User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 36

  1. #1
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default Expectations and sense of deficiency as the cause of pain

    I've been going through a bad "mid-life crisis". I was thinking of starting a topic on this, but instead, held off, sharing with a few people.

    When I was searching online in terms of the Jungian concept of the "anima", I found on this page:
    http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcon...alan_mackenzie

    "It [the third step in midlife "transformation" toward individuation] is a falling out of believing that we can be masters of the universe and a beginning of understanding what it means to 'do life on life’s terms'"

    This eventually led to a search of "doing life on life's terms", in which I found that the term derived from the 12-step recovery movement. This led me to among other sites:

    http://www.soberrecovery.com/forums/...ml#post1145777

    For me learning to accept life on life's terms meant I could no longer get mad, get a bottle or a bag and disappear from the scene. It meant learning that the world did not revolve around me. It also meant that I had to learn about my senses of expectations and disappointments and accept the results.
    I took note of the term "expectations", then something clicked. Expectations are what lead to pain, when they are not met. And I had been complaining about others' expectations of me, and how for most of my life, I would either feel pressured to meet them, or have to suffer "consequences" for not meeting them, yet the ultimate injustice of life seemed to be that I was always being told to "let go" of all my own unmet expectations. That made me feel like I did not have the "worth" others had, yet the whole problem in stuff like this is supposed to be lack of self-worth in the first place. It seemed like a vicious cycle.

    So now yesterday, doing a search on "Expectations are the cause of all our pain", I get these sites, which seem to explain a lot of things:

    http://www.sangamyug.com/notes/Expectations_cause_pain/

    So, what is an expectation? It is predicting the future behaviour of a person or a situation. Since this is hypothetical and within our mind, it is seldom met, because other persons and situations are behaving at their own pace.

    The whole world will continuously keep expecting things from you, no doubt. This is a never-ending process. What can be ended right now is your expectations from them, because they are giving you pain. Note that even wanting the world to not expect anything from you is an E-X-P-E-C-T-A-T-I-O-N
    [Again, my whole problem is how hard people were on me with their expectations, and then how cold they were with mine!]

    http://www.livinglifefully.com/pain.htm

    "I do find that most of my emotional pain has more to do with my expectations of others...than with the actions themselves. When those expectations are violated, this is a cause of emotional pain."

    http://www.mikeleejohnson.com/Expectations.html

    "Expectations are merely our way of trying to redecorate God's world. Trust that his design is far more magnificent than ours."

    http://www.spiritualsisters.com/gollerkeri1.htm

    Pain results as a conflict between the way things are and the way we wish them to be. In this conflict, there is pain.
    Can we be in a state of total attention, neither avoiding nor fighting the pain? Can we be in a stillness, watching the pain with complete attention and observation? We restrain ourselves from fleeing, we also restrain ourselves from reacting and fighting the pain. As the pain takes hold, we allow ourselves to feel it completely. We surrender to that pain. In surrendering to the pain, we allow it to come without resistance and struggle.
    I had been discussing in a Facebook spirituality group their concept of "love" as "its own reward" (all the biblical imagery of "Heaven" is supposed to be symbolic of this, rather than literal as most Christians assume), and this seemed to clarify two things one person was saying that I wasn't quite understanding:

    The condition that causes the radiance of love to appear as pain and discomfort to us is where we have points of resistance within our emotional body. These points of resistance are unintegrated energetic patterns related to past experiences. The resistance to feeling these past wounds, distorts love into a world of pain...
    And that we are supposed to let ourselves feel it.

    I guess if you just take "the way things are" [that cause pain] as the laws of the universe God (who is love) created "good", then I could see how this could be "the radiance of love" that appears to us as pain.
    This, from our "knowledge of good and evil". According to this group, "the Fall" was simply a perception of man's "consciousness" that things were evil, and the Bible text actually supports this. They had been "naked and unashamed", and the only thing that changed after eating of the tree was their perception. God even asked them "who told you you were naked?"
    What they had taken on was, just as it says, "knowledge" of good and evil, yet they were not equipped to handle it, so the sense of evil fell onto themselves, and they had to compensate by projecting blame at others, and then eventually, building themselves up as "good" through achievements (including religion) and power. The "shadow" was hence born!

    So in this view, I imagine roses always had thorns, but it was our experience of them as "painful" that fulfilled the curse of Gen. 3:16-19? But the thorns were still in themselves created "good", and it is only man who began seeing them as evil, because they were inconvenient to us, and we had this need to master creation (which was instilled by God, but became corrupted with "good and evil" knowledge, so that we then were tying to fill a sense of fear and deficiency in ourselves).

    Problem for me, is, these sites (at least two of them seeming more Eastern in philosophy), are describing "life the way it is" as the highest reality, and the way life is is basically a "jungle" where "the strongest survive". They're teaching us how to handle expectations not being met, but when a person simply has more POWER, he can have more of these expectations met, at others' expense. He might not be "happy", we say, but it's not about "happiness", it's about survival (from our natural instincts).
    Even outside the terrestrial world of life, bigger planets, stars or galaxies will destroy smaller ones.

    This is what I have long been struggling with, in my own faith, ever since I turned to Christianity at 20!

    I have been having trouble seeing a PERSONAL God in all of this. It just reminds me of my non-theistic (and STJ) parents thundering "That's life!"
    I guess, when you have a "personal" God, that is what raises the expectations that "He" will empathize with us, and SHOW it by correcting these problems, not leave things the way they are, seemingly by random chance. It seems that's what Jesus did when on earth (actually healing people, not infirmity), and became the pattern for us. But now, He's just left it to run on this totally different set of principles (including, according to many people, just changing our attitudes toward pain).

    So then, if an impersonal set of circumstances in the universe ("the way it is", they keep telling us not to oppose) is the highest authority, then this would raise the question of why we should "love", then? (Which this group, as many other religions and philosophies, holds as the highest purpose in life). Isn't that going against the "good" universe "as it is"?
    Last edited by Eric B; 09-15-2012 at 11:17 AM.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  2. #2
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    So the person who had said that about pain linked to this guys site and videos, to explain the concept.

    http://www.kiloby.com/writings.php?o...&writingid=330

    This was very interesting. It ties to what I was saying, because the sense of "deficiency" likely comes from our expectations of ourselves, even passively, like if others don't respect us, things don't go our way, we don't have the power we want, etc.



    The gist of this video: we become used to things and relationships that are positive— I take it, for most people, this will be the pampering and fawning of infancy? —but then when things in these relationships or situations begin to change, we intepret this new emotional "energy" as a negative thing called "pain".

    That makes sense, as I have long recognized how much I wanted things to be as they were 8 and younger, when the neighborhood was nice, there were few other kids, so the adults were giving me so much attention and spoiling me, and not yet placing any demands, etc. All of this slowly chipped away when the situations and relationships changed. That's created this sense of "Eden lost" that I've been really discovering in counseling the last 2 years, that has been driving much of my pain and reactions to it.
    As far as our key word of "Expectations", you expect things to stay the way you became used to, and when they don't, you feel a kind of hurt.



    This ties to the first one and in "expectations", in that we expect affirmation (of our "story") from others, and when we don't get it, it seems to confirm a sense that we are deficient. That probably is connected with that sense of "pain" from things changing that was covered in the other video. (I wonder if this is what he's calling "the awakening" and the "core sense of separation"?)
    He mentions "the unconscious", and you can clearly see the Jungian sense of the "shadow", and archetypes (the "images", "stories", feelings, etc) that well up from the unconscious.

    Still, it seems to presuppose "love" as some default state that we fall from in misinterpreting the events of life, and if we just remove the wrong "belief" (about the "energy" we're feeling), then pain becomes good, or I imagine, we're back in this primeval state of "love".
    I guess again, that's the "good" state of the universe that is distorted by our knowledge of good and evil?

    I find that this guy is from a philosophy called "Non-Dualism", which is also Eastern. Hence, why a personal God does not figure in this stuff.

    I guess then, from a theistic viewpoint, it's a matter of FAITH in a personal God of "love" BEHIND the impersonal circumstances being described in all these teachings.

    Again, what short circuits this for me is that what I see out there is a universe of violence, where the strongest survive, and thus have more practical value in the overall scheme of things. This includes the ability to command expectations to be validated (either met, or consequences meted out). This is what we call, in a human sense, "power". Just look at political rhetoric. Don't tax the rich; we need them, they will bring jobs. They are "worth" more; the market "values" them. So they deserve all they can get. The poor are not giving anything back, so stop "wasting" our money on them! Instead blame them as "lazy slugs" who are bringing us down!
    And this is the mindset that prevails, even if you get liberals in office, who in theory aim to tone it down, a bit.

    It's all LAW, all good and evil, give and take, debt and credit, owe and deserve. (Which are supposed to be products of the curse of "knowledge of good and evil"). But it is completely unchallenged by any higher authority! So it doesn't even seem like our own blindness to love in favor of a "fallen" sense of good and evil; it seems that is really the way the universe is, or the true "story" carried by many circumstances.

    So what does everyone else think of this stuff? Seems to be really deep.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  3. #3
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Wu Wei
    It's like this:


    Such a graceful touch, skill, economy of movement. But, see all the things he is NOT doing?
    See how he is not flailing around? How he is not agonizing? How he is not wasting his movements? See the grace, and natural focus?

    Did he have to try and practice to get there? Sure he did. For many years. What did he achieve through that practice? Natural grace and economy of movement.

    He makes it look easy because of all the things he isn't doing.

  4. #4
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Don't quite get the connection. I guess if you just focus on being, and not on what you don't have, then you'll be happy?
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  5. #5
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Don't quite get the connection. I guess if you just focus on being, and not on what you don't have, then you'll be happy?
    I've tried explaining this before and it just doesn't work. I cannot tell you what the connection is because by telling you, you will be looking at my words and not the connection.

    It's only going to mean something if you actually figure it out - and you will know when this happens.

  6. #6
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    I don't think I've ever seen you try to explain it before, but then I guess you're saying "it's an Ni thing; you wouldn't understand".
    But is what I said even close, at least? (You'll have to help me out. As a TiNe in mildlife, I'm brand new to an Ni-F way of looking at things).
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  7. #7
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Here are a couple of pages where he lays the concepts of the videos out in text:

    http://livingrealization.org/info/
    http://livingrealization.org/example-inquiry/
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  8. #8
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Problem for me, is, these sites (at least two of them seeming more Eastern in philosophy), are describing "life the way it is" as the highest reality, and the way life is is basically a "jungle" where "the strongest survive". They're teaching us how to handle expectations not being met, but when a person simply has more POWER, he can have more of these expectations met, at others' expense. He might not be "happy", we say, but it's not about "happiness", it's about survival (from our natural instincts).
    Even outside the terrestrial world of life, bigger planets, stars or galaxies will destroy smaller ones.

    This is what I have long been struggling with, in my own faith, ever since I turned to Christianity at 20!

    I have been having trouble seeing a PERSONAL God in all of this. It just reminds me of my non-theistic (and STJ) parents thundering "That's life!"
    I guess, when you have a "personal" God, that is what raises the expectations that "He" will empathize with us, and SHOW it by correcting these problems, not leave things the way they are, seemingly by random chance. It seems that's what Jesus did when on earth, and became the pattern for us. But now, He's just left it to run on this totally different set of principles.

    So then, if an impersonal set of circumstances in the universe ("the way it is", they keep telling us not to oppose) is the highest authority, then this would raise the question of why we should "love", then? (Which this group, as many other religions and philosophies, holds as the highest purpose in life). Isn't that going against the "good" universe "as it is"?
    Good questions.

    I agree with the Zen-like approach of dealing with life as it is, not as we wish it would be. Typically, frustration occurs because what we want is out of our locus of control to achieve and would infringe on the autonomy of others. The locus of control is ourselves, so basically all the "effort" is aimed at shifting our inward perceptions and melding with events rather than trying to dominate them.

    I'm not sure that Zen (or general eastern thought that is focused on "what is") is saying that it's about survival, or still playing into the power paradigm as you describe in the first paragraph. It's more that the things you thought you wanted cease to be the things you want, you are able to be "at peace" with things as they are. Basically, you are part of things and things are part of you, so the distinctions here (which results in separate entities that can then try to dominate each other to appease their own personal set of desires) melt away.

    This is the problem with traditional Christianity trying to meld with eastern philosophy -- you have described it pretty fairly. Traditional (rather than mystical Christianity) has everything in pretty black and white terms, and God is active, and God rewards the faithful and destroys the wicked in the next life if not this one, etc. There is a battle between light and dark, which of course then demands the existence and affirmations of the ego structures of all people... but in Zen at least, we are all part of a river. The ego is a construction. Traditional Christianity insists we all have unique souls that exist apart from the rest of the world. So you're going to find conflict.

    For me, personally, how I meld things is that I see altruism and "other love" as another form of loving the self, and vice versa. In a sense, the ego boundaries that most people keep around themselves, as little autonomous and separate individuals (within which you try to protect and sustain the life within), are constantly being stretched and extended so that more and more people outside of yourself are falling within your own ego boundaries. In other words, you see them as "part of you" rather than as separate beings in terms of caring about their survival and well-being, rather than as enemies who you need to defend against. If you saw the Matrix movies, this was hinted at there as well when the Architect was discussing the other Ones who existed before Neo -- their sense of altruism was on a broad universal level (i.e., their ego boundaries had extended so that all people were within their boundaries and thus they would expend themselves to preserve and nourish them), whereas Neo was particularly fixated on Trinity, etc. (I'm not sure how much more explicit it could be.)

    Anyway, they are different paradigms. One is expansive, meant to include everything as one; the other is dominating and seeks to remove disparate elements as a way to preserve the self.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  9. #9
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    As far as our key word of "Expectations", you expect things to stay the way you became used to, and when they don't, you feel a kind of hurt.


    This ties to the first one and in "expectations", in that we expect affirmation (of our "story") from others, and when we don't get it, it seems to confirm a sense that we are deficient.
    Well, people have different responses. Basically the survival need kicks in, and you either direct aggression at others (to get what you want and not experience the loss), or you direct at yourself (I am weak, I am unworthy, I am no good, I am incapable), etc. Fear -> aggression / flailing / struggle

    Still, it seems to presuppose "love" as some default state that we fall from in misinterpreting the events of life, and if we just remove the wrong "belief" (about the "energy" we're feeling), then pain becomes good, or I imagine, we're back in this primeval state of "love".

    I guess again, that's the "good" state of the universe that is distorted by our knowledge of good and evil?
    Not even sure "good" in that sense exists. There is just "what is" versus "what we imagine it to be." And good is "what actually is."

    You can look at it as the animal man vs the thinking man as well. Our animal limbic system is trying to protect our lives and happiness at all costs, and we have built-in responses to these various sets of stimuli. You're basically overcoming the natural responses of "protect and sustain me and my happiness" with acceptance that your particular survival is not the highest good, nor does it make you a happy, content, and productive individual to always be responding to that programming.


    So in that sense, the whole acceptance thing is actually pretty transcendent even as it works to accept "what is."

    I find that this guy is from a philosophy called "Non-Dualism", which is also Eastern. Hence, why a personal God does not figure in this stuff.
    This is why the two systems bump heads... especially when you involve people some of whom are very literal and concrete thinkers along with the abstractors who think in terms of fuzzier pictures and intuitions. The literalists translate the fuzzy intuitions as rejecting God and personal responsibility and not fighting to stop evil and whatever else, the abstractionists are seeing this bigger picture where everything is more of the same being and needs to be integrated, not eradicated, and that the fight itself just is missing the point.

    I guess then, from a theistic viewpoint, it's a matter of FAITH in a personal God of "love" BEHIND the impersonal circumstances being described in all these teachings.

    Again, what short circuits this for me is that what I see out there is a universe of violence, where the strongest survive, and thus have more practical value in the overall scheme of things. This includes the ability to command expectations to be validated (either met, or consequences meted out). This is what we call, in a human sense, "power". Just look at political rhetoric. Don't tax the rich; we need them, they will bring jobs. They are "worth" more; the market "values" them. So they deserve all they can get. The poor are not giving anything back, so stop "wasting" our money on them! Instead blame them as "lazy slugs" who are bringing us down!
    And this is the mindset that prevails, even if you get liberals in office, who in theory aim to tone it down, a bit.

    It's all LAW, all good and evil, give and take, debt and credit, owe and deserve. (Which are supposed to be products of the curse of "knowledge of good and evil"). But it is completely unchallenged by any higher authority! So it doesn't even seem like our own blindness to love in favor of a "fallen" sense of good and evil; it seems that is really the way the universe is, or the true "story" carried by many circumstances.

    So what does everyone else think of this stuff? Seems to be really deep.

    There's a lot that can be said about this. But I've had the same basic struggle as well. I used to see God as very personal and specific because that is what the Bible told me (at least, in the tradition I was raised); I feel that, as I have gotten older and changed and experienced more of life, the very specific details I once believed about God have become very very fuzzy, but it's more than I am finding myself changed and shaped and "being god" more to others and wanting them to be a part of it. I have a lot of trouble explaining it clearly, because it's a picture/metaphor, not a linear statement.

    You know how, when you have food or medicine or something outside your body, you can pick it up and hold it and look at it and examine it, so you can see all the details and it's all very easily described? But it's not part of you. It's outside of you. Then, when you eat it or administer it and it enters you and becomes part of you, you no longer can examine it in the same way, see all the lines and colors and shapes and whatever else? Yet you don't really NEED to do that, because more importantly it is now INSIDE of you, and actually has become part of who you are, and you are acting out of it as part of your identity? That's kind of how I view the whole "god" thing -- you have integrated more with it, so you have less need to explicate, define, and separate yourself from it for the purposes of defining it. But it's still very personal, in a sense, as it's part of you. You see the effects of it, rather than "it" anymore.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  10. #10
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Good questions.

    I'm not sure that Zen (or general eastern thought that is focused on "what is") is saying that it's about survival, or still playing into the power paradigm as you describe in the first paragraph. It's more that the things you thought you wanted cease to be the things you want, you are able to be "at peace" with things as they are. Basically, you are part of things and things are part of you, so the distinctions here (which results in separate entities that can then try to dominate each other to appease their own personal set of desires) melt away.
    No, the thing about survival is the "naturalistic" interpretation of life, as taught by evolutionism, of course. My father used to thunder that at me when I first became Christian and tried to "witness" to him, and at the same time say that God would "take care of me", based on what Christians taught.
    Problem was, when it doesn't work like that, then the Christians begin intepreting His "taking care of you" as basically USING the difficulties of the world (of "survival") as "trials" to make you "grow". That takes all of this from the biblical texts describing the 1st century Christians being persecuted for the faith. It is then applied to all of our difficulties today, including us here in the West who are not being persecuted. Even a driver cutting you off at the intersection is referred to as a "test" from God, by many teachers! (To see if you would react in anger, or change your attitude, which then makes you "grow")...
    This is the problem with traditional Christianity trying to meld with eastern philosophy -- you have described it pretty fairly. Traditional (rather than mystical Christianity) has everything in pretty black and white terms, and God is active, and God rewards the faithful and destroys the wicked in the next life if not this one, etc. There is a battle between light and dark, which of course then demands the existence and affirmations of the ego structures of all people... but in Zen at least, we are all part of a river. The ego is a construction. Traditional Christianity insists we all have unique souls that exist apart from the rest of the world. So you're going to find conflict.

    For me, personally, how I meld things is that I see altruism and "other love" as another form of loving the self, and vice versa. In a sense, the ego boundaries that most people keep around themselves, as little autonomous and separate individuals (within which you try to protect and sustain the life within), are constantly being stretched and extended so that more and more people outside of yourself are falling within your own ego boundaries. In other words, you see them as "part of you" rather than as separate beings in terms of caring about their survival and well-being, rather than as enemies who you need to defend against. If you saw the Matrix movies, this was hinted at there as well when the Architect was discussing the other Ones who existed before Neo -- their sense of altruism was on a broad universal level (i.e., their ego boundaries had extended so that all people were within their boundaries and thus they would expend themselves to preserve and nourish them), whereas Neo was particularly fixated on Trinity, etc. (I'm not sure how much more explicit it could be.)

    Anyway, they are different paradigms. One is expansive, meant to include everything as one; the other is dominating and seeks to remove disparate elements as a way to preserve the self.
    So I saw where this all came back around to the same thing other philosophies taught, and it all boiled down to the need for a coping method to deal in a natural world of survival, where the force of entropy often doesn't line up with what we have latched onto as the most comfortable/convenient states of things.

    Yet most of the Christians can't admit this. They have to prove that everything is God doing some special work in you. So now, I'm being told I'm looking at things too "black and white" in challenging stuff. But it has all been presented in black and white terms. When challenged, they can't own it, or especially, its implications; I've found in many debates over the years. Then, on one hand, I should stop going by what I've heard from different people in the past; just deal with God myself, and on the other hand, I shouldn't be challenging all these great teachers of the faith if I don't have a better solution. Which again, is to just commune with God myself. (Other Christians, such as the Reformed, have criticized this [charismatic-influenced] "new-evangelicalism" for this rabid "inner"-focus, so it's not just me put off by this). Don't even get me started on the "this growth process is only possible by God's 'grace' in Christians" claim (which then shifts to concepts like "Salvation" or "common grace").
    I agree with the Zen-like approach of dealing with life as it is, not as we wish it would be. Typically, frustration occurs because what we want is out of our locus of control to achieve and would infringe on the autonomy of others. The locus of control is ourselves, so basically all the "effort" is aimed at shifting our inward perceptions and melding with events rather than trying to dominate them.
    There's a difference between inner and outer locus of control, and people who use that concept usually say "inner" is the "healthy" one. So you're saying that's what Zen teaches? (That name popped up when thinking about this stuff. As it is, the guy has an article on Buddha, somewhere).

    the things you thought you wanted cease to be the things you want, you are able to be "at peace" with things as they are
    I guess, ideally, if everyone did this, then the world would be totally at peace. But what happens, is that people going through pain will be the ones more likely to discover and practice stuff like this, and they will change, while those in power will be encouraged to stay the way they are and change everyone else (I call this "inertia"), and thus the world will always be like this. So these philosphies come off as control tools, to pacify the masses (as much as can be swayed into it, with the promise that it's "healthier" for you), while the powerful are unfazed. That's just the concern that comes up for me, when faced with these things.

    Basically, you are part of things and things are part of you, so the distinctions here (which results in separate entities that can then try to dominate each other to appease their own personal set of desires) melt away.
    I recently read in a cognitive behavior therapy book, that there's a point in infant development when the ego differentiates from the environment. I'm sure it's mentioned in Jungian teaching somewhere too. So it seems like this is reversing that process, going back to a more "innocent" state.
    Then, there's the subject of ego-disintegration, but that's used in the shaman initiation process (unless it is involuntary, through severe trauma).
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

Similar Threads

  1. Fear as a driving force and mind made sense of Self
    By phobik in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-31-2009, 07:27 AM
  2. [NT] Differences in ENTP and ENTJ sense of humor
    By sakuraba in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 02-20-2009, 08:51 PM
  3. N-S/J-P dichotomies and sense of humor.
    By mtaclof in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-06-2009, 11:12 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO