to make other people better. It makes a lot of sense even on a basic biological/social level. If you make yourself stronger physically, then the whole tribe benefits from your abilities. But I can't help thinking that Dr. Len's ultimate example of "riding the wave", as it were, is pretty antithetical to your "ass kicking" methodology that you've talked about many, many times on this blog. Haven't you argued that "kicking ass", as it were, was a means for people to find the truth about themselves in a not-so-sugar-coated way so that they can be empowered to help themselves? I'm a bit lost as to how both philosophies can co-exist. In Dr. Len's methodology "ass kicking" wasn't really on the agenda. In fact, from what you posted, it looks like he didn't even talk to his patients, or even talk about his patients, or was ever even in the same room with them. They would have no idea in the physical 3 dimensional world what he thought of them or maybe even that he even existed!
It appears to me as though both methods are in contradiction with each other. Is there a compromise here? Does one ultimately trump the other? Are you now subscribing to Dr. Len's methodology and therefore resigning yourself to the fact that your past "ass kickings" were all just for "fun"? Or is there still something to be said for a good "ass kicking" that perhaps Dr. Len just doesn't get?
I hope I'm not oversimplifying things, but I also hope you can see my confusion.
Here's PL:
I love the fact that you give yourself - and everyone else - the gift of reflecting deeply on things, L56. Thank you!
Yes, what I was trying to say in one sense is that 4D does indeed "trump" 3D, but going 3D in response to 3D is, or can be, "fun." What I actually said was that "commenting on this physical/linear level of creation from a physical/linear perspective" is "an interesting, and I must admit, stimulating exercise."
Perhaps another way of saying this is that healing oneself as the method to heal others is the most powerful and efficient way to go about healing - the 4th Dimensional approach. Does that invalidate the 3-dimensional approaches, including "kicking ass?" Only if you're thinking three-dimensionally!
We are in the process collectively of evolving from a three-dimensional, linear perspective to a non-linear multi-dimensional perspective, but that doesn't mean that the experiment in 3D was "wrong" or invalid. It was that experiment, that experience. Now, we're sort of at a been there, done that place with hard-core dualistic thinking, so we're shifting.
Very stimulating, eh?
Yeah, you've completely lost me on this one PL.
Sunday's post about "The World's Most Unusual Therapist" was very fascinating, and I'm totally getting where you're going with that. I totally get that whole, work on yourself to make other people better. It makes a lot of sense even on a basic biological/social level. If you make yourself stronger physically, then the whole tribe benefits from your abilities. But I can't help thinking that Dr. Len's ultimate example of "riding the wave", as it were, is pretty antithetical to your "ass kicking" methodology that you've talked about many, many times on this blog. Haven't you argued that "kicking ass", as it were, was a means for people to find the truth about themselves in a not-so-sugar-coated way so that they can be empowered to help themselves? I'm a bit lost as to how both philosophies can co-exist. In Dr. Len's methodology "ass kicking" wasn't really on the agenda. In fact, from what you posted, it looks like he didn't even talk to his patients, or even talk about his patients, or was ever even in the same room with them. They would have no idea in the physical 3 dimensional world what he thought of them or maybe even that he even existed!
It appears to me as though both methods are in contradiction with each other. Is there a compromise here? Does one ultimately trump the other? Are you now subscribing to Dr. Len's methodology and therefore resigning yourself to the fact that your past "ass kickings" were all just for "fun"? Or is there still something to be said for a good "ass kicking" that perhaps Dr. Len just doesn't get?
I hope I'm not oversimplifying things, but I also hope you can see my confusion.
Here's PL:
I love the fact that you give yourself - and everyone else - the gift of reflecting deeply on things, L56. Thank you!
Yes, what I was trying to say in one sense is that 4D does indeed "trump" 3D, but going 3D in response to 3D is, or can be, "fun." What I actually said was that "commenting on this physical/linear level of creation from a physical/linear perspective" is "an interesting, and I must admit, stimulating exercise."
Perhaps another way of saying this is that healing oneself as the method to heal others is the most powerful and efficient way to go about healing - the 4th Dimensional approach. Does that invalidate the 3-dimensional approaches, including "kicking ass?" Only if you're thinking three-dimensionally!
We are in the process collectively of evolving from a three-dimensional, linear perspective to a non-linear multi-dimensional perspective, but that doesn't mean that the experiment in 3D was "wrong" or invalid. It was that experiment, that experience. Now, we're sort of at a been there, done that place with hard-core dualistic thinking, so we're shifting.
Very stimulating, eh?
"LJB" LIKES THE WALRUS!/PL RESPONDS!
Here's LJB on PL's post: ""I AM HE AS YOU ARE HE AS YOU ARE ME AND WE ARE ALL TOGETHER":
Go, PL! Reading you loud & clear in Vermont! Thanks for this post!
"If you want to solve a problem, no matter what kind of problem, work on yourself." —Ihaleakala Hew Len
HERE'S PL:
Thanks, LJ - I know you do!
Go, PL! Reading you loud & clear in Vermont! Thanks for this post!
"If you want to solve a problem, no matter what kind of problem, work on yourself." —Ihaleakala Hew Len
HERE'S PL:
Thanks, LJ - I know you do!
IT'S SUNDAY - PLEASE DON'T GO TO CHURCH!! (MORE ON "HOW CRAZY IS THIS GUY?!!?)
"Letting women be priests — which should be seen as a way to help cleanse the church and move it beyond its infantilized and defensive state — is now on the list of awful sins right next to pedophilia, heresy, apostasy and schism."
Read the rest of Maureen Dowd's editorial in today's NY TIMES HERE.
Crazier even than this guy?!!?
"The death throes of Mel Gibson’s career feel less like another Hollywood scandal than the last gasps of an American era."
Read the rest of Frank Rich's editorial in the NY TIMES HERE.
Read the rest of Maureen Dowd's editorial in today's NY TIMES HERE.
Crazier even than this guy?!!?
"The death throes of Mel Gibson’s career feel less like another Hollywood scandal than the last gasps of an American era."Read the rest of Frank Rich's editorial in the NY TIMES HERE.
TODAY'S "HOW CRAZY IS THIS GUY?!!?" QUOTE!
According to the Pope yesterday, the ordination of women is a "grave crime" subject to the same set of procedures and punishments meted out for sex abuse! 
Are there any defenders of the Catholic Church left?!
Whew!
Are there any defenders of the Catholic Church left?!Whew!
"LUIS" COMMENTS ON PL'S: "THE MASOCHISTIC CHARACTER STRUCTURE"/PL RESPONDS!
Here's Luis:
Peter,
I really appreciate this article. No words enough to thank you.
Here's PL:
Well, Luis, your words are definitely enough. Thank you.
Self-knowledge is a very wonderful thing, is it not?
All my best,
PL
Oh, and here is the therapeutic tasks and approach that you asked for.
THERAPEUTIC TASKS
- Develop spontaneity, assertiveness and healthy aggression without fears of humiliation or retaliation;
- Become aware of, accept and release negative feelings and attitudes, and sadistic impulses, without guilt or anxiety;
- Relinquish the obsessive-compulsive patterns, and the excessive need to control and not mess up;
- Recognize and relinquish the self-sabotaging and passive-aggressive behavior patterns that have been a resistance to expansion and an illusory form of vengeance against the dominating parents of childhood;
- Stretch and decompress the body, opening it up to its full length; release the held aggression everywhere in the body, and particularly let go of the spasticity in the entire pelvic floor area;
- Experience sexual feelings freely without guilt or the fear that the bottom will fall out; let go of the pushing and stopping as a way of controlling the energy flow;
- Release the judgmental attitudes and disgust toward bodily functions and needs, particularly sex, eating and excretory functions;
- Acknowledge and experience the different aspects of the personality, opening the lines of communication between them, while establishing an identification with the adult self;
- Become aware of the erroneous conclusions, images and beliefs of the mask/false self, and the limitations and unreality of the idealized self image;
- Experience pleasure and expansion, and recognize and express one’s Higher Self aspects with less fear of exploding;
- Primary raw negative expression that needs release: “No!”
- Primary positive self-affirmation that needs assertion: “I have the right to be free.”
THERAPUETIC APPROACH
- Establish a light and warm environment, acknowledging the genuine kindness, compassion and goodness in this person who suffers from a belief in his or her own “badness”;
- Engage the person’s capacity for humor to counteract the heaviness in their emotional climate and despondent view of their life as a burden;
- Encourage the person to talk about their perceived “disgusting” habits and self-destructive patterns to neutralize the shame and guilt;
- Help the person face the reality of having been controlled and dominated by the parents, and that “being good” was a desperate attempt to get love and acceptance;
- Confront the person’s defiance and hostility underneath their passivity; the person employing this structure can tolerate and even needs provocation by the therapist to get their anger acknowledged and moving;
- Use full bodywork regimen early on and regularly, including group; use rolling to stretch out the compressed torso, pelvic thrusts, hitting and kicking to free up the aggression; massage the heavily armored large muscles deeply, even pounding them, to release pain and tension; massage chest and diaphragmatic segment to facilitate fuller exhalation; facilitate crying through deep massaging of the neck, chest and abdomen, which will be necessary to clear the massive contractions there;
- Energize the “No!’ fully and regularly in this person through verbal expressions while doing the bodywork; also have this person energetically verbalize scatological expressions and sounds during bodywork (“Shit on you!”);
- Confront the person’s passive resistance to therapy as a way of spiting the perceived controlling will of the therapist (as parent); this person will tend to be a “model patient” (“good boy or girl”) by always being on time, always paying, following up advice, etc., but will “thwart” the therapist by “never feeling any better”;
- Help the person recognize their Higher Self aspects, especially their compassionate and joyful nature, to see that their gifts are there even when hidden behind the mask, and that although they have a wounded aspect in their personality, they need not identify with that aspect in order for it to get the help it needs;
- In the later stages of therapy, as the person drops the mask and releases the raw negative feelings, fear of pleasure and expansion must be addressed as it comes up with reassurance, based on experience, that they can tolerate the energy now and that the fear is not a regression or a setback.
DEFINITIONS
Compulsion: a repeated action, the need for whose performance insistently forces itself into consciousness even though the person simultaneously does not wish to perform the act; compulsions are obsessions in action, are ego-alien and are therefore always resisted.
Dissimulation: the act of pretending.
Externalization: a process by which one’s feelings toward oneself are experienced as feelings toward others.
Obsession: an idea or impulse that repetitively and insistently forces itself into consciousness even though it is unwelcome; an example of an intellectual obsession is a preoccupation with metaphysical questions concerning one’s purpose in life, ultimate destiny, etc.; an example of an impulsive obsession is an idea that leads to action like concerns about germs leading to repeated hand-washing.
Rationalization: making a thing appear reasonable, when otherwise its irrationality would be evident; meant to act as a screen, to cover up ideas or actions intended to gratify an unconscious need.
Reaction Formation: the development of conscious attitudes and interests that are socially acceptable that are the antithesis of unconscious attitudes and impulses that are not acceptable.
Reversal: the process by which an energetic expression, an impulse or feeling, is changed into its opposite. Through this mechanism, hate may change to love, sadism to masochism, longing for an object to rejection of it, etc. (precursor to reaction formation)
Ruminative Thinking: repetitively going over ideas (often unpleasant ones), recollections or plans mentally that serves no adaptive purpose, but rather serves to distract one’s conscious mind from being aware of feelings deemed unacceptable.
Undoing: a defense mechanism consisting of positive action that actually (or in fantasy) is the opposite of something against which the ego must defend itself (i.e. – eating health food to defend against an impulse to literally “eat shit”).
Peter,
I really appreciate this article. No words enough to thank you.
Here's PL:
Well, Luis, your words are definitely enough. Thank you.
Self-knowledge is a very wonderful thing, is it not?
All my best,
PL
Oh, and here is the therapeutic tasks and approach that you asked for.
THERAPEUTIC TASKS
- Develop spontaneity, assertiveness and healthy aggression without fears of humiliation or retaliation;
- Become aware of, accept and release negative feelings and attitudes, and sadistic impulses, without guilt or anxiety;
- Relinquish the obsessive-compulsive patterns, and the excessive need to control and not mess up;
- Recognize and relinquish the self-sabotaging and passive-aggressive behavior patterns that have been a resistance to expansion and an illusory form of vengeance against the dominating parents of childhood;
- Stretch and decompress the body, opening it up to its full length; release the held aggression everywhere in the body, and particularly let go of the spasticity in the entire pelvic floor area;
- Experience sexual feelings freely without guilt or the fear that the bottom will fall out; let go of the pushing and stopping as a way of controlling the energy flow;
- Release the judgmental attitudes and disgust toward bodily functions and needs, particularly sex, eating and excretory functions;
- Acknowledge and experience the different aspects of the personality, opening the lines of communication between them, while establishing an identification with the adult self;
- Become aware of the erroneous conclusions, images and beliefs of the mask/false self, and the limitations and unreality of the idealized self image;
- Experience pleasure and expansion, and recognize and express one’s Higher Self aspects with less fear of exploding;
- Primary raw negative expression that needs release: “No!”
- Primary positive self-affirmation that needs assertion: “I have the right to be free.”
THERAPUETIC APPROACH
- Establish a light and warm environment, acknowledging the genuine kindness, compassion and goodness in this person who suffers from a belief in his or her own “badness”;
- Engage the person’s capacity for humor to counteract the heaviness in their emotional climate and despondent view of their life as a burden;
- Encourage the person to talk about their perceived “disgusting” habits and self-destructive patterns to neutralize the shame and guilt;
- Help the person face the reality of having been controlled and dominated by the parents, and that “being good” was a desperate attempt to get love and acceptance;
- Confront the person’s defiance and hostility underneath their passivity; the person employing this structure can tolerate and even needs provocation by the therapist to get their anger acknowledged and moving;
- Use full bodywork regimen early on and regularly, including group; use rolling to stretch out the compressed torso, pelvic thrusts, hitting and kicking to free up the aggression; massage the heavily armored large muscles deeply, even pounding them, to release pain and tension; massage chest and diaphragmatic segment to facilitate fuller exhalation; facilitate crying through deep massaging of the neck, chest and abdomen, which will be necessary to clear the massive contractions there;
- Energize the “No!’ fully and regularly in this person through verbal expressions while doing the bodywork; also have this person energetically verbalize scatological expressions and sounds during bodywork (“Shit on you!”);
- Confront the person’s passive resistance to therapy as a way of spiting the perceived controlling will of the therapist (as parent); this person will tend to be a “model patient” (“good boy or girl”) by always being on time, always paying, following up advice, etc., but will “thwart” the therapist by “never feeling any better”;
- Help the person recognize their Higher Self aspects, especially their compassionate and joyful nature, to see that their gifts are there even when hidden behind the mask, and that although they have a wounded aspect in their personality, they need not identify with that aspect in order for it to get the help it needs;
- In the later stages of therapy, as the person drops the mask and releases the raw negative feelings, fear of pleasure and expansion must be addressed as it comes up with reassurance, based on experience, that they can tolerate the energy now and that the fear is not a regression or a setback.
DEFINITIONS
Compulsion: a repeated action, the need for whose performance insistently forces itself into consciousness even though the person simultaneously does not wish to perform the act; compulsions are obsessions in action, are ego-alien and are therefore always resisted.
Dissimulation: the act of pretending.
Externalization: a process by which one’s feelings toward oneself are experienced as feelings toward others.
Obsession: an idea or impulse that repetitively and insistently forces itself into consciousness even though it is unwelcome; an example of an intellectual obsession is a preoccupation with metaphysical questions concerning one’s purpose in life, ultimate destiny, etc.; an example of an impulsive obsession is an idea that leads to action like concerns about germs leading to repeated hand-washing.
Rationalization: making a thing appear reasonable, when otherwise its irrationality would be evident; meant to act as a screen, to cover up ideas or actions intended to gratify an unconscious need.
Reaction Formation: the development of conscious attitudes and interests that are socially acceptable that are the antithesis of unconscious attitudes and impulses that are not acceptable.
Reversal: the process by which an energetic expression, an impulse or feeling, is changed into its opposite. Through this mechanism, hate may change to love, sadism to masochism, longing for an object to rejection of it, etc. (precursor to reaction formation)
Ruminative Thinking: repetitively going over ideas (often unpleasant ones), recollections or plans mentally that serves no adaptive purpose, but rather serves to distract one’s conscious mind from being aware of feelings deemed unacceptable.
Undoing: a defense mechanism consisting of positive action that actually (or in fantasy) is the opposite of something against which the ego must defend itself (i.e. – eating health food to defend against an impulse to literally “eat shit”).
SCENE FROM EPISODE 6: "THE PICNIC" OF CITY ROCK!
Yep. We're doing one more round before we take a break in August. Number Six. Episode 5: "Father's Day" was a great experience for all involved, and the vortex being created around City Rock garnered even more positive energy and enthusiastic interest. I am struck by the direct relationship between doing what you love to do and receiving support from all corners of the Universe.
Here's a peek inside the script:
INT. FRANK’S FLAT - EVENING
Frank and Jennie relaxing in the bathtub in the kitchen, taking turns with a joint and a pint of Jack Daniels. Frank shakes his head.
FRANK
I feel guilty doing this with you while you’re on a methadone program.
JENNIE
Hey, Frankie babe! Gimme a break! I’m not shootin’ dope. Michael the Monster is out of my life... for today anyway. And I’m in therapy three goddamn times a week with Cramer the Magician! Dig? I gotta give myself some kind of reward now and then. I’m just bummed that I didn’t pick up a half O-Z of coke while I was at the clinic this morning.
Frank looks at her as if she were an alien, then changes the subject.
FRANK
Can you believe those two? I don’t know which one is crazier?
JENNIE
Dig!
(beat)
Which two? Larry and G.C.? Or Joy and Rick? Man, that dude loves to party even more than me...
FRANK
No. No. I’m trying very hard not to think about the team right now. I mean, the Glicks.
JENNIE
Oh, yeah! I say... he’s the crazier one, but she’s the killer.
FRANK
Yeah, it’d be better if she was the one who couldn’t go out in public.
JENNIE
(eyes flashing pain)
I know that stare of hers. A little too familiar...
Before he can respond, the phone rings. He gets out of the tub, dripping water and suds across the kitchen and picks up the phone sitting on the window sill.
FRANK
Hello...
(his eyes widen)
HI! HI! Sarah! Wow! How are you?... Uh-huh... uh-huh... great, great... yeah, good, okay, busy... social worker at a high school, yeah, and part-time at a runaway shelter... yeah, yeah, you know me... you? RN? Congratulations!
(conflict on his face as he listens)
... uhh... sure, okay, yeah... when? Oh. Yeah, sure. Okay. Dinner? Okay. Call me when you get in and I’ll give you directions. Okay. See you tomorrow.
He hangs up and dries off. Jen curious as she tokes on the joint and passes it to him. He sits on the edge of the tub.
JENNIE
You look like you need a hit of this. Who was that?
FRANK
My ex-wife.
JENNIE
Oh, snap! You’re ex-wife?! How could you already have an EX-wife?
WHY I LIVE IN BROOKLYN?!
This is something I wrote this morning in response to a debate over which NYC park was better - Central Park or Prospect Park.
Here's PL:
Over my 6 years of living in Park Slope, and writing on this blog, and before that on the Only The Blog Knows Brooklyn blog, I have been very critical of this enclave of sexless, stroller-jockeying Stepford Parents, and the narcissistic, non-empathic kids they are breeding. So, naturally, people have often not so subtly suggested that if I didn't like it, I shouldn't live here, somewhat with the same tone that George Bush said "You're either with us or with the terrorists."
So, since it's obviously not the people in PS keeping me in this part of New York City, why do I live here?
Yep. It's Prospect Park!
I lived right near Central Park for 25 years, and used the park regularly, and there is no comparison. Prospect Park is a pristine paradise compared to Central Park. The lushness of it even elevates and freshens the air in the surrounding streets.
And the lack of tourists? Well, Jim Rasenberger must be the only New Yorker who thinks that is a drawback. His reasons for preferring CP basically seem to come down to that more people go there and it's more famous. Well, maybe that's because it's in Manhattan, and because it's more like an amusement park than a landscaping masterpiece.
Yes, I must agree with everything Elizabeth Giddens says, including her observation on God's practice run with men before he made his masterpiece - women.
Here's PL:
Over my 6 years of living in Park Slope, and writing on this blog, and before that on the Only The Blog Knows Brooklyn blog, I have been very critical of this enclave of sexless, stroller-jockeying Stepford Parents, and the narcissistic, non-empathic kids they are breeding. So, naturally, people have often not so subtly suggested that if I didn't like it, I shouldn't live here, somewhat with the same tone that George Bush said "You're either with us or with the terrorists."
So, since it's obviously not the people in PS keeping me in this part of New York City, why do I live here?
Yep. It's Prospect Park!
I lived right near Central Park for 25 years, and used the park regularly, and there is no comparison. Prospect Park is a pristine paradise compared to Central Park. The lushness of it even elevates and freshens the air in the surrounding streets.
And the lack of tourists? Well, Jim Rasenberger must be the only New Yorker who thinks that is a drawback. His reasons for preferring CP basically seem to come down to that more people go there and it's more famous. Well, maybe that's because it's in Manhattan, and because it's more like an amusement park than a landscaping masterpiece.
Yes, I must agree with everything Elizabeth Giddens says, including her observation on God's practice run with men before he made his masterpiece - women.
TODAY'S QUOTE! (NOT BY PL!)
This might sound like it could be me, but it's actually from a blog called: Earthspiritworks.
"I spent time lounging on the beach this week (and I’ve got the sunburn to prove it – ouch! – wtf wasn’t I thinking?), resting after many weeks of teaching, holding space for others, planning, etc. Nature, particularly the ocean, has an wonderful, calming, healing effect on me. I had the pleasure of falling asleep at night to the sound of waves crashing on the shore. That may just be my favorite lullaby. As I sat on the ferry heading back to the mainland, I smiled as I watched Fire Island fade on the horizon. An enormous sense of gratitude and renewal swelled inside of me and I realized that I was happy to be returning to the city. Mission accomplished. I reflected on that peacefulness in meditation and wondered how I could maintain it when the ocean is not available."
"I spent time lounging on the beach this week (and I’ve got the sunburn to prove it – ouch! – wtf wasn’t I thinking?), resting after many weeks of teaching, holding space for others, planning, etc. Nature, particularly the ocean, has an wonderful, calming, healing effect on me. I had the pleasure of falling asleep at night to the sound of waves crashing on the shore. That may just be my favorite lullaby. As I sat on the ferry heading back to the mainland, I smiled as I watched Fire Island fade on the horizon. An enormous sense of gratitude and renewal swelled inside of me and I realized that I was happy to be returning to the city. Mission accomplished. I reflected on that peacefulness in meditation and wondered how I could maintain it when the ocean is not available."
DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN TO YOU!
Mel Gibson's career and grip on his life are basically over. The news is being reported everywhere this weekend that after his latest abusive, racist spate of acting out and borderline behavior, his agents have dropped him, and he is now a total pariah in the movie business. Done. Finished. See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya!
But, what happened to Mel? And more importantly, could it happen to you?!
Well, it's actually pretty simple, you see... Change is constant.
If something or someone is alive, there is a continuous movement of energy, life force if you will, that never ceases to flow. If, however, due to unresolved inner conflicts, unchallenged erroneous beliefs and blocked emotions, one creates constrictions to that flow of energy, illness or dis-ease will result. Always. No exceptions, folks. None. Ever. No "closed system" ever thrives over time.
As we "age" (I prefer "grow" or "evolve" as being more accurate, but...), things either get better or worse as linear time passes. They never ever remain the same. Either your life continues to become more constricted and painful and depressing over time, your distortions more pronounced, your limitations more extreme, your satisfaction more diminished, or your life becomes freer, happier, more pleasurable, vibrant, passionate and peaceful with age. And obviously, the determining factor here is whether or not you have done the self-work necessary to heal the wounds we all suffer from having crash-landed on Planet Earth when we're born.
So, it's up to you, folks - be happy, live long and prosper or...
But, what happened to Mel? And more importantly, could it happen to you?!
Well, it's actually pretty simple, you see... Change is constant.
If something or someone is alive, there is a continuous movement of energy, life force if you will, that never ceases to flow. If, however, due to unresolved inner conflicts, unchallenged erroneous beliefs and blocked emotions, one creates constrictions to that flow of energy, illness or dis-ease will result. Always. No exceptions, folks. None. Ever. No "closed system" ever thrives over time.
As we "age" (I prefer "grow" or "evolve" as being more accurate, but...), things either get better or worse as linear time passes. They never ever remain the same. Either your life continues to become more constricted and painful and depressing over time, your distortions more pronounced, your limitations more extreme, your satisfaction more diminished, or your life becomes freer, happier, more pleasurable, vibrant, passionate and peaceful with age. And obviously, the determining factor here is whether or not you have done the self-work necessary to heal the wounds we all suffer from having crash-landed on Planet Earth when we're born.
So, it's up to you, folks - be happy, live long and prosper or...
"DAVID" THINKS PL IS RECKLESS ABOUT THE SUN!/PL RESPONDS!
Here's David:
I came across your blog from your posting on craigslist about the stroller ban. I was curious about more of your views when I read this post about sun exposure.
As a 46 year old who first had skin cancers removed from my face/torso/neck by 30 due to natural sun exposure (the beach/park/etc), I can't disagree with your statement more. I find it also dangerous.
I don't know your ethnic heritage, but your skin type must be of a kind that produces enough melanin to protect against damage. My background is Scottish, so I have fair/ruddy skin. I have to wear sunscreen everyday, or else I would have more basil and squamos cell skin cancers all over my face and arms. If unchecked, these can grow, get into the blood stream, and become melanoma. Which can be deadly.
Since you counsel people for a living, I'm surprised that you would make large, blanket assertions that seem to say that all doctors are bad, all western medicine is bad, the sun is great for skin and reports of its dangers misleading.
If I was a potential client/patient of yours and found that you dont think there is anything at all to be gained from the science of western medicine, it would be like saying you firmly believe the world is flat, and I would run for the hills. Your thinking (on this topic) seems to be so reductive, yet you seem to profess to expand people's thinking.
Thanks for letting me share my views.
Here's PL:
Thanks for writing in, David. Always glad to have to have a new voice heard here.
I would like to "tweak" a bit of what you're claiming I said.
Yes, I do at times speak generally in over-arching ways about certain professional groups, especially on this blog. That is certainly so. I also use specific cases and my own personal experiences as examples, at other times. For instance, I said: "One thing I have always known is that the sun is good for me." (Italics for emphasis.)
A very important aspect of Full Permission Living, that people sometimes overlook because they are so invested in a belief in the need for harsh inner control over their thoughts and feelings, is what I repeated in my piece about the sun that you refer to: "When you have done the self-work necessary to clear out a good portion of your self-destructive, character structure driven defenses, you can then follow this simple rule: 'If it feels good, it is good!" I also said: "I have never shied away from getting as much sun - without burning - as possible.
Clearly, what is implied there is that if you haven't done the self-work necessary, you might want to be careful about what you think is pleasurable, because it's probably skewed in some potentially damaging ways. I have known many people with similar ethnic backgrounds to yours, and they don't enjoy the sun anywhere near as much as I do. And that is my point. If you are clear enough to follow the Pleasure Principle built into you by nature, you don't need a doctor to scare you into not getting too much sun, your body reaction will tell you.
Also, I am not impugning the integrity of every single individual within a professional group when I am criticizing that group, David, anymore than I am impugning my own integrity when I expose the insipid, passive-aggressive behavior amoung psychotherapists. And I am not implying in what I've written that there isn't "anything at all to be gained from the science of western medicine." Personally, I think conventional doctors are good mechanics, and I would go to one to stitch up a gash or reset a bone, but to diagnose my overall health or heal a disease? Never. They are not trained for that. Doctors are trained primarily to treat symptoms in such a way as to maximize profits for themselves and the pharmaceutical and insurance industries that they are in league with. Sorry, but that's just so.
And... as I've written many times on this blog, the "one bad apple" excuse doesn't let industries off the hook where the corruption is systemic - i.e. the Catholic priesthood, law enforcement, traditional education, etc. And the mainstream medical profession is systemically very corrupt. The fact alone that all doctors understand the placebo effect, and heard about it in medical school, yet still don't focus on dealing with people's inner beliefs when treating them, is malpractice, don't you think? If I knew that I could work with my thoughts and feelings instead of taking drugs, being cut apart or doused with radiation, wouldn't I prefer that? Shouldn't doctors advise me as such?
As a clinical social worker who has dealt with a lot of other people's health issues, and as a human being concerned with my own health, I have not only had a lot of professional dealings with the medical profession over the years, but I have learned to empower myself and others that I counsel to take responsibility for their own health. That is what I do. My patients don't blindly follow any dictates from me, David, because I work to facilitate their own self-empowerment by advising them to seek the truth themselves in every situation, and by helping them clear out the blocks that interfere with discovering that truth.
It's not me saying the "earth is flat," David, but it is the dogma built around erroneous beliefs in order to sustain a system of fear and greed that is "reductive."
Thanks again, David.
PL
I came across your blog from your posting on craigslist about the stroller ban. I was curious about more of your views when I read this post about sun exposure.
As a 46 year old who first had skin cancers removed from my face/torso/neck by 30 due to natural sun exposure (the beach/park/etc), I can't disagree with your statement more. I find it also dangerous.
I don't know your ethnic heritage, but your skin type must be of a kind that produces enough melanin to protect against damage. My background is Scottish, so I have fair/ruddy skin. I have to wear sunscreen everyday, or else I would have more basil and squamos cell skin cancers all over my face and arms. If unchecked, these can grow, get into the blood stream, and become melanoma. Which can be deadly.
Since you counsel people for a living, I'm surprised that you would make large, blanket assertions that seem to say that all doctors are bad, all western medicine is bad, the sun is great for skin and reports of its dangers misleading.
If I was a potential client/patient of yours and found that you dont think there is anything at all to be gained from the science of western medicine, it would be like saying you firmly believe the world is flat, and I would run for the hills. Your thinking (on this topic) seems to be so reductive, yet you seem to profess to expand people's thinking.
Thanks for letting me share my views.
Here's PL:
Thanks for writing in, David. Always glad to have to have a new voice heard here.
I would like to "tweak" a bit of what you're claiming I said.
Yes, I do at times speak generally in over-arching ways about certain professional groups, especially on this blog. That is certainly so. I also use specific cases and my own personal experiences as examples, at other times. For instance, I said: "One thing I have always known is that the sun is good for me." (Italics for emphasis.)
A very important aspect of Full Permission Living, that people sometimes overlook because they are so invested in a belief in the need for harsh inner control over their thoughts and feelings, is what I repeated in my piece about the sun that you refer to: "When you have done the self-work necessary to clear out a good portion of your self-destructive, character structure driven defenses, you can then follow this simple rule: 'If it feels good, it is good!" I also said: "I have never shied away from getting as much sun - without burning - as possible.
Clearly, what is implied there is that if you haven't done the self-work necessary, you might want to be careful about what you think is pleasurable, because it's probably skewed in some potentially damaging ways. I have known many people with similar ethnic backgrounds to yours, and they don't enjoy the sun anywhere near as much as I do. And that is my point. If you are clear enough to follow the Pleasure Principle built into you by nature, you don't need a doctor to scare you into not getting too much sun, your body reaction will tell you.
Also, I am not impugning the integrity of every single individual within a professional group when I am criticizing that group, David, anymore than I am impugning my own integrity when I expose the insipid, passive-aggressive behavior amoung psychotherapists. And I am not implying in what I've written that there isn't "anything at all to be gained from the science of western medicine." Personally, I think conventional doctors are good mechanics, and I would go to one to stitch up a gash or reset a bone, but to diagnose my overall health or heal a disease? Never. They are not trained for that. Doctors are trained primarily to treat symptoms in such a way as to maximize profits for themselves and the pharmaceutical and insurance industries that they are in league with. Sorry, but that's just so.
And... as I've written many times on this blog, the "one bad apple" excuse doesn't let industries off the hook where the corruption is systemic - i.e. the Catholic priesthood, law enforcement, traditional education, etc. And the mainstream medical profession is systemically very corrupt. The fact alone that all doctors understand the placebo effect, and heard about it in medical school, yet still don't focus on dealing with people's inner beliefs when treating them, is malpractice, don't you think? If I knew that I could work with my thoughts and feelings instead of taking drugs, being cut apart or doused with radiation, wouldn't I prefer that? Shouldn't doctors advise me as such?
As a clinical social worker who has dealt with a lot of other people's health issues, and as a human being concerned with my own health, I have not only had a lot of professional dealings with the medical profession over the years, but I have learned to empower myself and others that I counsel to take responsibility for their own health. That is what I do. My patients don't blindly follow any dictates from me, David, because I work to facilitate their own self-empowerment by advising them to seek the truth themselves in every situation, and by helping them clear out the blocks that interfere with discovering that truth.
It's not me saying the "earth is flat," David, but it is the dogma built around erroneous beliefs in order to sustain a system of fear and greed that is "reductive."
Thanks again, David.
PL
ANOTHER ROUND W/LOFF56!/PL RESPONDS!
Here's LOFF56:
PL, you said:
"I am not 'shaming' my patients or readers by firmly pointing out their destructive and self-destructive behavior or thought patterns, and "insisting" that they attempt to do the work they came to see me for, anymore than I'm being judgmental or shaming if I tell my little child that throwing pasta across the table or stealing a friend's toy is not acceptable behavior."
You're missing the point. The parents of Park Slope that you're "assessing" are neither patients that have sought you out for your help nor your children which you are charged with raising. Unless you're assuming that they are all reading your blog and using your wisdom for their own self-actualization, any "assessment" of them are not for their direct benefit. I understand your bedside manner thing, I get that, it makes sense, I'm not questioning that, but that's not what's at issue. The real question is why are you using that bedside manner for people that are clearly not willing to listen? To tweak a popular phrase, once you catch a fly you can give it as much vinegar as you like, but the fact still remains that in order to catch said fly you ought to be using honey.
Here's the bottom line, I still think you're being judgmental. But that's your prerogative. It's your blog. I just don't understand why you're so resistant to owning up to the "J" word. "Avenue Q" the Tony winning musical of 2004 has famously said in one of its songs, "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist." It's meant to diffuse the tension associated with our small discretions by showing us that we all share at least some degree of imperfection, even in regards to things that are otherwise extremely unsavory. Another interpretation of this is that if you claim that you're 100% not a racist you're dooming yourself to live up to impossible standards and inevitably doomed to fail. So, I say "Everyone's a Little Bit Judgmental". And, "Everyone's a Little Bit Narcissistic." Right?
Here's PL:
Actually, L56, I am assuming that whoever is reading my blog is using whatever wisdom I am able to channel for the purposes of their own self-actualization, and furthermore, I assume that they are seeking some guidance, consciously or not, in how to raise the undeveloped child aspect in their personality.
Secondly, I am not claiming to be beyond judgment myself, in some "perfected" way, but my "prerogative" is not the issue. Again, it's not all relative in 3-D reality. To say to someone who is violent - "You are violent!" - is not a judgment, but an accurate assessment, yes? Well, likewise, to say to someone - "Your narcissism is hurting your child!" - is not a judgment.
Using honey to catch a fly? I prefer this guy's approach!
PL, you said:
"I am not 'shaming' my patients or readers by firmly pointing out their destructive and self-destructive behavior or thought patterns, and "insisting" that they attempt to do the work they came to see me for, anymore than I'm being judgmental or shaming if I tell my little child that throwing pasta across the table or stealing a friend's toy is not acceptable behavior."
You're missing the point. The parents of Park Slope that you're "assessing" are neither patients that have sought you out for your help nor your children which you are charged with raising. Unless you're assuming that they are all reading your blog and using your wisdom for their own self-actualization, any "assessment" of them are not for their direct benefit. I understand your bedside manner thing, I get that, it makes sense, I'm not questioning that, but that's not what's at issue. The real question is why are you using that bedside manner for people that are clearly not willing to listen? To tweak a popular phrase, once you catch a fly you can give it as much vinegar as you like, but the fact still remains that in order to catch said fly you ought to be using honey.
Here's the bottom line, I still think you're being judgmental. But that's your prerogative. It's your blog. I just don't understand why you're so resistant to owning up to the "J" word. "Avenue Q" the Tony winning musical of 2004 has famously said in one of its songs, "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist." It's meant to diffuse the tension associated with our small discretions by showing us that we all share at least some degree of imperfection, even in regards to things that are otherwise extremely unsavory. Another interpretation of this is that if you claim that you're 100% not a racist you're dooming yourself to live up to impossible standards and inevitably doomed to fail. So, I say "Everyone's a Little Bit Judgmental". And, "Everyone's a Little Bit Narcissistic." Right?
Here's PL:
Actually, L56, I am assuming that whoever is reading my blog is using whatever wisdom I am able to channel for the purposes of their own self-actualization, and furthermore, I assume that they are seeking some guidance, consciously or not, in how to raise the undeveloped child aspect in their personality.
Secondly, I am not claiming to be beyond judgment myself, in some "perfected" way, but my "prerogative" is not the issue. Again, it's not all relative in 3-D reality. To say to someone who is violent - "You are violent!" - is not a judgment, but an accurate assessment, yes? Well, likewise, to say to someone - "Your narcissism is hurting your child!" - is not a judgment.
Using honey to catch a fly? I prefer this guy's approach!
MORE SLAMS ON PL FOR BEING "JUDGMENTAL," INCLUDING FROM LOFF56! So, OK, PL RESPONDS ONE MORE TIME!!
First, here's the comeback from Anonymous:
Just because you say it, doesn’t make it necessarily so.
To issue blanket dismissals of your Park Slope breeder neighbors as pseudo-adults with inflated egos who become overindulgent parents of children who can’t hope to grow up to become self-actualized is, in fact, a judgment.
Your assertion that judgments are not based on reality is false. Reality can certainly be a component of judgment, as are the limited availability of information and whatever expectations the person formulating the opinion may have.
To call a narcissist a narcissist may or may not be a judgment. It depends on having sufficient information to make the claim. To refer to all your Park Slope breeder neighbors as narcissists is a judgment. Plain and simple.
I’m sure you come across some of these people in your practice, and maybe that gives you sufficient data points to make an “assessment” about those people. But to lump all of us together based on that interaction and some people’s (poor) decision to haul their kids to bars assumes you understand the motives of all of those people. You don’t, and your generalizations about them come from judgments. That’s fine, everyone judges other people, even despite their best efforts to refrain from it. Just don’t pretend that’s not what it is.
And don’t pretend you’re trashing these parents to save the children from suffering. If that were your sole objective, you wouldn’t do it this way. It pisses you off that people do this dumb shit, and you’ve taken to griping about it on your blog. Maybe your “concern” originated from a better place, but it’s just bitching.
On the inset of your webpage, you say that we’re “meant to live with full inner permission to follow our natural inner guidance and our inborn pleasure instinct to seek out gratification…, and that such a way of living always benefits those around us and those that we love.” It seems to be that when you observe the conflict between one’s innate pleasure instinct (mmm, beer) and living to benefit those one loves (dragging your kids to a bar), you take to slamming the offenders (Narcissists! Pseudo-adults! Hedge fund managers!). What a beautiful message. You claim to be merely calling for personal responsibility (which sounds like a positive message), but you’re doing it by shaming parents into doing better (hardly positive). How can you say name-calling isn’t trying to shame people into changing? That’s exactly what it is. It’s designed to make people feel bad about the way they behave.
Where is your empathy?
Next up, here's LOFF56:
Oh Jeeze, I must be bored and in need of a good semantic argument...
PL: Assessments on the other hand are descriptions based on information objectively observed. To call a narcissist a narcissist isn't a judgment, therefore; it is an assessment, and actually an essential ingredient to any healing process. There is no healing without facing the truth about oneself.
As a point of fact, an objective observation as you define it here doesn't exist. As you probably know an observer will always have an effect on the observed. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal for one, but also it's understood that observers in the wild no matter how invisible they try to make themselves will have some sort of effect on the animals they are observing. The same goes for people. Whether you call it a Judgment or an Assessment really is a matter of degree. Given that, anon. has a good point. Your assessment, as objective as you're trying to be, still means you're imparting an effect on those parents that you're assessing. And imparting anything on anybody even on a microscopic level is in fact to some degree narcissistic. Whether intentional or not.
And by the way, to "insist upon self-responsibility" is hardly "assessing" the situation. Of everything, this is the most obvious evidence of you imparting your will on the situation. Since when is "insisting" a tool of neutral observation?
I'm not suggesting that self-responsibility is not something we should all desire in our fellow humans, but even if it's for good, "insisting" that anybody do anything puts us on a different plane than those people, and that IS narcissistic. There may be an argument in here somewhere that says that some narcism (like this kind) is actually good... but for semantics sake, it's still narcism.
And now I'm gonna' end my narcissistic judgment of you and go about the rest of my day. :-D
Here's PL:
Wow! The semantics and relativistic arguments are flying boys! (I'm assuming that "Anonymous" is male, for some intuitive reason.)
Look, we've been down this road before on this blog. While time and space are indeed relative, and in the bigger picture, there are only a few Universal "Laws," and yes, we do create our own individual reality, as the quantum physicists have demonstrated,... while all this is true, nonetheless, and simultaneously, in the agreed-upon collective reality, where we all need oxygen to breathe, for instance, and where there is gravity, and narcissism, there are in fact Truths that are "Self-evident." What constitutes narcissism, for instance, is not relative at the human personality level. There is an agreed upon clinical definition of what it means, what its symptoms are and what effects it has. To root your arguments on the relativity of it all, is to be arguing for argument's sake, don't you think?
The second road we've been down before on this blog is the one regarding my bedside manner as a therapist. I do not operate as a proverbial "blank screen," that is for sure. In this day and age, that type of detached mental process is way too compartmentalized, cumbersome, time consuming and in terms of genuine self-actualization, insufficient to the task. I am not "shaming" my patients or readers by firmly pointing out their destructive and self-destructive behavior or thought patterns, and "insisting" that they attempt to do the work they came to see me for, anymore than I'm being judgmental or shaming if I tell my little child that throwing pasta across the table or stealing a friend's toy is not acceptable behavior.
And suffice it to say, it clearly isn't a need of mine, or of any adult I know, or of any child of mine, or of any child that I know, to eat dinner at Provini or bend an elbow at Union Hall.
Gimme a break, fellas!
Just because you say it, doesn’t make it necessarily so.
To issue blanket dismissals of your Park Slope breeder neighbors as pseudo-adults with inflated egos who become overindulgent parents of children who can’t hope to grow up to become self-actualized is, in fact, a judgment.
Your assertion that judgments are not based on reality is false. Reality can certainly be a component of judgment, as are the limited availability of information and whatever expectations the person formulating the opinion may have.
To call a narcissist a narcissist may or may not be a judgment. It depends on having sufficient information to make the claim. To refer to all your Park Slope breeder neighbors as narcissists is a judgment. Plain and simple.
I’m sure you come across some of these people in your practice, and maybe that gives you sufficient data points to make an “assessment” about those people. But to lump all of us together based on that interaction and some people’s (poor) decision to haul their kids to bars assumes you understand the motives of all of those people. You don’t, and your generalizations about them come from judgments. That’s fine, everyone judges other people, even despite their best efforts to refrain from it. Just don’t pretend that’s not what it is.
And don’t pretend you’re trashing these parents to save the children from suffering. If that were your sole objective, you wouldn’t do it this way. It pisses you off that people do this dumb shit, and you’ve taken to griping about it on your blog. Maybe your “concern” originated from a better place, but it’s just bitching.
On the inset of your webpage, you say that we’re “meant to live with full inner permission to follow our natural inner guidance and our inborn pleasure instinct to seek out gratification…, and that such a way of living always benefits those around us and those that we love.” It seems to be that when you observe the conflict between one’s innate pleasure instinct (mmm, beer) and living to benefit those one loves (dragging your kids to a bar), you take to slamming the offenders (Narcissists! Pseudo-adults! Hedge fund managers!). What a beautiful message. You claim to be merely calling for personal responsibility (which sounds like a positive message), but you’re doing it by shaming parents into doing better (hardly positive). How can you say name-calling isn’t trying to shame people into changing? That’s exactly what it is. It’s designed to make people feel bad about the way they behave.
Where is your empathy?
Next up, here's LOFF56:
Oh Jeeze, I must be bored and in need of a good semantic argument...
PL: Assessments on the other hand are descriptions based on information objectively observed. To call a narcissist a narcissist isn't a judgment, therefore; it is an assessment, and actually an essential ingredient to any healing process. There is no healing without facing the truth about oneself.
As a point of fact, an objective observation as you define it here doesn't exist. As you probably know an observer will always have an effect on the observed. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal for one, but also it's understood that observers in the wild no matter how invisible they try to make themselves will have some sort of effect on the animals they are observing. The same goes for people. Whether you call it a Judgment or an Assessment really is a matter of degree. Given that, anon. has a good point. Your assessment, as objective as you're trying to be, still means you're imparting an effect on those parents that you're assessing. And imparting anything on anybody even on a microscopic level is in fact to some degree narcissistic. Whether intentional or not.
And by the way, to "insist upon self-responsibility" is hardly "assessing" the situation. Of everything, this is the most obvious evidence of you imparting your will on the situation. Since when is "insisting" a tool of neutral observation?
I'm not suggesting that self-responsibility is not something we should all desire in our fellow humans, but even if it's for good, "insisting" that anybody do anything puts us on a different plane than those people, and that IS narcissistic. There may be an argument in here somewhere that says that some narcism (like this kind) is actually good... but for semantics sake, it's still narcism.
And now I'm gonna' end my narcissistic judgment of you and go about the rest of my day. :-D
Here's PL:
Wow! The semantics and relativistic arguments are flying boys! (I'm assuming that "Anonymous" is male, for some intuitive reason.)
Look, we've been down this road before on this blog. While time and space are indeed relative, and in the bigger picture, there are only a few Universal "Laws," and yes, we do create our own individual reality, as the quantum physicists have demonstrated,... while all this is true, nonetheless, and simultaneously, in the agreed-upon collective reality, where we all need oxygen to breathe, for instance, and where there is gravity, and narcissism, there are in fact Truths that are "Self-evident." What constitutes narcissism, for instance, is not relative at the human personality level. There is an agreed upon clinical definition of what it means, what its symptoms are and what effects it has. To root your arguments on the relativity of it all, is to be arguing for argument's sake, don't you think?
The second road we've been down before on this blog is the one regarding my bedside manner as a therapist. I do not operate as a proverbial "blank screen," that is for sure. In this day and age, that type of detached mental process is way too compartmentalized, cumbersome, time consuming and in terms of genuine self-actualization, insufficient to the task. I am not "shaming" my patients or readers by firmly pointing out their destructive and self-destructive behavior or thought patterns, and "insisting" that they attempt to do the work they came to see me for, anymore than I'm being judgmental or shaming if I tell my little child that throwing pasta across the table or stealing a friend's toy is not acceptable behavior.
And suffice it to say, it clearly isn't a need of mine, or of any adult I know, or of any child of mine, or of any child that I know, to eat dinner at Provini or bend an elbow at Union Hall.
Gimme a break, fellas!
"ANONYMOUS" JUMPS ON PL'S "JUDGMENTAL" ATTITUDE ABOUT PARENTS, ETC.!/PL RESPONDS!
Here's Anonymous on PL's post: "STROLLERS BANNED IN BARS! A NO-BRAINER, BUT NOT FOR THE NARCISSISTS!":
I was perusing the Gothamist article about the stroller ban at The Gate and wound up in the comments section at FIPS. I read your comment, and have a question for you: Who are you?!
(Besides being a psychotherapist for blah-blah years—whatever that’s worth-- and some sort of a Park Slope parent)
I should’ve prefaced this comment by saying that I live in Park Slope, I’ve got a couple of kids, and as a rule, I don’t drag my kids to bars or to restaurants that don’t cater to kids. I’m pretty sure that the one time a year that I wind up meeting some friends at a bar on a slow afternoon (or say, watching a bit of a World Cup game) for a beer is not just an opportunity to act out my drama through my children. I still find plenty of opportunities to act out my own dramas. And I'm not an apologist for those that pollute the bars with their kids. That’s not my point.
It’s interesting that you don’t find that it undermines the spew that you preach on this site to sit in judgment of the shameless narcissists who reveal their poor life choices by taking their kids to bars and nice restaurants. I am curious how you reconcile all this healing and self-actualization that you’re helping or hoping (or something) others realize in themselves with this negative, counterproductive, judgmental sniping.
There is no doubt that there are selfish, entitled people who wind up having kids without understanding the magnitude of that choice. I’m not sure many people do fully grasp what it means to be a parent before they decide to do it. But you appeal to the shame and guilt in your fellow PS parents (and patients, it would appear) by calling them out on your site and the other sites you frequent. This seems to violate the FPL handbook and trashes the credibility of whatever you want to accomplish with the FPL thing.
And it reeks of your own narcissism that you use your new-agey, healing, loving forum to address your beef with your own neighbors, and to remind readers that you’ve been doing it for years. And you might want reign in the pride that you have for unearthing the little nugget that there are narcissistic parents in Park Slope. Any monkey that steps out off the subway in this neighborhood could smell it in the air in a couple of minutes. It’s hardly a landmark discovery.
These petty attacks don’t seem to demonstrate your state of harmony with others and the world around you, but maybe that makes sense to you…being a highly-evolved psychotherapist and all.
Lots o' luck.
Here's PL:
Thanks for writing in, Anonymous, though I'm not sure why you're asking who I am since it is "narcissistically" all over my blog, isn't it?!
Anyway, many people confuse judgment with assessment, as you seem to be doing. Judgments are not based on reality, but on projections, transferences, identifications, etc. Judgments, in other words, start with a need to see other people as you wish to see them, rather than as they are.
Assessments on the other hand are descriptions based on information objectively observed. To call a narcissist a narcissist isn't a judgment, therefore; it is an assessment, and actually an essential ingredient to any healing process. There is no healing without facing the truth about oneself.
It is true, yes, that I don't see my role as a "healer" as being to sooth anyone's fragile ego nor feed anyone's illusions about themselves. Too much damage is done from that kind of enabling, especially to children, and including by many therapists.
Any "monkey," as you snidely put it, can smell the narcissism in Park Slope, yes again, but rarely does anyone write about more than their own distaste or inconvenience from the actions of the Stepford Parents here. I am much more concerned with the gutted self-esteem and lack of empathy the Park Slope children are suffering from as a result of the self-indulgent parenting that goes on in this enclave.
This statement by you is certainly not a throw-away line in my book (or blog): "There is no doubt that there are selfish, entitled people who wind up having kids without understanding the magnitude of that choice. I’m not sure many people do fully grasp what it means to be a parent before they decide to do it."
And I don't seek to "shame" or increase "guilt," Anon, but to insist upon self-responsibility.
I was perusing the Gothamist article about the stroller ban at The Gate and wound up in the comments section at FIPS. I read your comment, and have a question for you: Who are you?!
(Besides being a psychotherapist for blah-blah years—whatever that’s worth-- and some sort of a Park Slope parent)
I should’ve prefaced this comment by saying that I live in Park Slope, I’ve got a couple of kids, and as a rule, I don’t drag my kids to bars or to restaurants that don’t cater to kids. I’m pretty sure that the one time a year that I wind up meeting some friends at a bar on a slow afternoon (or say, watching a bit of a World Cup game) for a beer is not just an opportunity to act out my drama through my children. I still find plenty of opportunities to act out my own dramas. And I'm not an apologist for those that pollute the bars with their kids. That’s not my point.
It’s interesting that you don’t find that it undermines the spew that you preach on this site to sit in judgment of the shameless narcissists who reveal their poor life choices by taking their kids to bars and nice restaurants. I am curious how you reconcile all this healing and self-actualization that you’re helping or hoping (or something) others realize in themselves with this negative, counterproductive, judgmental sniping.
There is no doubt that there are selfish, entitled people who wind up having kids without understanding the magnitude of that choice. I’m not sure many people do fully grasp what it means to be a parent before they decide to do it. But you appeal to the shame and guilt in your fellow PS parents (and patients, it would appear) by calling them out on your site and the other sites you frequent. This seems to violate the FPL handbook and trashes the credibility of whatever you want to accomplish with the FPL thing.
And it reeks of your own narcissism that you use your new-agey, healing, loving forum to address your beef with your own neighbors, and to remind readers that you’ve been doing it for years. And you might want reign in the pride that you have for unearthing the little nugget that there are narcissistic parents in Park Slope. Any monkey that steps out off the subway in this neighborhood could smell it in the air in a couple of minutes. It’s hardly a landmark discovery.
These petty attacks don’t seem to demonstrate your state of harmony with others and the world around you, but maybe that makes sense to you…being a highly-evolved psychotherapist and all.
Lots o' luck.
Here's PL:
Thanks for writing in, Anonymous, though I'm not sure why you're asking who I am since it is "narcissistically" all over my blog, isn't it?!
Anyway, many people confuse judgment with assessment, as you seem to be doing. Judgments are not based on reality, but on projections, transferences, identifications, etc. Judgments, in other words, start with a need to see other people as you wish to see them, rather than as they are.
Assessments on the other hand are descriptions based on information objectively observed. To call a narcissist a narcissist isn't a judgment, therefore; it is an assessment, and actually an essential ingredient to any healing process. There is no healing without facing the truth about oneself.
It is true, yes, that I don't see my role as a "healer" as being to sooth anyone's fragile ego nor feed anyone's illusions about themselves. Too much damage is done from that kind of enabling, especially to children, and including by many therapists.
Any "monkey," as you snidely put it, can smell the narcissism in Park Slope, yes again, but rarely does anyone write about more than their own distaste or inconvenience from the actions of the Stepford Parents here. I am much more concerned with the gutted self-esteem and lack of empathy the Park Slope children are suffering from as a result of the self-indulgent parenting that goes on in this enclave.
This statement by you is certainly not a throw-away line in my book (or blog): "There is no doubt that there are selfish, entitled people who wind up having kids without understanding the magnitude of that choice. I’m not sure many people do fully grasp what it means to be a parent before they decide to do it."
And I don't seek to "shame" or increase "guilt," Anon, but to insist upon self-responsibility.
STROLLERS BANNED IN BARS! A NO-BRAINER, BUT NOT FOR THE NARCISSISTS!!
Yes! Yes!! YES!!!
Sanity at last.
The GOTHAMIST reports that stroller bans at bars in Brooklyn are expanding.
I have been writing about this HERE and on the Only The Blog Knows Brooklyn blog for years.
As a parent in Park Slope and as a psychotherapist for 30 years who has worked with scores of families and children, I have been staunchly against the narcissistic, vicarious acting out by adults who want to bring their kids into bars and fine-dining restaurants. It's not good for anyone - other patrons, the parents themselves and especially, it's not good for the kids. Children need parents who are real grown-ups, not sad excuses for them, parents who actually have lives separate from their kids, and the kids need adults who can demonstrate respect for others through their actions.
Finally!
Sanity at last.
The GOTHAMIST reports that stroller bans at bars in Brooklyn are expanding.
I have been writing about this HERE and on the Only The Blog Knows Brooklyn blog for years.
As a parent in Park Slope and as a psychotherapist for 30 years who has worked with scores of families and children, I have been staunchly against the narcissistic, vicarious acting out by adults who want to bring their kids into bars and fine-dining restaurants. It's not good for anyone - other patrons, the parents themselves and especially, it's not good for the kids. Children need parents who are real grown-ups, not sad excuses for them, parents who actually have lives separate from their kids, and the kids need adults who can demonstrate respect for others through their actions.
Finally!
PEACE AND LOVE FOR RINGO TODAY!
Ringo Starr is asking fans to say the words “Peace and love” at noon, EST, on the occasion of his 70th birthday today!
Hey, why not?!
Hey, why not?!
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.
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.
FALSE CLARITY TO GENUINE CONFUSION TO GENUINE CLARITY - PART 1
FALSE CLARITY TO GENUINE CONFUSION TO GENUINE CLARITY
One way that I’ve conceptualized the process of personal evolution has been as a kind of three-part movement: from false clarity to genuine confusion to genuine clarity.
False clarity is a frame of mind in which one’s personal belief systems are so firmly in place and embedded so far down in the subconscious mind that the person feels certain of their validity, and so rarely questions them. From this place, people frequently start sentences out with "I believe…"
"I believe that if I assert myself directly, no one will like me."
"I believe that if I acted strictly according to my desires, I’d be out of control."
"I believe it’s impossible for passion to last in a relationship."
"I believe that if I want something done right, I have to do it myself."
"I believe that to truly give to others means to sacrifice something of what I want."
And so on…ad infinitum. There are many, many such commonly accepted inner axioms with variations and derivatives aplenty.
Since these beliefs are not doubted for the most part, they are accepted as the "harsh realities" of life. Much energy is then invested in trying to find ways of manipulating the self, and other people, to get what one wants. To that end, a person will develop false selves that some have referred to as "masks," or "personas," constructed to present to the world in order to attain life’s sought after abundance and love - or its substitutes: praise, recognition, emotional validation, etc.
So, one of the first endeavors in a person’s unfolding personal process is to begin uncovering the embedded beliefs behind the masks, and challenge their validity, thereby confronting the false clarity they offer as a substitute for real knowingness and security. It is not easy. Indeed, if you believe something so thoroughly, you will create, invite, or only be able to see that very thing in your life most of the time, so it’s reality will seem absolute. And, if you have been so invested for so long in a particular method of trying to attain a modicum of happiness, you will not readily forgo it. To face that a strategy that you have been devoting much of your life force to is actually faulty is a heartbreaking proposition.
Let’s consider a common scenario. A person may have had a series of love relationships in which they’ve found themselves feeling emotionally deprived. In spite of tireless efforts to be agreeable, accommodating and self-sacrificing, they were still "not getting enough" - attention, sex, support, appreciation or affection - from their partner. This person feels so defeated and frustrated because while they believe that there really isn’t enough love in the world to go around, they are sure that the way to get what is available is by being… agreeable, accommodating and self-sacrificing! What they are in denial of is the fact that their accommodating behavior is part of a mask, and as such an attempt to hide a manipulative and demanding childish attitude towards their loved one based on a belief in deprivation that began in childhood.
The partner being bombarded with these demands, masked as obliging behavior, will often withdraw and indeed be less inclined to "give" affection, etc. No one wants to be covertly demanded of in that way. This then seems to validate the underlying belief that "there is not enough," and so, the person believes, one must manipulate even more, getting still worse results, all the while building up a stockpile of resentment. On and on this can go, in a self-fulfilling, vicious cycle.
The failure of the manipulations to get more of what is wanted is often what brings the person to some kind of self-work, seeking to find out what they’re doing "wrong", why the mask they’re sure is based in reality is not having its designed effect. This is life in a state of false clarity. So sure you’re right, sure you know how life works, but inexplicably unhappy, which if the beliefs are seen as clearly right, can only lead the person to the conclusion that they are failing - meaning manipulating inadequately.
So, where can one go from there, from the place where the self is so rigidly defined according to firmly held beliefs that are supposed to solve problems but ultimately only lead to frustration and a sense of inadequacy?
Next posting: "genuine confusion.!"
One way that I’ve conceptualized the process of personal evolution has been as a kind of three-part movement: from false clarity to genuine confusion to genuine clarity.
False clarity is a frame of mind in which one’s personal belief systems are so firmly in place and embedded so far down in the subconscious mind that the person feels certain of their validity, and so rarely questions them. From this place, people frequently start sentences out with "I believe…"
"I believe that if I assert myself directly, no one will like me."
"I believe that if I acted strictly according to my desires, I’d be out of control."
"I believe it’s impossible for passion to last in a relationship."
"I believe that if I want something done right, I have to do it myself."
"I believe that to truly give to others means to sacrifice something of what I want."
And so on…ad infinitum. There are many, many such commonly accepted inner axioms with variations and derivatives aplenty.
Since these beliefs are not doubted for the most part, they are accepted as the "harsh realities" of life. Much energy is then invested in trying to find ways of manipulating the self, and other people, to get what one wants. To that end, a person will develop false selves that some have referred to as "masks," or "personas," constructed to present to the world in order to attain life’s sought after abundance and love - or its substitutes: praise, recognition, emotional validation, etc.
So, one of the first endeavors in a person’s unfolding personal process is to begin uncovering the embedded beliefs behind the masks, and challenge their validity, thereby confronting the false clarity they offer as a substitute for real knowingness and security. It is not easy. Indeed, if you believe something so thoroughly, you will create, invite, or only be able to see that very thing in your life most of the time, so it’s reality will seem absolute. And, if you have been so invested for so long in a particular method of trying to attain a modicum of happiness, you will not readily forgo it. To face that a strategy that you have been devoting much of your life force to is actually faulty is a heartbreaking proposition.
Let’s consider a common scenario. A person may have had a series of love relationships in which they’ve found themselves feeling emotionally deprived. In spite of tireless efforts to be agreeable, accommodating and self-sacrificing, they were still "not getting enough" - attention, sex, support, appreciation or affection - from their partner. This person feels so defeated and frustrated because while they believe that there really isn’t enough love in the world to go around, they are sure that the way to get what is available is by being… agreeable, accommodating and self-sacrificing! What they are in denial of is the fact that their accommodating behavior is part of a mask, and as such an attempt to hide a manipulative and demanding childish attitude towards their loved one based on a belief in deprivation that began in childhood.
The partner being bombarded with these demands, masked as obliging behavior, will often withdraw and indeed be less inclined to "give" affection, etc. No one wants to be covertly demanded of in that way. This then seems to validate the underlying belief that "there is not enough," and so, the person believes, one must manipulate even more, getting still worse results, all the while building up a stockpile of resentment. On and on this can go, in a self-fulfilling, vicious cycle.
The failure of the manipulations to get more of what is wanted is often what brings the person to some kind of self-work, seeking to find out what they’re doing "wrong", why the mask they’re sure is based in reality is not having its designed effect. This is life in a state of false clarity. So sure you’re right, sure you know how life works, but inexplicably unhappy, which if the beliefs are seen as clearly right, can only lead the person to the conclusion that they are failing - meaning manipulating inadequately.
So, where can one go from there, from the place where the self is so rigidly defined according to firmly held beliefs that are supposed to solve problems but ultimately only lead to frustration and a sense of inadequacy?
Next posting: "genuine confusion.!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
