Saturday, 19 December 2015

BPM

A shorthand notation for Balanced Positive and Spiritually Mature.


 


 

 

Posted by at No comments:

Monday, 12 October 2015

grounding

As an interim definition, lease refer to my re-post of my workshop notes, at http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com.au/2011/08/grounding-and-shielding.html   


Also, see an excellent pamphlet available for no financial cost, but registration is required, at the bottom of this page:   https://neurodivergentinsights.com/neurodivergentstore  


For my original writing ONLY on this blog: 

Copyright © Kayleen White 2016-2024     NO AI   I do not consent to any machine learning aka Artificial Intelligence (AI), generative AI, large language model, machine learning, chatbot, or other automated analysis, generative process, or replication program to reproduce, mimic, remix, summarise, or otherwise  replicate any part of this post or other posts on this blog via any means. Typo’s may be inserrted deliberately to demonstrate this is not an AI product.     Otherwise, fair and reasonable use is accepted under Creative Commons 4.0 on an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike basis   https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/   

Links to others works and excerpts from others works are NOT covered by the hereinbefore, and remain subject to the conditions of the original source. 





Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, 12 September 2015

elements

This is a partial draft. The topic requires quite a bit of work! 

However, in the interim:


Posted by at No comments:

Monday, 17 August 2015

Indirect psychic attack

I've given a definition of psychic attack, and that mentioned direct and indirect psychic attack. Direct psychic attack is causing an effect, or attempting to, directly upon the person you feel ill-will for - for instance, causing a headache as a result of uncontrolled jealousy, or interrupting someones sleep as a result of anger or hate.

Indirect psychic attack, on the other hand, is a more cowardly for of attack where you get at the person indirectly - i.e., by influencing the target's environment or loved ones in a way that harms the target. This could be, for instance, causing a loved one to fall ill so the target loses an opportunity, or causing their car to break down when they are on the way to an important meeting. It is the psychic equivalent of kidnapping someone's child, and, unlike direct psychic attack, which can be caused by uncontrolled energies, indirect psychic attack requires a certain amount of wilful maliciousness.

What I will post here, from time to time, are examples of indirect psychic attack - beginning with a lighthearted sketch I did a couple of decades ago for a book I've never finished (I will, given time and energy, completely re-present it):





Additional POSSIBLE examples of indirect psychic attack - these could equally well have been due to chance or mundane or non-malicious causes:
  • causing problems with internet connections to stop online work for the BPLF;
  • work that consumes time and energy unexpectedly, and just before they were needed for a working;


Posted by at No comments:

Friday, 26 June 2015

[Content Warning] Conspiracy fantasies (including intellectual cowardice)

The text below is from http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/post-no-718-intellectual-cowardice-and.html, but also see here for the sort of appalling behaviour conspiracy nuts are capable of, here for tactics used by climate change deniers,  here for evidence that they just can't think, here for thoughts on their intellectual cowardice, and also LBI. I object to dignifying such malicious, dangerous, anti-thinking rubbish with the word theory, and thus I now refer to these as conspiracy fantasies - and have edited the below copy accordingly. 
 
PS - see also: 
 

I've always been dubious about conspiracy fantasies. I've known people who held to those, and some of the them were truly nutters - like the woman I knew a few decades ago who believed the moon landings were faked. I didn't have any sense that she strongly felt that: it was more a case of mild incredulity combined with wanting to have a characteristic that would set her apart - and that's probably the key for me: the lack of intellectual rigour that many of these people have. That is part of why I consider it so essential for children to be taught Brendan Myers' "Clear and Present Thinking", and to generally find the balance point between scepticism and gullibility.

Some matters that seem to be conspiracy fantasies are later found to be true - for instance, those who have been crying wolf over FIFA could possibly have been viewed as a conspiracy fantasy, but now the facts have shown the allegations were true.

Others, such as the people who still believe the Earth is flat are clearly wrong (in my view :) - which is based on as objective assessment of the facts as I can make), and never will be right.

What is the difference?

Facts, and clear thinking.

Conspiracy fantasies are largely built around what the legal profession would describe as circumstantial evidence: it is not the equivalent of "facts" determined by forensic science (which are largely over-rated by members of the public). Now, there is a whole range of facts that mainstream science dismisses without proper investigation, and that is anything related to psychism or mediumship. However, in my opinion, there is adequate evidence supporting the existence of psychism and mediumship (including the problems that can and do happen with those as well - don't discount what the sceptics say: it is important to avoid being gullible). For more on this, refer to Victor Zammit's website, here, "Briefing for the Landing on Planet Earth" by Stuart Holroyd, and no doubt many other websites and sources. (And I consider many "skeptics" - particularly those I encounter in everyday life - are guilty of bullying, as well as intellectual cowardice and dishonesty and the other matters I have touched on.) 

Having got that out of the way, I have rarely felt that the conspiracy fantasists I have met were dedicated to the truth: there was mostly (not in all cases!) some emotional flaw or need (remember to do your shadow work!) that was being met by their adherence to their position - just as many "skeptics" also are comforted by their emotional allegiance to their ideology. In both groups, there are exceptions - for instance, here - but that doesn't excuse or justify the problems that go with both sides.

Now, I have come across a few articles where people look at the problem of conspiracy fantasies from the point of view of intellectual thinking style, in my words:
 Is this truly a problem?

Oftentimes, no - but it is when it stops other people being all that they can be, or robs resources from worthy causes, then I become concerned.

In the case of faked moon landing or flat earth conspiracy fantasies, I don't think it matters - considerations of funding and survival (there is an argument that Gaea promoted the evolution of a species which could leave the planet to enable survival of the next "planet killing" asteroid or super-volcano) are far more important than whether or not the moon landings happened. In many cases, it harms the advocate more than anyone else (for instance, there are a couple of ET contact groups here in Australia that I have considered going along to, to see what they're like, but they've failed on intellectual rigour because they consider the UN is an attempt to impose a bad form of world government - I am all in favour of a world government, if it is a good form, incidentally - it might take care of many of the conflicts and the misallocation of food and other resources), and a post about the Exhibition Building and a fountain in the Carlton Gardens which alleged "Illuminati" and reptilian * symbols. The symbols were typical of that era, and what is termed a classical education! The "half reptile" people described were mer-people! How the hell can anyone not know what a mermaid or a merman are?

You don't do your case any good if you cannot get these sort of fundamentals right. If they had shown awareness of that, and then argued their case, it would have had more cogency and credibility.

From a personal point of the view, the greatest harm in that is that I also want to experience a sense of belongingness, and clearly, I have to keep searching.

 * see about one third of the way through here, for an explanation of this term. 

PS - if you're not familiar with a particular conspiracy fantasy, I would suggest you at least listen to them. To not do so is much intellectual cowardice as those who I have written about in this post. Also, people cannot effectively "de-bunk" a conspiracy fantasy unless they know how those who adhere to it think. For example, I have been planning on writing my version of a de-bunking of the hollow earth fantasy - largely because I think I know enough to do so, including having some familiarity with how those who adhere to that fantasy think. Incidentally, if a conspiracy fantasy is bunk, there will be, or it will be possible to prepare, an effective, calm, sensible rebuttal. If no-one has done so yet, well, maybe think about it all very carefully - in fact, why not MEDITATE on it ... Also, see here.
Also:
  • from http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/forms-living-in-chakras-more-fear-and.html:
    Now, one of the sets of people who almost unfailingly annoy me are conspiracy fantasists. I think they are often seeking distraction and entertainment to pass time at the expense of other people - but a comment I posted some time ago, to the effect that they're trying to impose order on what is frightening chaos, could also be applicable [8]. Recently, as I did some clearing, a thought occurred to me, that the problem is that conspiracy fantasists assume people in the physical are aware and actively involved in what is being theorised - such as the "the US government did 9/11", or the idea of "economic Shock Doctrine". The truth is, such things may be happening on non-physical levels (a lot of them aren't!), but aren't at conscious level. Thus, for instance, a politician may wish on the physical level for something like a war to take voters minds off internal problems, and this tends to be latched on by negative forces on the non-physical and thus is created. This activity on non-physical levels is what Dion Fortune was working against and wrote about in "The Magical Battle of Britain" (see here).
  • from http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/what-do-i-do-next.html:
    My last quote is from Alan Moore [2], on the topic of conspiracy fantasies:
    "Yes, there is a conspiracy, indeed there are a great number of conspiracies, all tripping each other up… the main thing that I learned about conspiracy fantasies is that conspiracy fantasists actually believe in the conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy, or the grey aliens, or the twelve-foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control, the truth is far more frightening; no-one is in control, the world is rudderless."
  • from http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/some-links-for-reading-and-maybe-even.html:
    One of my former friends loved conspiracy fantasies - she loved the idea that the landings on the Moon were all faked (my view is that I was glad when an astronaut punched one idiot who was stupid enough to try challenging him face to face about it), she loved the X Files (I liked them too for a while, but it got a bit over-long for me). I know there is even a Flat Earth Society!
    Some of this is just harmless, or even entertaining. Other conspiracy fantasies are not: there are some very vicious, nasty and evil fantasies on the basis of race, religion or sexuality, for instance. Those conspiracy fantasies are far from harmless.
    Personally, I simply don't have time to engage in rubbish, and so I won't when it comes to conspiracy fantasies. In fact, my tendency to dislike conspiracy fantasies is one of the reasons I didn't like the Matrix series of films when they came out: my friend loved them because they played into her love of conspiracy fantasies, and I reacted against that. Well, to continue a recent theme, I actually wound up watching the series again: I still dislike the conspiracy-fantasy-like aspects of the film (I feel like conspiracy fantasies are a device of the week minded which detracts from the serious purpose of those of us who know our stuff isn't a conspiracy fantasy - it's real! [Joke, Joyce!]), but there are some interesting links I have come across as a result of that, including here and here. 
  • and http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com.au/2010/04/some-thoughts-on-tim-weiner-book-legacy.html.

Finally, there is also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory,and a good debunking of the 2012 hysteria on Witchvox at http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=ustx&c=words&id=14189.



For my original writing ONLY on this blog: 

Copyright © Kayleen White 2016-2024     NO AI   I do not consent to any machine learning aka Artificial Intelligence (AI), generative AI, large language model, machine learning, chatbot, or other automated analysis, generative process, or replication program to reproduce, mimic, remix, summarise, or otherwise  replicate any part of this post or other posts on this blog via any means. Typo’s may be inserrted deliberately to demonstrate this is not an AI product.     Otherwise, fair and reasonable use is accepted under Creative Commons 4.0 on an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike basis   https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/   

Links to others works and excerpts from others works are NOT covered by the hereinbefore, and remain subject to the conditions of the original source. 






Posted by at No comments:

Monday, 22 June 2015

Evidence

All I am going to use this post for is collating links of interest with regard to evidence of psychic / spiritual matters - no dissertation or opinion here on what constitutes "proof" / evidence, etc - nor how to handle sceptics, or the flaws of scientific method., or how to use double blind techniques to improve one's psychism,or how to think clearly about such matters ... It's just so I don't have to go trawling through the blog when I want to refer to a useful link on this.

Global Consciousness 
 and posts of mine which mention this:
"Supernature"and other Books
  • "Briefing for the Landing on Planet Earth" Stuart Holroyd (renamed "Prelude for the Planet Earth" in some markets; Pub. Corgi 1979 (originally W.H. Allen 1977), ISBN 0 552 10997 5);
  • Lyall Watson - “Supernature” (ISBN 0 340 40429 1, pub.: Sceptre, 1989 - first printing 1986; first pub. Hodder and Stoughton, 1973; first pub. in paperback Coronet, 1974)
  • from http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/book-reviews.html:
    "The Founders of Psychical Research" by Alan Gauld (Pub. Schocken Books, 1968, ISBN not given but Library of Congress Card No. 68-13562);
    "The Mediums” Book" by Kardec (Pub. Psychic Press, 1977 (previously pub. 1876), ISBN 85384 008 3);
    "Eileen Garrett and the World Beyond the Senses" by Angolf (Pub. William Morrow & Co., 1974, ISBN 0 688 00250 1);
  • “20 cases Suggestive of Reincarnation” Professor Ian Stevenson (I don’t have the full reference - sorry);
  • Dick Sutphen’s books “Past Lives, Future Loves” (pub. Pocket Books, 1978, ISBN 0-671-83485-1) and “You Were Born Again to be Together” (pub. Pocket Books, 1976, ISBN 0 671 43383 0);
  • “The Reincarnations of Robert Macready” (pub. Zebra Books, 1980, ISBN 0-89083-703-1);
  • “The Case for Reincarnation” Joe Fischer (pub. Grafton Books, ISBN 0 586 06540 7);
  •    (more posted when I have more)
Life After Death

Reincarnation 
  • relevant books listed above;
  •    (more posted when I have more)

Psychism and Mediumship
Precognition


Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, 7 June 2015

"Non-Violent" Communication / Collaborative Communication

Words can kill.

Not necessarily as a result of some magickal ritual (although I don't know enough to discount that), but directly, through the response they cause in the listener, and indirectly, through the actions they cause people to take.
  • as an example of the first aspect, the direct response, I come from a small community in which I have seen half a dozen people driven to suicide in a quarter of a century by discrimination. To illustrate that, see here, and here (this is also an example of a situation where words have led to the speaker's death: the murderer claimed - unsuccessfully, I am glad - that he was provoked: he is a murderer, and committed an act of murder, nothing else. Maybe the techniques discussed below would have worked to defuse the situation, but that would have been momentary at best: there were deeper issues to resolve, including control);
  • as examples of the latter, consider the violence engendered by the words of the Nazi leaders in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, and the xenophobia being exacerbated by Australian politicians this millennia, which has led to the deaths of hundreds of people (try looking back where they are trying to flee from if you want to argue about people dying at sea - and look at the response last year of the Italian navy to the same situation: the Italians, unlike Australia, complied with international law) and immense social dislocation and violence in Australia.
 Therefore, it is right for people to attempt to communicate in ways that do not foster, encourage or increase violence.

I support that - I've been on the receiving end of such violence, and not only in LGBTIQ contexts.

The problem is:
having enough life experience and/or insight to be TRULY aware of what constitutes violence.
As an example of the shortcomings which can occur, refer to my article on the Charter for Compassion, which has the serious flaw of failing to recognise that enforced invisibility is one of the forms of violence that actively harms LGBTIQ people.

This is where I have major concerns over the form of communication which generally calls itself Non-Violent Communication (see here and here). It is a major step forward, but:
  • the assumption that openness will trigger compassion is not universal, as it will not always do so. Gandhi was the greatest exponent of this, but he did not trigger a compassionate response in everyone. Some people are too damaged for this to work - or necessarily even to be appropriate: healing may be what they need first;
  • people have the right to privacy. Some people have suffered abuse in the form of invasive experiences, and for them, such communication is a gross invasion. For other people and situations, such ways of communicating are very inappropriate - I would not be at all accepting of some of my colleagues at work trying to delve into my inner thoughts and feelings, for instance, and I've come across many other people who have asked inappropriate questions; 
  • just as people respond differently to counselling or forms of healing or styles of teaching, so too do they respond differently to various styles of communicating. This form of communication can come across as aggressive (particularly amongst some of the blue collar workers I have lived with at times). Assuming that it won't is an indication of a particular academic level/inclination, and basically a naivety/lack of life experience; 
  • there is a presumption that verbal skills are something ANYONE can master and use, and that is just utter rubbish - and it doesn't by any means apply only or necessarily even predominantly to men: I know many women (cisgendered, in case any bigots wonder about that) who struggle with verbal dexterity. Again, such an assumption may be an academic/ideological bias;
  • finally, there are times when swearing to relieve stress is beneficial: it is time for those who advocate this form of communication to learn that, and leave people some space when it is appropriate. If you want to educate people about the associations and implications of swear words that is OK, but don't do it when it is actually harmful.
Personally, I find some of the examples on the website highly questionable - for instance, leaving rubbish on the floor of a teenager's room does make the room more prone to insect pests: there is a health implication from such inaction. Also, others in the house have rights, one of which is to not be forced to live a lifestyle they do not willingly choose - such as living in a pig sty (the teenager can always close their door - they do NOT have a right to force others to see their pig sty).

Overall, however, the technique is worth having in one's repertoire - but it is just one of man techniques to be used. I also consider the term "Collaborative Communication" far more accurate and useful.

*****


I've written on this before. For convenience, here is that prior article (and see here, here, here, here, and here [written before I had come across Collaborative Communication, incidentally] for some of my other posts on the topic of communication - and this post and this post are also relevant):


The principle of nonviolence [1] (which I will abbreviate to NV for the rest of this post) is good. Why? Because
(a) the importance of free will (violence is imposition of one person's will on another, which can be done by words as well as deeds), and
(b) most people grow better with NV - not necessarily peace, though, as they may need a challenge (and some people CHOOSE to learn the hard way: if they do, that is their right, and you have no right to be upset on their behalf).

A form of communication has been developed which is aimed at honesty, avoiding judgements and looking after oneself and, as a result of doing so, being able to look after others more effectively. The communication style is called "Non-violent Communication" (which I am going to abbreviate to NVC for the rest of this post). Before you go further, please go to the website at http://www.nonviolentcommunication.com/index.htm, and have a browse.

* plays elevator "musak" for a few minutes while you browse *

Back? Good-oh!

Overall, I think NVC is quite good (well, brilliant, in many ways) - and it has been around for something like half a century, so I think it has stood the test of time, although it clearly hasn't taken off in a mainstream way (hasn't taken off in a mainstream way "yet", perhaps?). 

Despite my ranking of it overall as being "good", I have a few concerns about it that I wish to touch on in this blog post.
  1. Firstly, and this is a trigger reaction of mine, this is similar in style to past experience of mine with a manipulative drama queen who believed in something that was, in effect, akin to radical honesty (and on that, I always note the character on the TV series "Lie to Me" who began as someone being radically honest but eventually learned that white lies have a purpose in some cases). Whilst it may be my past reaction coming out, I am concerned NVC could be - or could too easily used to be - selfish. Having made that point, however, I must acknowledge that NVC has an element of seeking intimacy that wasn't present in my previous ... "encounters". This concern leads me to also ask (and I am not far enough through their material to answer this):
     - Will adherents to NVC respect people's possible desire not to be intimate (e.g., for workplace applications of these techniques)?
     - Do the needs listed include solitude, and the need for physical exhilaration - which is also a valid need for some? (On that, I recall a young boy who apparently thrived when playing footy despite his mother being paranoid about "competition" and thus keeping him out of that for some years - and it was the mother who told me about that, by the way)
         - Do the NVC people make the fundamental and fatal mistake of trying to claim some things are universal? (I think yes on this count, sadly - and I write "sadly" because NVC has an enormous amount of potential.

    Now, as a digression and a sweeping generalisation all in one, it seems to me that the first people to introduce something have to be fairly fanatical in order to jolt most others out of their lethargy, and but then, after the first generation of practitioners/adherents, a more realistic version of whatever the philosophy is evolves. As an example, consider the struggle for equal rights of women in the mid-20th Century, where some women (yes, they called themselves by the "F" word - Feminists) campaigned for equal power sharing - half for men, half for women, and were met by the response of some men "well, we think around 1/3 of power could go to women, but we'll keep 2/3". In response, they campaigned for "all power to women", and then the retards (my pejorative and judgemental label) said "whoa! well, half and half is better than that so OK." (Of course, that struggle still has to happen in too many places of the world ... and currently Australia seems, to me, to be in a backlash phase to the gains of the late-20th Century for women's rights, so we haven't reached the final stage of that particular issue yet ... maybe in another 50 years ... ).
  2. Secondly, emotions are a great tool for the soul to learn and evolve, but they are not the purpose of existence (I've added a new saying on this to the "provoke a reaction" section of my signature block to express this). I consider that NVC inherently acknowledges this, in that it pursues a goal of NV - which is a mental concept, not an emotion.

    On that, in my world view love is more than "just" (note the emotive qualifier? :) ) an emotion: it is a way of living, a way of expressing the self, and includes honouring one's duty to those one loves. That may mean at times doing things one doesn't like - such as working to pay the bills, rather than pursuing one's heart's desires. (On that point, I am thinking of situation where one has young children - and they are NOT such a joy that it "makes it all worthwhile" ... anyone who claims that is naive and lacking in life experience! If the situation involves only adults, well, that's a different kettle of fish, and NVC type principles deserve to be applied by all.)
     
  3. Thirdly, NVC seems to assume expressing emotions (including identifying what part of the body an emotion is affecting) is the "only" (perhaps "best" is a better word) way to resolve things. Now, when I was bullied as a child, the bullies made it very clear they knew what they were doing, so I have long considered the current fashion of getting victims to talk to bullies about how the victims are feeling a complete and utter waste of time - and, in fact, it is something that FEEDS the bullies and therefore is extremely irresponsible. Working on solely verbally expressing emotions is, in my experience (I first started doing work like this over two decades ago, by the way), at times, unsatisfying and downright useless - it is good for people who are verbal, but useless for those who are physical or mental. Physical people may need, for instance, to run out their emotions, and mental people to meditate on their emotions. The concept of dealing with emotions through talking doesn't cater for all people - which is a criticism of other counselling techniques as well. Still, I think that, over time - particularly if more people speak up as I have just done, better versions of these tools may be developed.
  4. Next we come to the issue of unevenness of skills. Someone with good verbal skills using techniques like this on someone who isn't equally as skilled is AS VIOLENT as someone who punches another person - I've buried people who were driven to commit suicide because of words, and have long considered the statement that sticks and stones may break my bones but words will only hurt me to be an absolute nonsense - in fact, criminally stupid. Sadly, I have seen a lot of this, and strongly consider that there needs to be a "level playing field". It goes just as much for those who are fighting against discrimination, who tend to be more gifted with words (such as myself - and I feel comfortable enough with words to have a blog), as for those who are discriminatory.

    On that, one story I read in some NVC material concerns me. The author is laying in a room when a friend comes in and says she wants to speak to him; he comments on her tone of voice and says he feels fear and wants to lay looking at the ceiling as a result. I actually consider the person concerned could have expressed their feelings better, much better. And, looking at it from the point of view of the friend, if someone came to me after speaking that way, I would quite possibly have had my trust in them damaged to the extent that I wouldn't talk to them until they had - over some time - re-established their position of trust.

    The story reminds me of a situation where someone wanted to get a "be heard" group going about problems in a group, to facilitate healing. I haven't replied as I have no need to express myself to most of the people in that group (I have to one already): I've already talked about it to the people I trust and want. Furthermore, I felt there was a bit of a bias towards expecting that attendees of that little group would choose to continue to be involved in that community afterwards. I had already decided to leave that community, so that bias - and I may have been wrong - was off-putting.
  5. An issue I will have to grapple with as I work through the materials (and I am just beginning) is how selfish/spiritually immature some of this approach may be. That's largely my personal button, but I may post more if I think it is relevant ...
  6. Finally, we have the issue of reality. People need to pay the bills, rent and buy food, etc. This is not as imperative as when we were gatherer-hunters, but there are still some basic survival things, and those needs can overwhelm this. If one looks at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow [1], http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs [1], http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com.au/2010/05/changes.html and http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com.au/2009/06/maturity.html), I consider the tools of NVC range from Social up to Self-Actualising, but there are still the basic physical needs for food, water and shelter that need to be met, and for millions (probably billions?) of people in the world, aren't being met. If I had a starving child, I really wouldn't give a hoot about how I talked to people, I would do whatever was needed to give my child a chance of survival.
So, overall, I consider NVC is good - in fact, brilliant. However, despite 50 years of development, this may not be the final version we see of this: I think there may be better (more matured, and more mature) versions of it yet. In fact, when I was discussing this topic with my partner, she summed up my concerns and a possible response with a comment to the effect that NVC needs to be adapted by each person in order to be authentic - otherwise, it risked being a script, a very verbose script.

So, what is my suggestion? Go for it - use it, study it, seek to improve it on the basis of your experience. It's possibly one of our next major steps forward.


Posted by at No comments:

emotions [Content Warning: discussion includes "negative" emotions, harm, and trauma]

PS - see also Karla  McLaren and:

PPS - I have now found the concept of primary and secondary emotions - in which anger is a secondary emotion. That is a much more elegant way of putting it than as I have  ("I consider anger to be an expression of something else", and 022. Anger is Not an Emotion)

“Are You Angry? It Means You're Smart”   https://www.okdoomer.io/are-you-angry-it-means-youre-smart/   “So, watch out when someone bashes their opponents simply for using anger to get things done. They'll try to tell you that anger doesn't work, when in fact anger does work. That's precisely why they don't want their opponents to get angry. They don't want to listen to you or treat you with the respect you deserve. If you never get angry, it means nothing ever has to change.   Neoliberals love it when vibes displace action.”   And as someone who has seen what angry bigots can do, I’d argue there’s a case for managing anger as well ... Furthermore, I have seen and experienced what long term gains can come from other emotions - but the arguments in this article deserve genuine consideration      

PPPS - the disturbing problems - including toxic masculinity and failure to address causes - of anger management courses 

PPPPS - see also:   

I'm putting this post here so I can create a ready point of reference for times that I want to find what I've written previously about emotions. I'll aim to keep updating this - and I know what I provide here is, at this first posting, based on the section in my bibliography, is already out of date, but it is a start.
One of the major posts I have done since then is:
   Post No. 708 - How do I clear or channel specific emotion ‘X’?
Another has been on trauma. 

A lot of my work is aimed at finding a way to classify and work with emotions. Others, obviously, have also considered this  for instance, see here, here and here. In my case, I find looking at emotions as combinations of the five elements useful.
I examine emotions as (a) a combination of the elements to varying degrees, and with different balance between inward and outward focus - although that is a simplification, as I should also look at clarity of each elemental energy, and movement. As an example, surprise could be a sudden change of focus of air (thought) from inward to outward focus; fear, which some people consider to be a variation of surprise, would probably have other energies, including inward focused water and awareness.
The ideal would be for all to be in balance, clear and accessible, which I would show like this:

Anger - and this is a simplification as I consider anger to be an expression of something else - I would show as an excess of outward focused fire energy, perhaps with some inward-focused water because of the selfishness of rage. Earth and Aether would be greatly reduced, possibly also air. (Passion, if it is healthy and for something of benefit to others, would come with a good combination of other elements being present in healthy quantities, unlike the diagram below, where they are mostly diminished or out of balance. Unhealthy passion - including addiction - would be dominated by an excess of inward-focused fire ...)

This shows a way I can work with this emotion: air controls fire, so use air. Since the fire is out of balance by being too outward focused (I find anger with an inward focus tends to show as one of the many forms of depression), air with an inward focused  i.e., reflection, self analysis, "thinking about things", counselling, anger management tools, counting to ten :) , etc. If this adequately draws the fire back into balance, it should also result in generation of earthy energies, which are, in themselves, further stabilising.


Disgust, on the other hand, is an emotion that I consider often has a social element to it - those we respect or look up to or adore as kids say that "X" is disgusting, and for the sake of their approval, we also LEARN to view that as disgusting. Thus, I would show disgust as a combination of the unbalanced, outward-focused fire of anger with an excessive outward focus of water, as it is still about wanting others' approval. The lack of awareness means air is greatly diminished, and the emotion indicates a diminishment of Aether.


I haven't worked out an energetic way to rebalance this particular state of being as yet - perhaps you, Dear Reader, can :)

As I keep working through this, I will add more on this, and specific emotions here. Now, the links - and a few diagrams of energy. 

Anger
   022. Anger is Not an Emotion;
   http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/why-we-are-all-so-angry-20160711-gq3hpy.html:



Confidence 
   215. Confidence;

Denial 
   214. Denial and Other Personal Negative Shields and Barriers, or What I Have Learned From Being Trans;

Doubt
   dealing with doubt;

Fear 
   178. Fear;

Forgiveness 
   230. Forgiveness;
  from here: "forgiveness does not subvert justice ... is not forgetting ... is not quick ... but I have forgiven and so I am not chained - I am free";
   an excellent article from John Beckett 

Grief 
   142. Grief; 

Greed 

“Who’s More Giving: Atheists or Christians?”   https://youtu.be/N10Ko_H_lC4   “...   although conservatives gave the least of all of the groups ...   I really don't see the point of focusing on religion at all as this most recent study did, when political affiliation is right there. This recent study suggested that conservatives are stingy and that’s extremely relevant because those same conservatives are the ones who are trying to destroy governmental safety nets for our most at risk friends and family, and they do it while insisting that private Charities will pick up the slack ... but the fact of the matter is, they’re not putting their money where their mouths are, necessarily - and past research does suggest conservatives aren’t really any more charitable than anyone else ”      

Guilt 

"the guilt of not working more, when we’re done for the day"

Happiness
   "don't worry, be happy and other abusive folk wisdom";

Hate 
   119. Hatred, and pouring oil onto ... oil;
  
 Hope 
   538.  Hope;

Jealousy 
   304. Jealousy;
Judgement 
   102. Judging Others: People Who Experience a Lot;
A couple of decades ago, while working on a book on rescue which I never finished, I did a few - lighthearted - sketches to help illustrate what I was writing about. The following sketch was to show the importance of not judging a book by it's cover, as the "Wild Pig" (or perhaps ... "Cool Pig" ... and there is a long story behind using that character!) was the teaching character I used in the series of sketches (incidentally, I had intended to redraw these to be a bit more distinct, but as I haven't had time to do so over the last few decades, I've decided to post them now, as they are  with a hope they may be of some use or lead to someone doing something better):



 ... and the rest 
    074. Isa Mawt Tat: Emotions I Am Not;
   097. What do I do when my soul's a drama queen, dahling?;
   145. Others' Feelings;
   181. A Coupla Quick Thoughts: Fatigue and Ashramas; 
   183. Avoiding Positive Energy; 
   197. Personality;
   256. Family of Choice;
    221. Inappropriate Reactions to (Agape) Love; 
   239. Random Thoughts;
   303. Realisation;  


 


 

Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, 30 May 2015

[Content Warning - religious abuses] neochristianity/pseudochristian / Christianity

PPPPS - see also: 

PPS - as many people would not understand the slander of Paganism that comes with describing it is "neo"Paganism but not using neochristian, I am probably going to start using "pseudochristian" either in lieu of, or together with, neochristian. The points below apply fully to the new term.

PS - see also "Prisons with Stained Glass Windows: Untying the Bonds of Dogma - Embarking on the Path of Spirit", by David Howard.

I'm going to begin this by explaining that I make a strict division between:

neochristianity, in which group are those who have become rigid and unforgiving and covered with facades and all those who are greedy for power or materialistic influence, or abuse children, or in any way set limits or qualifications on Love,

and 

Christianity, in which group I classify people who follow Christ's two simple laws, about loving one's neighbour and loving Deity. (The late Archbishop Desmond Tutu is an example of a genuine Christian, IMO)

I started thinking about this when I started thinking about the label "neo-Pagan" which people were imposing on me, and realised that a lot of what they were claiming could actually be directed at the hierarchies and wealthy, powerful structures which had been built up around what I now term neochristian. (Also, Paganism would unquestionably have evolved and changed over the last few centuries as it already had done before then, just as christianity did, with, for example, Protestantism, the development of the Quaker faith, etc, etc, etc.)

I'm going to give a "definition" I wrote some years ago for a book which I eventually decided not to finish (on regression-rescue - that will be part of a better book project, if I ever get time to finish it :) ). But first, I want to give references to posts where I have referred to or discussed these concepts:

Also, see this list of "20 reasons to abandon christianity". Given the viciousness of the neochristians in Australia's "postal survey" on Equal Marriage - including their hypocritical cries about religious freedom (what about the freedoms of those religions that support Equal Marriage?), the hostility I have experienced at local interfaith meetings, and the warnings about neochristians' role in the current psychic/spiritual war plaguing the planet, I've decided to set that path of working with other faiths aside - for now, at least.

Now, I have to begin this by pointing out two things. Firstly, the definition I am going to give is my own, and is not in any way an “official” definition – and will be disagreed with by Christians. Secondly, I make a distinction between Christian, and neo-Christian. 

Now, one of the attacks which tends to be made on pagans is that they are really practising a “new form” of paganism, one which lacks a trail of academic credentials back to the “original” forms of paganism. That is true, paganism has changed – we no longer practice human sacrifice (which some did – the Celts at the time of the Roman invasion of Britain probably were head-hunters), but I think that can often be a good thing, in that any form of faith may have to adapt to changing circumstances. (It is, of course, highly arguable about how far one should or shouldn’t adapt matters … ) 

Christianity has shown some adaptation to suit changing circumstances – some Christian sects have women priests, and I think most no longer follow the conditions in Leviticus about selling people into slavery or stoning them to death. 

In fact, I consider all the arguments that get put up for paganism being referred to as “neo-paganism” apply also to Christianity – particularly the lack of academically credible evidence from the years of, and just after, Christ’s life. 

However, the people I refer to as “neo-Christians” are those who I consider have lost sight of Christs’ essential message, which he summed up in words to the effect of:
“I bring you a New Testament, with only two rules:
1.       love your neighbour as yourself, and
2.       love the Lord above all else.”

Those who I consider neo-Christians are those who have lost sight of that, and instead focus on all the incredible minutiae which has built up in the Christian churches over time – including rules over who can or cannot be a priest, who can or cannot marry, who can or cannot talk to God, what constitutes sacred or consecrated ground, what language services should be held in, the aspects of God, free will vs. preordained conditions, etc, etc, etc. 

It’s all just waffle: Christ said it’s all about LOVE. 

There are some people who still do follow Christ’s message, in my experience: those people are the ones I would be pleased to call Christian. Unfortunately, they’re in the minority, and too many are either “Sunday Christians”, people who praise the Lord and love on Sunday and stab you in the back on Monday, or nominal Christians – people who, out of habit or indoctrination, say they are Christian but don’t really care about spirituality. 

I don’t have a lot of respect for some of the organised Christian structure (i.e., the various sects), but some do happen to achieve a great deal in terms of care for the impoverished or needy – and I am thinking of some of the South American churches in particular, here. Others do a reasonable job, but taint all their efforts by hate – which is what discrimination against LGBTIQ people, single mothers, etc is. 

If I had to sum all this up, and give a succinct and reasonably useful definition of “Christian”, it would be someone who claims to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. 

Now, if we move on to the subject of Jesus Christ, I do believe it is likely that he did exist as a real, historical person, that he did perform miracles (or what seemed like miracles at the time), and that there is much that we do not know about this very advanced soul. It may be that Jesus visited places such as Tibet, or survived the crucifixion (as some claim), or was “married” and had a child (as was claimed in “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail” by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln[1] – and was later recycled in Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code”[2]), or was a walk in (in the sense that Christ was the new spirit, and Jesus the original – also advanced soul, but not as far advanced J - inhabitant of the body [yes, I have heard such as suggestion – in several places]), but I really don’t care – even if I were a Christian (and I did try to be, for a while … when I was a kid), I wouldn’t care. The point is all about the New testament that Christ brought, which is about LOVE. 

See also... [deleted - cross reference to another section of that book] where I quote Mohandas K. Gandhi’s comment to the effect of “I quite like your Christ. It’s just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ”. As a pagan, I also found Gavin Andrews’ book “Paganism and Christianity” (pub. Smashwords, 2011, ISBN 978-0-9871536-0-9) very interesting, particularly the archaeological insights into the early Christian era.






Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)