'survival' Vs. 'spiritual' Values

[DavidS]

Hello One and All (Greetings once more, Thomas):

A joy to see that goings on here are alive and well (to 'newer' be's, I be a mostly absent 'older' one here)

Have been blissfully out of the converse-ational circuit for a while, but recently began to contemplate formulating an article surveying and dealing in a 'balanced' way with the variety of counterweighing 'tensions' between what may be thought of as purely selfish 'survival' and (more, more, more the way I want it, bumtitibum) 'aggrandizement' values and spiritual values; this, just to clarify and possibly more integrally resolve my personal perspective pertaining to such matters, if nothing else.

This led me into a gradually extending 'search pattern', consisting of looking for and reading things which might be relevantly stimulating, and, as I came across perspectival gems which I personally thrilled to, I found myself hearkening back to this place, desiring to share my 'best' finds with fellow-sight-seekers here.

Comments as well as other 'finds' pertaining to the subject are, of course, invited and very welcome in this thread.

David
============
I open with a piece from People of The Life: The Hope for Healing Human Evil by M. Scott Peck, M.D.

The proceed we need at working definition. It is reflection of the enormous mystery of the subject that we do not have a generally accepted definition of evil. Yet in our hearts I think we all have some understanding of its nature. For the moment I can do not better than to heed my son, who, with the characteristic vision of eight-yer-olds, explained simply, "Why Daddy, evil is 'live' spelled backward. Evil is in opposition to life. It is that which opposes the life force. It has, in short, to do with killing. Specifically,
it has to do with murder – namely, unnecessary killing, killing that is not required for biological survival.

Let us not forget this. There are some who have written about evil so intellectually that it comes out sounding abstract to the point of irrelevancy. Murder is not abstract. Let us not forget that George was … [… sentence goes on in reference to a case-history shared earlier in the book].

When I say that evil has to do with killing, I do not mean to restrict myself to corporeal murder. There are various essential attributes of life – particularly human life – such as sentience, mobility, awareness, growth, autonomy, will. It is possible to kill or attempt to kill one of these attributes without actually destroying the body. Thus we may "break" a horse or even a child without harming a hair on its head. Erich Fromm was acutely sensitive to this fact when he broadened the definition of necrophilia to include the desire of certain people to control others – to make them controllable, to foster their dependency, to discourage their capacity to think for themselves, to diminish their unpredictability and originality, to keep them in line. Distinguishing it from a "biophilic" person, one who appreciates and fosters the variety of life forms and the uniqueness of the individual, he demonstrated a "necrophilic character type," whose aim it is to avoid the invonvenience of life by transforming others into obedient automatons, robbing them of their humanity. [Fromm's The Heart of Man: Its Genius for Good and Evil is cited.]

Evil, the, for the moment, is that force, residing either inside or outside of human beings, that seeks to kill life or liveliness. And goodness is its opposite. Goodness is that which promotes life and liveliness.

[vicente]

Evil is in opposition to life. It is that which opposes the life force.

Evil, adj., morally wrong, harmful, marked by anger, irritability. Actually, I see morality as opposed to Spirituality, thus, in some circumstances, one persons evil is humanity's stepping stone to Liberation.

As for evil as "harmful, marked by anger, irritability",...I read this past sunday that the number of attacks by tourists on Rangers at Yellowstone has jumped more than 300%. I'm not aware about the world, but in America, hate, division, anger and irritability is definitely on the rise.

From my observations while pondering this dis-ease in America, on a fundamental level it appears to arise from religion,...specifically the Christian religion,...followed by other Abrahamic branches like Judeaism (the most terroristic of all religions) and Islam.

I found myself hearkening back to this place, desiring to share my 'best' finds with fellow-sight-seekers here.

Nice to hear of your desire to share. Here's something of interest which is very related to the subject:

http://www.alfiekohn.org/parenting/tcac.htm
When it comes to competition, we Americans typically recognize only two legitimate positions: enthusiastic support and qualified support.

The first view holds that the more we immerse our children (and ourselves) in rivalry, the better. Competition builds character and produces excellence. The second stance admits that our society has gotten carried away with the need to be Number One, that we push our kids too hard and too fast to become winners -- but insists that competition can be healthy and fun if we keep it in perspective.
I used to be in the second camp. But after five years of investigating the topic, looking at research from psychology, sociology, education and other fields. I'm now convinced that neither position is correct.

Competition is bad news all right, but it's not just that we overdo it or misapply it. The trouble lies with competition itself. The best amount of competition for our children is none at all, and the very phrase "healthy competition" is actually a contradiction in terms.

That may sound extreme if not downright un-American. But some things aren't just bad because they're done to excess; some things are inherently destructive. Competition, which simply means that one person can succeed only if others fail, is one of those things. It's always unnecessary and inappropriate at school, at play and at home.

Think for a moment about the goals you have for your children. Chances are you want them to develop healthy self-esteem, to accept themselves as basically good people. You want them to become successful, to achieve the excellence of which they're capable. You want them to have loving and supportive relationships. And you want them to enjoy themselves.

These are fine goals. But competition not only isn't necessary for reaching them -- it actually undermines them
.
Competition is to self-esteem as sugar is to teeth. Most people lose in most competitive encounters, and it's obvious why that causes self-doubt. But even winning doesn't build character; it just lets a child gloat temporarily. Studies have shown that feelings of self-worth become dependent on external sources of evaluation as a result of competition: Your value is defined by what you've done. Worse -- you're a good person in proportion to the number of people you've beaten.

In a competitive culture, a child is told that it isn't enough to be good -- he must triumph over others. Success comes to be defined as victory, even though these are really two very different things. Even when the child manages to win, the whole affair, psychologically speaking, becomes a vicious circle: The more he competes, the more he needs to compete to feel good about himself.

The Morality of Competition

Discussions about competition often take the form of: Is competition good or bad? This is indeed the way the main contemporary researchers deal with the problem. Is competition good? They answer: No. Is it bad? Yes, in every way, bad psychologically, developmentally, physically, socially, educationally, and productively.

:)

[Aristofanis]

1. As far as competition is concerned I dissagree with Guru.Competition in my opinion
helps people to progress.I'm not saying that steping over other people's corpses in
order to succeed is a healthy behaviour.
But developing your natural talents and skills in order to jump over the limit of
yourself is progress.A picture of people exercing in order to win a race is in
our nature.

2.Evil and grace are equal.It's "plus" and "minor", if you put them together you have balance.
Caring mostly for on of them, is only one side of the coin.

anyway ,that's my point of view.


:D

[fu*]

Hi David :)

Nice to see your postings.

An interesting book relating to what "peck" talks about is 'Finite and Infinite Games' by James P. Carse. (for those interested in a "page turner", look for Grisham instead)

>>desiring to share my 'best' finds with fellow-sight-seekers here.<<

Thank you. But did you see any "seekers" here? Please point him/her out for me. Alas, I am afraid that I have seen only 'finders'. They have all 'found'. And so the search is over.
Protecting, and displaying their "find" is all that is left.
There are many that will tell you 'how it is'. None who ask.
So many talking to themselves, without the slightest idea, that they are painting a picture of them/their "selves".

On a somewhat unrelated note...

Yes! competition is almost always BAD. By creating a "winner", You have created a "loser". How sweet of you.

[sahyo]

I am afraid that I have seen only 'finders'.

can certaintying "I have seen"?

[Aristofanis]

All people are finders, if someone wants to move them, must win their
respect .Another finder who finds that others are finders
offers nothing.
Noone here said he can't change his mind.We're just offering
opinions , through dialog (dia+logos) we are trying to communicate.

If I am a finder in your opinion , convinse me with your
words.


p.s.I'm glad you didin't consider that I am a seeker.

[todd]

Here is a link with a vision of Good and Evil I generally agree with (http://www.angelfire.com/wa/ThunderRoad/goodevil.html)

I still feel closer to the Aristotle vision with some amendments.
When talking about good and evil, I think we need two other elements to help define them. The first one I think is the 'pleasure' or satisfaction. As well as the satisfaction can be material, physical, it can also be spiritual, mental.
The second helpful element her I think is the level of chaos, the entropy.
The 'pleasure' is an indefinable intrinsec element of the human nature and of life in general.
we find the passive nature of pleasure in sounds, in touch, in images in all our senses and we also find it when we learn, discover, achieve etc.. On the other hand, we find pleasure in giving, creating pleasure, in sharing our own pleasure, physically or spiritually.
I will ignore perversity for now.
My opinion is everything that is pleasure creator, without destroying or denying another pleasure (in a non-absolute meaning), can be defined as 'good'.
Every action or thought of creating immediate or future ‘pleasure’ can be defined as ‘good’
I find it true that every action creating pleasure implies displeasure, and this is where I think ‘entropy’ fits.
I think I have to expand the meaning of entropy -the degree of randomness of or disorder of a system from a natural perspective. I see life like way of creating a certain order in the natural chaos, so a general tendency to decrease the entropy level, contrary to the natural one. So a certain action that is decreasing the general entropy will favor life, and I find this like a way to appreciate the constructive or destructive character of ‘pleasure’.

[fu*]

can certaintying "I have seen"?

Is it possible that even Asheera has some ego left to protect? <_<
Maybe just a little? :unsure:

[fu*]

if someone wants to move them, must win their
respect

Do you see beauty in nature? Or must you wait until someone you "respect" tells you it is beautiful.


Noone here said he can't change his mind.We're just offering
opinions

Are you telling me that you do not believe what you are posting? That you dont think that you are "right"?

Maybe someday you will get tired of constantly changing your 'thoughts', and decide to get to the root of the problem and find out just what 'thoughts' are.

p.s.I'm glad you didin't consider that I am a seeker.

Why are you glad about that?

[todd]

Yes! competition is almost always BAD. By creating a "winner", You have created a "loser".
Defeat may be so sweet sometimes ....but I think the game is all that matters .

[Aristofanis]

Originally posted by fu*@Sep 9 2004, 11:28 PM
can certaintying "I have seen"?

Is it possible that even Asheera has some ego left to protect? <_<
Maybe just a little? :unsure:
who's talking about ego?
you keep saying egoism is bad.
We're having a dialog(not even a race) and you're trying,
to win.Doesn't that conflict with your past words?

I dislike CAd's morality, I prefer the dionisos spirit of Nietzsce.
I'm not saying my opinion is good or bad, it's just mine,
nothing more, nothing less.

[sahyo]

can certaintying "I have seen"?


Is it possible that even Asheera has some ego left to protect? <_<
Maybe just a little? :unsure:



hehe

did asking


can certaintying "I have seen"?


seem as though possibily trying protecting? :)

[sahyo]

Maybe someday you will get tired of constantly changing your 'thoughts', and decide to get to the root of the problem and find out just what 'thoughts' are.

does seem happening processing called 'thought' as though a"what"/"are"?

"problem"?

[fu*]

Aristofanis,

You seem to have a preconception of how one should converse. I am not at all interested in discussing the particular thoughts that run through the head. I am not interested in which dead old mans thoughts I can adopt as my own. If that is what interests you, feel free. I am very interested in finding the source of this process. What lies beyond. My questions to you, which you have completely ignored, are oportunities for exploration of that. If that doesn't interest you, feel free not to. If your rules of conversing require posting opinions of past thoughts written, I choose not to follow those rules.



you keep saying egoism is bad.

Like most people you seem to be offended by the word "ego", and automaticaly assume it is some kind of insult.

I have an "ego". Did I just insult myself?

Is it possible that even Asheera has some ego left to protect?
Maybe just a little?

If I substituted "self" for "ego", Would you say that I keep saying having a self is bad?


We're having a dialog(not even a race) and you're trying,
to win.

I dont think you know what I am trying to do.

fu

[fu*]

did asking


can certaintying "I have seen"?



seem as though possibily trying protecting?


Not the question itself, just the place you chose to ask it. ;)

[fu*]

does seem happening processing called 'thought' as though a"what"/"are"?

I am afraid so. :scatter:

"problem"?

If one gets tired of that(attaching to something that keeps changing), then I think it could be described as a "problem". As in something to solve.

[Nick_A]

Hi David

Evil, the, for the moment, is that force, residing either inside or outside of human beings, that seeks to kill life or liveliness. And goodness is its opposite. Goodness is that which promotes life and liveliness.

First of all, what is meant by life in respect to humanity? For the rest of organic life, the life cycles depend upon nature's way of eat or be eaten. This process is natural and necessary for the earth and as such the continual loss of life must be considered the "good".

However, the excerpt suggests the importance of the psychological and spiritual life for man. Now this is a horse of a different color. Many seek to promote the "good" but only through either their misguided egotism or from being downright charlatens. How to begin to understand?

The question then becomes what gives life to man? The secular aspects of religion consider it in terms of a healthy self esteem within a healthy culture. An unhealthy culture deprives a person of opportunities or "life", The esoteric aspects of religion consider it from the attempted growth towards the appearance and maturity of spiritual conscious perspective also known as evolution.

Often the striving for "the good life" is precisely what keeps a person attached to materialism depriving them of life.

IMO it is not as easy as many think to really discern good from evil. Subjectively it is only a matter of our goal so all that is necessary is to define our goals. What supports our goal is good and what dprives us of it is evil. Objectively is something completely different and its value was always known and commonly expressed in the old Socratic axiom, "Know Thyself". Only then I believe, can a person really betgin to discern the "good" in the context of the purpose of human LIFE.

[a random hack]

:think: :)

Do you see beauty in nature? Or must you wait until someone you "respect" tells you it is beautiful.

how do you suspect a thing is 'beautiful', if you haven't been told that such and such 'is beautiful,'is ugly',,, unless some one you respect tells you?

Maybe someday you will get tired of constantly changing your 'thoughts', and decide to get to the root of the problem and find out just what 'thoughts' are.

what are thoughts?

....but I think the game is all that matters .

'All that matters', is the game <_< :lol:


I am very interested in finding the source of this process. What lies beyond.


ever been so scared you stopped thinking for a while? and then noticed it? and then noticed that you had noticed you had stopped thinking? and then noticed that 'you' had stopped?




Often the striving for "the good life" is precisely what keeps a person attached to materialism depriving them of life.


not to mention depriving other people of life :(

[sahyo]

Not the question itself, just the place you chose to ask it.

seemed as though "place"?

seemed responsing indicated fu perhaps right?

seemed "chose"?

did read the post?

[sahyo]

does seem happening processing called 'thought' as though a"what"/"are"?



I am afraid so. :scatter:

.....oh

<span style='color:white'>.....ok</span>

:hug:

[sahyo]

If one gets tired of that(attaching to something that keeps changing), then I think it could be described as a "problem". As in something to solve.

seems can solve?

[thirst4sun]

Originally posted by DavidS@Sep 8 2004, 02:06 AM
. Distinguishing it from a "biophilic" person, one who appreciates and fosters the variety of life forms and the uniqueness of the individual, he demonstrated a "necrophilic character type," whose aim it is to avoid the invonvenience of life by transforming others into obedient automatons, robbing them of their humanity.[/color] [Fromm's The Heart of Man: Its Genius for Good and Evil is cited.]




Unfortunatly, people like this have crossed my path in my life. How sad these people are living their life by controling others. In the end these peolpe will end up alone :gone:

[fu*]

seemed as though "place"?

seemed responsing indicated fu perhaps right?

Yes.


did read the post?

Yes. Did Asheera read the post? Did understand what said? Show me the "seeker", one who is "seeking"

I am afraid so.

.....oh

.....ok
Oh?...Ok?

Love....even if.

[todd]

IMO we are all seekers.
What else are we wasting our time in here for?
Seeking for fun, for a fight, for triumph or defeat, for approval and disciples, for a chance to speak up or just to kill some time, is still seeking.
The question is, are we aware of what we are seeking?

[sahyo]

What else are we wasting our time in here for?

time?

[sonrisa]

probably not

[sahyo]

If I substituted "self" for "ego", Would you say that I keep saying having a self is bad?

did say bad?

seems egoself?


If one gets tired of that(attaching to something that keeps changing), then I think it could be described as a "problem". As in something to solve.

does seem can solve an imagined problem?


Oh?...Ok?

yes ok "I am afraid so. :scatter:"


Show me the "seeker", one who is "seeking"

believes
"seeker
one
who"
?


loving

[DavidS]

High-Five backatcha, fu* and Nick ... Hello again, Everyone -

Here's another 'conceptual picture', or 'perspective', which I found 'meaningful' or 'significant', meaning into which I could 'read' something of 'importance' or 'value' (that is, to 'me', of course). It is an excerpt from an essay (or sermon) by William Temple (1881-1944), who eventually became an archbishop of Canterbury, contained in Devotional Classics (ed) by Foster and Smith. FYI, since "God" is so nebulous, when I read passages which include te word-symbol, I personal prefer to substitute the 'meaning' of either "That Which Is" or "All That Is" (which, to me, references the same/only One-and-All, Unum-Pluribus Thang-Entity that IS) in its place:

. . . . We are dealing here with Original Sin, the least popular part of traditional Christianity. It may be expressed in siple terms as follow: Our standard of value is the way things affect us. Each of us takes our place in the center of our own world. But I am not the center of the world, or the standard of reference between good and bad. I am not, but God is.

In other words, from the beginning I put myself in God's place. This is my original sin. I was doing it before I could speak, as has everyone else. I am not "guilty" on this account because I could not help it. But I am in a state, from birth, in which I shall bring disaster on myself and everyone else unless I escape it.

Education may make my self-centeredness less disastrous by widening my horizons. But this is like climbing a tower which widens the horizons of my vision while leaving me still the center of reference. The only way to deliver me from my self-centeredness is by winning my entire heart's devotion, the total allegiance of my will to God ....

[rich]

David, the Quote by the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple,

. . . . We are dealing here with Original Sin, the least popular part of traditional Christianity. It may be expressed in siple terms as follow: Our standard of value is the way things affect us. Each of us takes our place in the center of our own world. But I am not the center of the world, or the standard of reference between good and bad. I am not, but God is.

In other words, from the beginning I put myself in God's place. This is my original sin. I was doing it before I could speak, as has everyone else. I am not "guilty" on this account because I could not help it. But I am in a state, from birth, in which I shall bring disaster on myself and everyone else unless I escape it.

Education may make my self-centeredness less disastrous by widening my horizons. But this is like climbing a tower which widens the horizons of my vision while leaving me still the center of reference. The only way to deliver me from my self-centeredness is by winning my entire heart's devotion, the total allegiance of my will to God ....

only indicate one Christian prespective. There are other prespectives, besides the Christian ones, which should be kept open and be included in any discussion on a topic of this nature. Other points of view are welcome.

[todd]

What else are we wasting our time in here for?

time?

our?

[sahyo]

:D

[DavidS]

richie: There are other perspectives, besides the Christian ones, which should be kept open and be included in any discussion on a topic of this nature. Other points of view are welcome.

As I said in the popst that opened this thread:

Originally posted by DavidS@Sep 7 2004, 12:06 PM
Comments as well as other 'finds' pertaining to the subject are, of course, invited and very welcome in this thread.
Thanks; but, as far as I am concerned, at least in relation to me, or what I said (in case you actually wish[ed] to 'relate' in some fashion), as I hope reminding you of what I said makes clear, the 'information' (directed meward?) in your comment was entirely redundant/unnecessary.

[DavidS]

More conceptual 'sights' which caught my attention, some 6+ pages worth of 'nuggets' from Ch.2 of M. Scott Peck's People of the Lie (Touchstone, 1985) which I found quite chewy. (When and where I transcribe something from a source Peck himself quoted, I provide further citation.)

My guess/hope is that some readers will find bouncing off the views presented to be personal-view-clarity-stimulating. IOW, I am presenting this material because of the 'bounciness' of its 'pith'; no personal endorsement any of the perspectives contained as especially 'good' is implied.

* * *

There are three major, different, "living" theological models of evil. One is the nondualism of Hinduism and Buddhism, in which evil is envisioned simply as the other side of the coin. For life there must be death; for growth, decay; for creation, destruction. Consequently the distinction of evil from goodness is regarded by nondualism as an illusion. this attitude has found its way into supposedly Christian sects such as Christian Science and the recently popular Course in Miracles, but it is considered heresy by Christian theologians. A second model would hold that evil is distinct from good but is nonetheless of God's creation. To endow us with free will (essential for creating us in His image) God has to permit us the option of the wrong choice and hence, at the very least, to "allow" evil. This model, which I term "integrated dualism," was the one espoused by Martin Buber, who referred to evil as the "'yeast in the dough,' the ferment placed in the soul by God, without which the human dough does not rise" (Good and Evil, 1953). The final major model, that of traditional Christianity, I label "diabolic dualism." Here evil is regarded as not being of God's creation but a ghastly cancer beyond His control. While this model (which will be supported in Ch.6) has its own pitfalls, it is the only one of the three that deals adequately with the issue of murder and the murderer.

* * *

The great Jewish theologian Martin Buber distinguished between two types of myths about evil. One type concerns people in the process of "sliding" into evil. The other concerns those who have already slid, "fallen victim" to and been taken over by "radical" evil.

* * *

To more fully understand Bobby's parents – and others like them, who will be described in the next chapter – it is necessary that we first draw a distinction between evil and ordinary sin. It is not their sins per se that characterize evil people, rather it is the subtlety and persistence and consistency of their sins. This is because the central defect of the evil is not the sin but the refusal to acknowledge it.*
[*: Jung correctly ascribed evil to the failure to "meet" the Shadow.]

Bobby's parents and the people described in the next chapter, except for their evil, are most ordinary. They live down the street – on any street. They may be rich or poor, educated or uneducated. There is little that is dramatic about them. They are not designated criminals. More often than not they will be "solid citizens" – Sunday school teachers, policemen, or bankers, and active in the PTA.

How can this be? How can they be evil and not designated as criminals? The key lies in the word "designated." They are criminals in that they commit "crimes" against life and liveliness. But except in rare instances – such as the case of a Hitler – when they might achieve extraordinary degrees of political power that remove them from ordinary restraints, their "crimes" are so subtle and covert that they cannot clearly be designated as crimes. The theme of hiding and covertness will occur again and again throughout the rest of this book. It is the basis for the title People of the Lie.

I have spent a good deal of time working in prisons with designated criminals. Almost never have I experienced them as evil people. Obviously they are destructive, and usually repetitively so. But there is a kind of randomness to their destructiveness. Moreover, although to the authorities they generally deny responsibility for their evil deeds, there is a quality of openness to their wickedness. They themselves are quick to point this out, claiming that they have been caught precisely because they are the "honest criminals." The truly evil, they will tell you, always reside outside of jail. Clearly these proclamations are self-justifying. They are also, I believe, generally accurate.

People in jail can almost always be assigned a standard psychiatric diagnosis of one kind or another. The diagnoses range all over the map and correspond, in layman's terms, to such qualities as craziness or impulsiveness or aggressiveness or lack of conscience. The men and women I shall be talking about such as Bobby's parents have no such obvious defects and do not fall clearly into our routine psychiatric pigeonholes. This is not because the evil are healthy. It is simply because we have not yet developed a definition for their disease.

Since I distinguish between evil people and ordinary criminals, I also obviously make the distinction between evil as a personality characteristic and evil deeds. In other words, evil deeds do not an evil person make. Otherwise we should all be evil, because we all do evil things.

Sinning is most broadly defined as "missing the mark." This means that we sin every time we fail to hit the bull's eye. Sin is nothing more and nothing less than failure to be continually perfect. Because it is impossible for us to be continually perfect, we are all sinners. We routinely fail to do the very best of which we are capable, and with each failure we commit a crime of sorts – against God, our neighbors, or ourselves, if not frankly against the law.

Of course, there are crimes of greater and lesser magnitude. It is a mistake, however, to think of sin or evil as a matter of degree. It may seem less odious to cheat the rich than the poor, but it is still cheating. There are differences before the law between defrauding a business, claiming a false deduction on your income tax, using a crib sheet in an examination, telling your wife that you have to work late when you are unfaithful, or telling your husband (or yourself) that you didn’t have time to pick up his clothes at the cleaner, when you spent an hour on the phone with your neighbor. Surely one is more excusable than the other – and perhaps all the more so under certain circumstances – but the fact remains that they are all lies and betrayals. If you are sufficiently scrupulous not to have done any such thing recently, then ask whether there is any way in which you have kidded yourself. Or have bee less than you could be – which is a self-betrayal. Be perfectly honest with yourself, and you will realize that you sin. If you do not realize it, then you are not perfectly honest with yourself, which is itself a sin. It is inescapable: we Are all sinners.* [*fnote goes into 'doctrinal' Christians views, and includes the sentence: The fact that many nominal and overtly devout "Christians" do not in their hearts consider themselves sinners should not be perceived as a failure of doctrine but only a failure of the individual to begin to live up to it.]

If evil people cannot be defined by the illegality of their deeds or the magnitude of their sins, then how are we to define them? The answer is by the consistency of their sins. While usually subtle, their destructiveness is remarkably consistent. This is because those who have "crossed over the line" are characterized by their absolute refusal to tolerate a sense of their own sinfulness.

* * *

Quoting from "What Return Can I Make," (awaiting publication at the time of the writing) by Marilyn von Waldener and M. Scott Peck: Unpleasant though it may be, the sense of personal sin is precisely that which keeps our sin from getting out of hand. It is quite painful at times, but it is a very great blessing because it is our one and only effective safeguard against our own proclivity for evil. Saint Therese of Lisieux put it so nicely in her gentle way: "If you are willing to serenely bear the trial of being displeasing to yourself, the you will be for Jesus a pleasant place of shelter."

* * *

The evil do not serenely bear the trial of being displeasing to themselves. In fact, they don't bear it at all. I could not, for instance, detect a hint of self-recrimination in Bobby's parents. And it is out of their failure to put themselves on trial that their evil arises.

The varieties of people's wickedness are manifold. As a result of their refusal to tolerate the sense of their own sinfulness, the evil ones become uncorrectable grab bags of sin. They are, for instance, in my experience, remarkably greedy people. … In The Road Less Traveled, I suggested the most basic sin is laziness. In the next subsection I suggest it may be pride – because all sins are reparable except the sin of believing one is without sin. But perhaps the question of which sin is the greatest is, on a certain level, a moot issue. All sins betray – and isolate us from – both the divine and our fellow creatures. As one deep religious thinker put it, any sin "can harden into hell":

… There can be state of soul against which Love itself is powerless because it has hardened itself against Love. Hell is essentially a state of being which we fashion for ourselves: a state of final separateness from God which is the result not of God's repudiation of man, but of man's repudiation of God, and a repudiation which is eternal precisely because it has become, in itself, immovable. There are analogies in human experience: the hate which is so blind, so dark, that Love only makes it the more violent; the pride which is so stony that humility only makes it more scornful; the inertia – last but not least the inertia – which has so taken possession of the personality that no crisis, no appeal, no inducement whatsoever, can stir it into activity, but on the contrary makes it ury itself the more deeply in its immobility. So with the soul and God; pride can become hardened into hell, hatred can become hardened into hell, any of the seven root forms of wrongdoing can harden into hell, and not the least that sloth which is boredom with divine things, the inertia that cannot be troubled to repent, even though it sees the abyss into which the soul is falling, because for so long, in little ways perhaps, it has accustomed itself to refuse whatever might cost it an effort. May God in his mercy save us from that. [citing Gerald Vann, The Pain of Christ and the Sorrow of God, Temple Gate Publishers, 1947.]

A predominant characteristic, however, of the behavior of those I call evil is scapegoating … [the discussion of the scapegoating phenomenon goes on at some length; I refer the interested reader to the book, which I heartily recommend in its entirety.]

* * *

Strangely enough, evil people are often destructive because they are attempting to destroy evil. The problem is that they misplace the locus of the evil. Instead of destroying others they should be destroying the sickness within themselves. As life often threatens their self-image of perfection, they are often busily engaged in hating and destroying that life – usually in the name of righteousness. The fault, however, may not be so much that they hate life as that they do not hate the sinful part of themselves.

* * *

Ernest Becker, in his final work, Escape from Evil (Macmillan, 1965), pointed out the essential role of scapegoating in the genesis of human evil. He erred, I believe, in focusing exclusively on the fear of death as the sole motive for such scapegoating. Indeed, I think the fear of self-criticism is the more potent motive. Although Becker did not make the point, he might have equated the fear of self-criticism with the fear of death. Self-criticism is call to personality change. As soon as I criticize a part of myself I incur an obligation to change that part. But the process of personality change is a painful one. It is like a death. The old personality pattern must die for a new pattern to take its place. The evil are pathologically attached to the status quo of their personalities, which in their narcissism they consciously regard as perfect. It think it quite possible that the evil may perceive even a small degree of change in their beloved selves as representing total annihilation. In this sense, the threat of self-criticism may feel to one who is evil synonymous with the threat of extinction. How this is so will become clear as we go more deeply into the subject of narcissism.

* * *

It often happens … that the evil may be recognized by its very disguise. The lie can be perceived before the misdeed it is designed to hide – the cover up before the fact. We see the smile that hides the hatred, the smooth and oily manner that masks the fury, the velvet glove that covers the fist. Because they are such experts at disguise, it is seldom possible to pinpoint the maliciousness of the evil. The disguise is usually impenetrable. But what we can catch are glimpses of "The uncanny game of hide-and-seek in the obscurity of the soul, in which it, the single human soul, evades itself, hides from itself.* [* Buber, Good and Evil, p. 111.]

* * *

Since the primary motive of the evil is disguise, one of the places evil people are most likely to be found is within the church. What better way to conceal evil from oneself, as well as from others, than to be a deacon or some other highly visible form of Christian within our culture? In India I would suppose that the evil would demonstrate a similar tendency to be "good" Hindus or "good" Moslems. I do not mean to imply that the evil are anything other than a small minority among the religious or that the religious motives of most people are in any way suspicious. I mean only that evil people tend to gravitate toward piety for the disguise and concealment it can offer them.

* * *

Strikes me that the closing paragraph might raise meaningful questions pertaining to the 'nature' of apparently 'pious' comments and pronouncements made here, doesn't it? Lots to chew on. For whatever it may be worth, my own at-the-moment 'take off' on/from this stuff, pertinent to the theme I am personally exploring, is that what Peck calls 'sin' and 'evil' are, respectively, the 'commission' (or 'omission') and 'outcome' if, when and where:

{a} personal and social survival (i.e., pertinent to quantity of this or that particular kind of Life-participation-and-experience) 'values'

are persistently given priority and chosen over

{b} spiritual (i.e., pertinent to quality of the flow of Life-participation-and-experience) 'values'.

Ciao – happy bouncing.

[DavidS]

Hi one and all - as I was ruminating further, the meaningfulness of the correspondence between and the perspectives 'signified' inOriginally posted by DavidS@Sep 19 2004, 08:17 PM
For whatever it may be worth, my own at-the-moment 'take off' on/from this stuff, pertinent to the theme I am personally exploring, is that what Peck calls 'sin' and 'evil' are, respectively, the 'commission' (or 'omission') and 'outcome' if, when and where:

{a} personal and social survival (i.e., pertinent to quantity of this or that particular kind of Life-participation-and-experience) 'values'

are persistently given priority and chosen over

{b} spiritual (i.e., pertinent to quality of the flow of Life-participation-and-experience) 'values'.
and following two statements struck me. I figure they're all referencing something in the same ball-park:

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." (Matthew 6:24-34)

and "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it." (Matthew 16:25)

I'm of course presuming that the benign/creative flow of Life is the 'my' sake Jesus was referencing, again, presumably because he appears to have personally totally 'identified' himself with It. Otherwise there would be a significant "non-compute" in terms of the correspondence between each of our respective 'truth'-'visions'.

[...]

..the nondual undertones in those verses speak volumes in any religion. It's all a matter of interpretation, and there things can get rough. There are over 1100 recognized christian denominations, and all have different interpretations. Yet the mystic side of judaic religion, kabbalah/sufism/gnostics, have no trouble understanding eachother, why is that?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by ...@Sep 20 2004, 12:08 PM
..the nondual undertones in those verses speak volumes in any religion. It's all a matter of interpretation, and there things can get rough. There are over 1100 recognized christian denominations, and all have different interpretations. Yet the mystic side of judaic religion, kabbalah/sufism/gnostics, have no trouble understanding eachother, why is that?
A rhetorical why, I assume? Der's dems that don't know and don't know that they don't know (the 1100 denominations, all with different interpretations, that you speak of), der's dems that don't know but know that they don't know, and der's dems that know but don't know that they know, and der's dems that know and know that they know - the latter nondenomination-hungup 'set', of course, readily recognizing, or 'knowing', others in the set and being able to translationally decipher what they are talking about.

High-Five, ...!

[DavidS]

Posted by: fu* Sep 10 2004, 09:00 AM
. . . I am not at all interested in discussing the particular thoughts that run through the head. I am not interested in which dead old mans thoughts I can adopt as my own. If that is what interests you, feel free. I am very interested in finding the source of this process. What lies beyond. My questions to you, which you have completely ignored, are opportunities for exploration of that. If that doesn't interest you, feel free not to. If your rules of conversing require posting opinions of past thoughts written, I choose not to follow those rules.

Hello fu* -

I know your above comment was not addressed to me, but wanted to respond to it because it rang several memory bells in my head. Was away from my base library for a while and didn't have these (vaguely remembered) quotes available till now.

It strikes me that the that which you reference may be what, or at least in some ways akin to what, is being alluded to in the following pieces, if not knowingly on the part of the authors, at least imaginately (not 'Hollywood' or 'Disney' style, however). I would be very interested in whether any of what is said rings referentially true, or partially true, or even just possibly true, to you, and why (or why not).

Please note: I am not at all interested in what 'dead' men or women 'thought' per se. Since we are each/all 'individual' living part-aspects of What Was-What Is-n-What Will Be together", and since I personally regard What Was-What Is-n-What Will Be to be the creatively, in some sense at least 'chosen', expression of that (and thus 'significantly' as well as 'intimately' related TO/WITH that), I am interested in dance-step relating to how genuinely open-minded others (in this case you) mentally-n-emotionally view and relate (or viewed and related) to that, as well as how they may or may not view and relate to that in the future. IMO, there are no rules pertaining to conversing in terms of or about what others have previously (already) said OR to not conversing in terms of or about what others have previously (already) said pertaining to related matters. 'Originality' is most welcome.

The quotes are all transcribed from The World's Wisdom: Sacred Texts of the World's Religions, by Philip Novak.

From Kena Upanishad:

What cannot be spoken with words, but thatwhereby words are spoken: Know that alone to be Brahman, the Spirit; and not what people here adore.

What cannot be thought with the mind, but that whereby the mind can think: Know that alone to be Brahman, the Spirit; and not what people here adore.

What cannot be seen with the eye, but that whereby the eye can see: Know that alone to be Brahman, the Spirit; and not what people here adore.

What cannot be heard with the ear, but that whereby the ear can hear: Know that alone to be Brahman, the Spirit; and not what people here adore.

What cannot be indrawn with breath, but that whereby breath is indrawn: Know that alone to be Brahman, the Spirit; and not what people here adore.

From Katha Upanishad
Selection b – Atman: The Universal Self)

Atman, the Spirit of vision, is never born and never dies. Before him there was nothing, and he is ONE for evermore. Never born and eternal, beyond times gone or to come, he does not die when the body dies.

If the slayer thinks that he kills, and if the slain thinks that he dies, neither knows the ways of truth. The Eternal in man cannot kill: the Eternal in man cannot die.

Concealed in the hearts of all beings is Atman, the Spirit, the Self; smaller than the smallest atom, greater than the vast spaces. The man who surrenders his human will leaves sorrows behind, and beholds the glory of Atman by the grace of the Creator . . . . Not even through deep knowledge can Atman be reached, unless evil ways are abandoned, and there is rest in the senses, concentration in the mind and peace in one's heart.

From Taittiriya Upanishad
Selection a –

Joy comes from God. Who could live and who could breathe if the joy of Brahman did not fill the universe?

Once Bhrigu Baruni went to his father Varuna and said: "Father, explain to me the mystery of Brahman."
Then his father spoke to him of the food of the earth, of the breathe of life, of the one who sees, of the one who hears, of the mind that knows, and of the one who speaks. And he further said to him, "seek to know him [my interjection: that?] from whom all beings have come, by whom all they live, and unto whom they all return. He [my interjection: that?] is Brahman."

So Bhrigu went and practiced tapas, spiritual prayer.
Then he thought that Brahman was the food of the earth. . . .
Then he thought that Brahman was life. . . .
Then he thought that Brahman was mind. . . .
Then he thought that Brahman was reason. . . .
Then he saw that Brahman is joy: for FROM JOY ALL BEINGS HAVE COME, BY JOY THEY ALL LIVE, AND UNTO JOY THEY ALL RETURN.

Selection b – titled, I am Food! [all except for the first line written with an assumed 'first persona' of that, I presume.]

Oh the wonder of joy!
I am the food of life, and I am he who eats the food of life: I am the two in ONE.
I am the first-born of the world of truth, born before the gods, born in the center of immortality.
He who gives me is my salvation [strikes me there may be something 'missing' between "gives" and "me", or may something 'missed' in the translation?]
I am the food which eats the eater of the food.

Zowieee, mind-boggling the last line is, Yoda says!

[DavidS]

Hi fu* - if you post a response to any of the above anywhere else let me know - with very rare excursions, I'm basically following and engaging in just this thread.

Hi Everyone –

I am still on and will get back to my exploration of the issue of creatively-functional ways of organically integrating (what I am calling) survival values with (what I am calling) spiritual ones. Just wanted to share another couple of bits from Scott Peck's People of the Lie, which struck me as presenting a quite interesting conceptual-picture-slant on what he personally categorically identity-defines and thinks of as evil:


We come now to a sort of paradox. I have said that evil people feel themselves to be perfect. At the same time however, I think they have an unacknowledged sense of their own evil nature. Indeed, it is this very sense from which they are frantically trying to flee. The essential component of evil is not the absence of a sense of sin or imperfection but the unwillingness to tolerate that sense. At one and the same time, the evil are aware of their evil and desperately trying to avoid the awareness. Rather than blissfully lacking a sense or morality, like the psychopath, they are continually engaged in sweeping the evidence of their evil under the rug of their own consciousness. [My interlocution, since I think this 'view' (also) pertains to the same behavioral-gestalt-thang he's talking about and may be appreciated in context by other mind-screen interpreters here: "Rather than . . . , they 'traitorously' betray and distort the Truth as an Integral-Whole."] . . . The problem is not a defect of conscience but the effort the deny the conscience its due. We become evil by attempting to hide from ourselves. The wickedness of evil is not committed directly, but indirectly as a part of the cover-up process. Evil originates not in the absence of guilt but in the effort to escape it.

* * *

In The Road Less Traveled I suggested that laziness or the desire to escape "legitimate suffering" lies at the root of all mental illness. Here we are also talking about the evasion of pain. What distinguishes the evil, however, from the rest of us mentally ill sinners is the specific type of pain they are running away from. They are not pain avoiders of lazy people in general. To the contrary, they are likely to exert themselves more than most in their continuing effort to maintain an image of high respectability. They may willingly, even eagerly, undergo great hardships in their search for status. It is only one particular kind of pain they cannot tolerate: the pain of their own conscience, the pain of the realization of their own sinfulness and imperfection.

* * *

If the central defect of evil is not one of conscience, then where does it reside? The essential psychological problem of human evil, I believe, is particular variety of narcissism.

I sure groove on the 'clarity' of Peck's presentation. I hope other readers do tooo. His stuff on narcissism is particularly pithy in relation to the 'survival' values aspect of my investigational curiosity. I'm sure I'll be sharing especially yummy (to me, at least) pieces of that when I go back over what I've just read to pick them out, but my dog love-buddy, Phoebe, is pawing at me for a walk right now and a sit-n-sip coffee along the way with her appeals to me as the presently preeminent 'good'. :mellow:

[DavidS]

The outing was wonderful. The following is excerpted from a subsection of Ch.2 of M. Scott Peck's People of the Life, entitled Narcissism and Will.

Narcissism, or self-absorption, takes many forms. Some are normal. Some are normal in childhood but not in adulthood. Some are distinctly more pathological than others. The subject is as complex as it is important. It is not the purpose of this book, however, to give a balanced view of the whole topic, so we will proceed immediately to that particular pathologic variant that Erich Fromm called "malignant narcissism."

Malignant narcissism is characterized by an unsubmitted will. All adults who are mentally healthy submit themselves one way or another to something higher than themselves fundamental and all-encompassing" than "themselves" to something "higher"] , be it God or truth or love or some other ideal. They do what God [or etc., I presume] wants them to do rather than what they would desire. "Thy will, not mine, be done," the God-submitted person says. They believe in what is true rather than what they would like to be true. . . . In summary, to a greater or lesser degree, all mentally healthy individuals submit themselves to the demands of their own conscience. No so the evil, however. In the conflict between their guilt and their will, it is the guilt that must go and the will that must win.

The reader will be struck by the extraordinary willfulness of evil people. They are men and women of obviously strong will, determined to have their own way. There is a remarkable power in the manner in which they attempt to control others.*

[* The overcontrollingness of evil is well expressed through the Mormon myth in which Christ and Satan were each required to present God with his own plan for dealing with the infant human race. Satan's plan was simple (of the sort that most business and military leaders today would come up with): God had armies of angels at His command; just assign an angel with punitive power to each human, and He would have no trouble keeping them in line. Christ's plan was radically different and more imaginative (and biophilic): "Let them have free will and go their own way," he proposed, "but allow me to . . . [goes on to describe the 'standard' live-and-die-as-an-example-and-sign-of how-much-God-cares interpretation of his 'mission', as well as of Satan's 'rebellion' against that being God's choice as the "more creative" "plan"; though I don't personally at all buy into this particular mythic framework, I nevertheless have to admit that I have been witness to quite a few (attempted) 'interventions' by not a few would-be, or at least self-presentationally 'apparent', "angels" in this forum as well as elsewhere, which have indeed struck me as being, at least in taint, "Satanic" in the above sense, in 'design' if not in execution. [COLOR=blue].

Theologians speak of evil being a consequence of free will. When God, creating us in His own image, gave us free will, He had to allow us humans the option of evil. The problem can also be envisioned in the secular terms of evolution theory. The "will" of less evolved creatures seems largely under the control of their instincts. When humans evolved from apes, however, they largely evolved out from under such instinctual controls and hence into free will. This evolution leaves humans in the position of being either totally willful or having to seek new ways of self-control through submission to higher principles. But this still leaves us with the question of why some human beings are able to achieve such submission while others are not.

Indeed, it is almost tempting to think that the problem of evil lies in the will itself. Perhaps the evil are born so inherently strong-willed that it is impossible for them ever to submit their will. Yet I think it is characteristic of all "great" people that they are extremely strong-willed – whether their greatness be for good or for evil. . . . But Jesus' will was that of his Father, and HItler's that of his own. The crucial distinction is between "willingness and
willfulness." [Will and Spirit, by Gerald G. May, is cited.]

* * *

"Pride goeth before the fall," it is said, and of course laymen simply call pride what we have labeled with the fancy psychiatric term of "malignant narcissism." Being at the very root of evil, it is no accident that Church authorities have generally considered pride first among sins. By the sin of pride they do not generally mean the sense of legitimate achievement one might enjoy after a job well done. While such pride, like normal narcissism, may have its pitfalls, it is also part of healthy self-confidence and a realistic sense of self-worth. What is meant rather, a kind of pride that unrealistically denies our inherent sinfulness and imperfection – a kind of overweening pride or arrogance that prompts people to reject and even attack the judgment implied by the day-to-day evidence of their own inadequacy. . . . In Buber's words, the malignantly narcissistic insist upon "affirmation independent of all findings." [Pretty familiar phenomenon, aye what?]

What is the cause of this overweening pride, this arrogant self-image of perfection, this particularly malignant type of narcissism? Why does it afflict a few when most seem to escape its clutches? [color=blue]We do not know. In the past fifteen years psychiatrists have begun to pay increasing attention to the phenomenon of narcissism, but our understanding is still in its infancy. We have not ye succeeded, for instance, in distinguishing the different types of excessive self-absorption. There are many who are clearly – even grossly – narcissistic in one way or another but are not evil. All I can say at this point is that the particular brand of narcissism that characterizes evil people seems to be one that particularly affects the will. Why a person should be a victim of this type and not another or none at all, I can only vaguely surmise. [Peck comes across to me as being 'authentic' in his truth-'report' here, simply matter-of-fact; but I nevertheless found myself chuckling at the contrast between the spiritual character-tone of this evaluation of degree of 'surmise' on his part and that of Bush's initial pronouncement/implication that he considered the CIA assessment that there was a non-trivially significant possibility/probability that invading Iraq could/would result in an insurgency in which ex-Baathists and Islamic radicals united to fight against the U.S. "a guess".]

It is my experience that evil seems to run in families. The person to be described in Chapter 4 had evil parents. But the familiar pattern, if accurate, does nothing to resolve the "nature versus nurture" controversy. Does evil run in families because it is genetic and inherited? Or because it is learned by the child in imitation of its parents? Or even as a defense against its parents? And how are we to explain the fact that many children of evil parents, although usually scarred, are not evil? We do not know, and we will not know until and enormous amount of painstaking scientific work has been accomplished.

Nevertheless, a leady theory of the genesis of pathological narcissism is that it is a defensive phenomenon. [My underscore]. Since almost all young children demonstrate a formidable array of narcissistic characteristics, it is assumed that narcissism is something we generally "grow out of" in the course of normal development, through a stable childhood, under the care of loving and understanding parents. If the parents are cruel and unloving, however, or the childhood otherwise traumatic, it is believed that the infantile narcissism will be preserved as a kind of psychological fortress to protect the child against the vicissitudes of its intolerable life. This theory might well apply to the genesis of evil. The builders of medieval cathedrals placed upon their buttresses the figures of gargoyles – themselves symbols of evil – in order to ward of spirits of greater evil. Thus children may become evil in order to defend themselves against the onslaughts of parents who are evil.It is possible, therefore, to think of human evil – or some of it – as a kind of psychological gargoylism. [Ding-Dong-Dang! I like the way Peck's mind works! While I'm at it – the 'interruption' that is – let me add that it strikes me that the "defense against onslaught" premise could apply in any 'scenario', not just one encompassing the parent-child nexus, where the 'power' relations were such that one dyadic component was at the 'mercy' of the other.]

There are other ways, however, to looks at the genesis of human evil. The fact of the matter is that some of us are very good and some of us are very evil, and most of us are somewhere in between. We might therefore think of human good and evil as a kind of continuum. As individuals we can move ourselves one way or another along the continuum. Just as there is a tendency for the rich to get richer, however, and the poor to get poorer, so there seems to be a tendency for the good to get better and the bad to get worse. Erich Fromm spoke of these matters
at some length:

The Heart of Man: Its Genius for Good an Evil is omitted – I personally think it is over-narrow in terms of choice of descriptors] . . . . Most people fail in the art of living not because they are inherently bad or so without will that they cannot lead a better life; they fail because they do not wake up and see when they stand at a fork in the road and have to decide. They are not aware when life asks them a question, and when they still have alternative answers. Then with each step along the wrong road it becomes increasingly difficult for them to admit that they [i]are on the wrong road, often only because they have to admit that they must go back to the first wrong turn, and must accept the fact that they have wasted energy and time.

Fromm saw the genesis of human evil as a developmental process: we are not created evil or forced to be evil, but we become evil slowly over time through a long series of choices. I applaud his view – particularly its emphasis on choice and will. I think it is as correct as far as it goes. But I do not think it is the whole truth of the matter. On the one hand, it does not take into account the tremendous forces that tend to shape the being of a young child before it has had much opportunity to exercise its will in true freedom of choice. On the other hand, it perhaps underestimates the very power of will itself.
- - - - - - - - -

Pretty good discussion of the subject, IMO. Just want to add that it strikes me that the narcissistic 'hang-up' spoken of may be, and in high-falutin' circles often is, attached to a 'sense' of one's 'self' as anunusually-highly evolved 'selfless' beingness, which 'sense', in such cases, is often touted-n-inflated as much as possible as well as vigorously tactically 'defended' when and wherever 'deflation' is potential or, worse, perceived to be 'threatened'. In extreme cases, such narcissitic 'selfless'-'self' performance may be ritually executed in continuously repetitive cyclicity practically ad nausuem. Those who healthily mature in this regard, on the other hand, may be recognized, it seems to me, by the fact that they 'wear' their persona-'self'-vehicles, as well as any degree of deeper 'selflessness', quite lightly, in a very unassuming and unstated or unimplied 'fashion'.

Ciao – happy bouncing!

[fu*]

Thanks David for your posts. I am not ignoring, just enjoying.

Lately I just haven't had the desire to take the time to post in some way that is recognizable to others. (most times it seems it is not anyway)

Yes, "THAT" is my search. It is so much so. And it is a constant vigil for me not to be trapped into an intelectual understanding of "THAT". It is a search only for "THAT", not an understanding of "THAT"

So thanks again for your gifts to TBV. I do read them.

Best wishes David :)

fu*

[a random hack]

Thanks David for your posts. I am not ignoring, just enjoying.

Lately I just haven't had the desire to take the time to post in some way that is recognizable to others. (most times it seems it is not anyway)

Yes, "THAT" is my search. It is so much so. And it is a constant vigil for me not to be trapped into an intelectual understanding of "THAT". It is a search only for "THAT", not an understanding of "THAT"

So thanks again for your gifts to TBV. I do read them.

Best wishes David

fu*

how can you search for it if you don't know what it is?
why do you search for it if you know what it is? :)

[DavidS]

Very much appreciate the feedback, fu*. All A-OK with me.

Originally posted by a random hack@Oct 2 2004, 11:27 PM
how can you search for it if you don't know what it is?
why do you search for it if you know what it is? :)
Hi Hack (somehow your comments never strike me as being 'random', quite the opposite really – I wonder what this means, or implies about 'that') –

The issue of 'searching', I think, is a not as "Bush-simplistic" as your questions, and implied conclusions, make them out to be. I just came across a piece in one of the books I am reading which, I think, addresses some of the multi-dimensionality involved – albeit in terms of 'Christian' conceptual idiom, which I personally find a bit 'simplistic' in itself. But it struck me that, if one substitutes fu*'s THAT for the word God and concepts like joy and awareness and/or creativity for God's love in the following piece, it becomes clear, I think, that there is a (general) 'need' or 'requirement' that one choose where and how to focus one's desire-n-attention if one is to successfully, or let's say maximally, 'know' and consciously be in and relate to the Living Presence of the "it" being referenced. "Search" may not be word you or others personally prefer to allude to the 'attitude' and/or 'process' which I think fu* is putting forward, but on the other hand it strikes me as being quite adequate and understandable if one adopts a broad enough perspective, or interpretational 'context'.

The piece is transcribed from Devotional Classics (ed.) by Foster and Smith; the piece itself is listed as an excerpt from Making All Things New by Henri J. M. Nouwen (1932-), a Roman Catholic priest and psychologist. Please note: the various color-shift 'emphases' are mine, not in the original. Also please note: I am not personally advocating everything which the author advocates; for one thing, I myself prefer a more naturalistic/spontaneous approach to such matters than the 'disciplined' variety which the author endorses. But the author himself implies this when he states that the manner of focus "will vary for each person according to temperament, age, job, lifestyle, and maturity."
======
The spiritual life is a gift. It is a gift of the Holy Spirit, who lifts us up into the kingdom of God's love. But to say that being lifted up into the kingdom of love is a divine gift does not mean that we wait passively until the gift is offered to us.

Jesus tells us to set our hearts on the kingdom. Setting our hearts on something involves not only serious aspiration but also strong determination. A spiritual life requires human effort. The forces that keep pulling us back into a worry-filled life are far from easy to overcome. . . .

Here we touch the question of discipline in the spiritual life. A spiritual life without discipline is impossible. Discipline is the other side of discipleship. The practice of a spiritual discipline makes us more sensitive to the small, gentle voice of God. . . . Through the practice of spiritual discipline we become attentive to that small voice and willing to respond to it when we hear it.

From all that I have said about our worried, over-filled lives, it is clear that we are usually surrounded by so much outer noise that it hard to truly hear God when he is speak to us. We have often become deaf, unable to know when God calls us and unable to understand in which direction he calls us.

Thus our lives have become absurd. In the word absurd we find the Latin word surdus, which means "deaf." A spiritual life requires discipline because we need to learn to listen to God, who constantly speaks but whom we seldom hear.

When, however, we learn to listen, our lives become obedient lives. The word obedient comes from the Latin word audire, which means "listening." A spiritual discipline is necessary in order to move slowly from an absurd to an obedient life, from a life filled with noisy worries to a life in which there is some free inner space where we can listen to our God and follow his guidance.

Jesus' life was a life of obedience. He was always listening to his voice, always alert for his directions. Jesus was "all ear." That is true prayer: being all ear for God. The core of all prayer is indeed listening, obediently standing in the presence of God.

A spiritual discipline, therefore, is the concentrated effort to create some inner and outer space in our lives, where this obedience can be practiced. Through a spiritual discipline we prevent the world from filling our lives to such an extent that there is no place left to listen. A spiritual discipline sets us free to pray or, to say it better, allows the Spirit of God to pray in us.

Without solitude it is virtually impossible to live a spiritual life. Solitude begins with a time and place for God, and him alone. If we really believe not only that God exists but also that he is actively present in our lives – healing, teaching, and guiding – we need to set aside a time and a space to give him our undivided attention. . . .

To bring some solitude into our lives is one of the most necessary but also most difficult disciplines. Even though we may have a deep desire for real solitude, we also experience a certain apprehension as we approach that solitary place and time. As soon as we are alone, without people to talk with, books to read, TV to watch, or phone calls to make, an inner chaos open us to us.

This chaos can be so disturbing that we can hardly wait to get busy again. Entering a private room and shutting the door, therefore, does not mean that we immediately shut out all our inner doubts, anxieties, fears, bad memories, unresolved conflicts, angry feelings, and impulsive desires. On the contrary, when we have removed our outer distractions, we often find that our inner distractions manifest themselves to us in full force.

We often use these outer distractions to shield ourselves from the interior noises. It is thus not surprising that we have a difficult time being alone. The confrontation with our inner conflicts can be too painful for us to endure.

This makes the discipline of solitude all the more important. Solitude is not a spontaneous response to an occupied and preoccupied life. There are too many reasons not to be alone. Therefore we must begin by carefully planning some solitude.

Five or ten minutes a day may be all we can tolerate. Perhaps we are ready for an hour every day, an afternoon every week, a day every month, a week every year. The amount of time will vary for each person according to temperament, age job, lifestyle, and maturity.

But we do not take the spiritual life seriously if we do not set aside some time to be with God and listen to him. We may have to write it in black and white in our daily calendar so that nobody else can take away this period of time. Then we will be able to say to our friends, neighbors, students, customers, clients, or patients, "I'm sorry, but I've already made an appointment at that time and it can't be changed."

Once we have committed ourselves to spending some time in solitude, we develop an attentiveness to God's voice in us. In the beginning, during the first days, weeks, or even months, we may have the feeling that we are simply wasting our time. Time in solitude may first seem little more than a time in which we are bombarded by thousands of thoughts and feelings that emerge from hidden areas of our minds.

One of the early Christian writers describes the first stage of solitary prayer as the experience of a man who, after years of living with open doors, suddenly decides to shut them. The visitors who used to come and enter his home start pounding on his doors, wondering why they are not allowed to enter. Only when they realize that they are not welcome do they gradually stop coming.

This is the experience of anyone who decides to enter into solitude after a life without much spiritual discipline. At first, the many distractions keep presenting themselves. Later, as they receive less and less attention, they slowly withdraw.

It is clear that what matters is faithfulness to the discipline. In the beginning, solitude seems so contrary to our desires that we are constantly tempted to run away from it. One way of running away is daydreaming or simply falling asleep. But when we stick to our discipline, in the conviction that God is with us even when we do not hear him, we slowly discover that we do not want to miss our time alone with God [in which "with"-case, we consciously aren't and so don't feel really"alone", aye what?]. Although we do not experience much satisfaction [of the 'normal' variety, I assume he means] in our solitude, we realize that a day without solitude is less "spiritual" than a day with it.

Intuitively, we know that it is important that we spend time in solitude. We even start looking forward to this strange period of uselessness. This desire for solitude is often the first sign of prayer, the first indication that the presence of God's Spirit no longer remains unnoticed.

As we empty ourselves of our many worries, we come to know not only with our mind but also with our heart that we were never really alone, that God's Spirit was with us all along. . . . The discipline of solitude allows us to gradually come in [conscious] touch with this . . . presence of God in our lives, and allows us to taste even now the beginnings of joy and peace which belong to the new heaven and new earth. The discipline of solitude, as I have described it here, is one of the most powerful disciplines in developing a prayerful life. It is a simple, though not easy, way to free us from the slavery of our occupations and preoccupations and to begin to hear the voice that makes all things new. [Since I personally am not especially 'auditorily' oriented, instead of "to begin to hear the voice," I would say something like "to begin to be 'aware' of and 'feel' the Presence i.e., of THAT, or "it" :blink: which we are alluding to.]

Salut!

[a random hack]

david,
what are you searching for?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by a random hack@Oct 6 2004, 08:46 PM
david,
what are you searching for?
Why, I am seeking or aiming to actualize the purpose stated in my opening post in this thread, including, in the process, to share, or comm*uni*cate, (conceptual) 'perspectives' which I find interesting, meaningful, potentially contributive to 'broadening' or 'deepening' of personal and interpersonal understanding, etc.

Can't, for the life of me, imagine what lies behind your question: Isn't what I am 'seeking' or 'aiming' for (which could be construed as a 'search', I suppose) quite obvious to you?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by a random hack@Oct 6 2004, 08:46 PM
david,
what are you searching for?
Hi Hack -

I grow ever more appreciative of the 'stimulus' or 'focusing' value of your question. My first 'response' (above) reflects where I was 'at', in terms of how I 'saw' and 'felt' about things, my mental-n-emotional 'clarity', or 'perspective'-n-'attitude', at that point, regarding the matter. My engagement in response further intensified my attention-n-energy-focus - the following conceptual 'picture-clarity' then 'developed' (popped?) in (to) my mind on my dog-walk when I became, as usual when in such simple-action mode, open to and 'focusedly' enjoying of the flow of free reverie, for purposes of this discussion presumably because of the ever-responsive and ever-manifesting 'operation' of "shine upon the just as well as the unjust" that.

This is what I became 'aware' of - again, presumably because of the presence and operation of that, because 'my' perspective previously lacked clarity on, or this 'clear' a 'resolution' of, the matter, and that was
all I could 'see' and no more - I became aware that the statement "I am in this world but not of it" could be tainted by the interpretation of "but" to mean that the "not of it" state was somehow 'aside' from, and 'better', than the "in this world" state of conscious focus. I then 'had' the thought that a less misinterpretation-prone way of art-iculating the 'truth' of the matter might be "I am in this world yet not of it," but as I thought-feeling 'savored' this, I 'found' myself thinking-n-feeling that yet did [B]not[B] sufficiently bring forward (into the 'foreground' of the 'picture') the connotation of the interconnected-simultaneity of the phenomenon, the 'truth' pertaining to 'it' (the 'it' you as well refer to), that is.

What was flowing into my mind (presumably from and being the life-expression dance of that), then morph-flowed into "I am simultaneously in the world and not of it," which really tickled my fancy because it 'reflects' the focus of my reverential (revery-essential) 'communion'-dance, also automatically a 'communicational' dance, between the "in it" and "not of it" aspects of that's worldly-being and non-worldly-being.

I find this 'dance' to be most enjoyable. I suppose you could say that I 'search' or 'seek' for, though I would simply say that I conscientious-playfully responsively 'attend to' and 'avail myself of', things like creative-stimuli 'opportunities' and 'completely open-to-truth', 'reverie'-permitting-and inducing modes and settings, so as to experience and operate from a 'max' high' joyful-dance locus.

What a gas!

[jesupocaplypse]

greetings everyone. I'm sure what i have to say has probably been said before, but what hasn't? ...

One cannot know good without experiencing good. How does one experience good, save for knowing of evil, through the experience of evil?

If evil never existed, we would have no concept of good. and vice versa, they create each other. This is basic duality of course, and i'm sure most of you are well versed in such things.. but i'll continue anyway...

We cannot call evil bad, because without it, we wouldn't have good, and would never learn the difference. If no one ever murdered another, we would never be able to learn and grow from it. (not to mention the population problems... :think: )

However, good and evil, are of course, merely adjectives used to describe something in relation to your self (personal self/enviormental self) A way of defining and measuring ones existance.

I have found that all emotions, and feelings, and pretty much every dualistic concept, can be boiled down to it's root emotions: Love and Fear. These are the roots from which every thought and feeling, (and hence, action), are derived from. But because one cannot exist without the other, i cannot call one good or bad, they just are.

Therefore, when i use the words good and evil, or right and wrong, i use them with the utmost subjectivity, That which is beneficial to Me (personal me/enviormental me) as opposed to that which is, uh, denying? no... diminishing? hmm... can't think of an appropriate word, so i'll just say negative.... yeah that works, to me.

SO, i find that good and evil, are not absolutes, (is anything? is nothing? or is only anything and nothing?) but merely measurements, of a thing/concept/event in relationship to myself.

I suppose I should clarify; when i use the symbol "I/me/myself " I refer not just to my physical body, and the mind and spirit within it, but to the physical body/mind/spirit, that surrounds it, my enviorment creates me, as much as i create my enviorment, and create myself.


Yep, This is my first post at the bigview, so bare with me, I'm new to forums and such... (am i trying to make an excuse, to defend/protect myself? I must feel unsure of something i said then... hmm... nope, screw it. Read my mindsquok and BE!

[DavidS]

Hi there, Big Beyond Boundaries Boy (anyone who takes on the screen name "jesuapocalypse" must be, or at least must think him/herself to so be, or at least be aspiring to so be, IMO! :thumbsup: ) - Having and being familiar with similar moves in my repertoire, I appreciatively enjoyed your ideo-emotional skating!

[jesupocaplypse]

um... :think: thanks.

[DavidS]

I found Evelyn Underhill's succinct word·articulations on the subjects 'prayer' and 'the human predicament' (in Devotional Classics ed. by Foster & Smith) beautifully relevant to the issue of integrating 'survival' (i.e., time-space-quantity of Life) and 'spiritual' (i.e., quality of eternally-flowing Life) values, which is the focus of my curiosity here:

Prayer stretches out the tentacles of our consciousness not so much towards that Divine Life, which is felt to be enshrined within the striving, changeful world of things; bur rather to that "Eternal truth, true Love, and loved Eternity" wherein the world is felt to be enshrined.

and

The whole of a person's life consists in a series of balanced responses to this Transcendental-Immanent Reality. Because we live under two orders, we are at once a citizen of Eternity and of Time. Like a pendulum, our consciousness moves perpetually – or should move if it is healthy – between God[/COLOR [or [COLOR=red]THAT which is referenced earlier in this thread, if you prefer] and our neighbor, between this world and that.

The wholeness, sanity, and balance of our existence depend entirely on the perfection of our adjustment to this double situation, on the steady alternating beat of our outward adoration, and our homeward-turning swing of charity.

Though I personally find thoughts and feelings pertaining to "adoration" and "charity" to generally be too simplistic and much too naïve and sentimental to suit my 'sense' of what is really true and proportionately appropriate in most cases, and though I think more factors than just the mentioned "adoration" and "charity" are involved in any given situational 'balancing' act, I think hers is a quite pithy, slice of life-truth way of issue-framing.

[DavidS]

Here's something which, it strikes me, takes Evelyn Underhill's statement: "The whole of a person's life consists in a series of balanced responses to this Transcendental-Immanent Reality. Because we live under two orders, we are at once a citizen of Eternity and of Time. Like a pendulum, our consciousness moves perpetually – or should move if it is healthy – between God and our neighbor, between this world and that." to a level of calculus-like, infinitesmal-variations-connected-and-flowing-in-sequence integral-integration. From Ramakrishna (1836-1886) (taken from The World's Wisdom: Sacred Texts of the World's Religions, by Phillip Novak):

What is Simply Is!

Brahman is shoreless ocean. Shakti is the omnipresent, interdependent action of its waves. . . . As long as Her inscrutable Will keeps consciousness manifest through the human form, one is tempted to think that there are two realities – the formless God and these confusing images called the universe. But no, my friend, there is no such twoness whatsoever. There is no super-knowledge separate from or opposed to ordinary ignorance. There is only wholeness or completeness – beyond night or day, beyond ignorance or knowledge, yet containing both, manifesting both. How to describe this dynamic plentitude? Not with words from any scripture or philosophy. What is simply is!
- - - - - -

Seeing through the World's Madness

Many people cannot begin to feel the life-giving attraction for Divine Reality until they pass through the painful experiences associated with grasping at habitual enjoyment. This desperate grasping includes selfishly accumulating material wealth, arrogantly cultivating power over others, and welcoming flattery, as well as enjoying absurdly refined comforts and ever more bizarre diversions. We must unequivocally see through the deceptive surface in order to enter the depth of ecstatic Divine Enjoyment.
- - - - - -

Overcoming the Craving for Personal Immortality

The only true sacrifice to God (or THAT) O lovers of God (or THAT), the only authentic renunciation that can clear away obstacles to spiritual progress, is to abandon once and for all this constant drive for self-perpetuation, this instinctive urge to survive or dominate which manifests in so many subtle and obvious forms – including the obsession with becoming holy or elevated.
- - - - - -

[/I]Recharging Your Battery[/I]

To cultivate love for Truth one must occasionally come forth from the conventional environment into spaciousness and clarity. To retire now and then into blessed seclusion, even in one's own house or heart, is necessary – for several hours, for several days, for a month, for a year. Swim peacefully through clear waters of solitude, illumined by the sunlight of Truth. Then you can return compassionately to the denser, more obscure realms of social responsibility, without becoming disoriented by them.
- - - - - -

Spiritual Maturity

The mature spiritual person, one who is truly awakened, need not remain involved in social [what I would call 'tribal'] responsibilities or religious observances. The sense that one must, or even can, initiate any action begins disappear as one realizes that only God (or THAT) acts. This realization is the final fruition of all aspirations and disciplines. [my underscores here]
also[/u] a matter of ongoing personal sequential-mini-choices, whether one personally develops to the point of being one who personally truly CO-operate-ively flows with the full range of the promptings and impulses of THAT which one personally receives and feels, as differentiated from those who selectively continue to deny and resist them. That danged convolution of "the food" and "the eater of the food" thang again!!
- - - - - -

[i]Nondual Knowledge: Like Calmly Falling from a Tree

Your very life-breath must become the conscious, timeless affirmation of Reality by Reality. SOHAM, SOHAM, I am It, It is I. Only the dualistic imagination perceives some separate practitioner who makes this primordial affirmation. . . . The actual state of nondual knowledge is comparable to falling from a high tree and remaining clearly aware, without tensing a single muscle or feeling the slightest anxiety.

[It also strikes me that the last bit sounds very much like Don Juan, Castaneda, et al.'s "trip" description!]

:)