Posts Tagged ‘shadow’

The Greatest Sock Puppet

February 1, 2012

 

English: A photograph of a sock puppet made by me.

English: A photograph of a sock puppet made by me. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

“I am not a sock puppet, I am a human being trying to find my way back to God.”

>

The other sock puppet said “I can see that. You clearly are not a sock puppet. You are that other human being over there which is so different from me and has such a very different reality than mine. The rules of biochemistry and electromagnetism over here for me must be very different from the ones over there for you and we should probably go together on a mission through a bunch of shadows to make the totally different biochemistry over here be the same as the totally different biochemistry over there.”

>

That is a teaching about the sanskrit term Maya or the Judeo-Christian term Sin as in “original sin” and the human’s fall from grace. The same distinction is presented in different human languages as “Zen” and “Advaita.”

>

This particular conversation (below) borrows terminology from Jungian psychology (the “shadow”) and originates from a dialogue between two brothers of The Mankind Project. I am free. I do not have anything required as a method to become free, like as a method of liberation. Liberation is fine- but I am already free to explore any particular liberation or not.

ManKind Project

ManKind Project (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

>

I am the truth. I do not have any method required to find truth, nor any method excluded in regard to distinguishing or labeling any particular pattern.

>

I am the way. I am not looking for a way to become what I assert that I am not already (unless I do look in such a way).

>

I am the life. When I move, that is the entirety of the universe moving as me, like an entire cloud dripping one raindrop and then another, or an enzyme making one protein and then another.

>

As a human, I may or may not state a particular “mission” (future emphasis). As a being, I am already the branch on the vine and the vine within the branch. The being is the source of the human persona or the process of identifying in language or the ego. When the word “I” is used, that can be used to reference an isolated persona of ego or to reference the source which creates and alters persona.

>

As an enzyme, I just make proteins. As an atom, I spin electrons around a nucleus. As a solar system, I light up the sun and send the planets orbiting around it. Before Abraham was, I am. (Before Jesus was, I am.)

>

When two people argue over which is the best cartoon character superhero (Spiderman or Superman), I am there. When two people argue over which is the best political candidate (Nixon or Kennedy), I am there. When two nations go to war, I am there. When two asteroids collide, I am there- colliding them as them.

>

Being does not end. It is eternal as in timeless. It is not waiting for heaven to start eventually, nor trying to earn its way in to it. Being is already here.

>

The Divine Presence is already here. God is already here. This is not a belief formed in words and then repeated such as in order to actualize some pursuit of a human ego. This is not the mechanical repetition of a passage of scripture. This is the voice at the source of the oral traditions of various languages which have been transcribed in to scripture and translated and edited and so on. I did all of that. (I am the one who created language and oral traditions and writing and then a thousand years later read what another part of me wrote down that yet another part of me said long before that.)

>

I am Being. I am not telling you this gain admission in to a club or to solicit your approval or personal opinion. In fact, I am not addressing you as someone other than me.

>

All that Being is typing here is what Being already knows and there is nowhere that Being is not and no one that Being is not. Being is the one who says “without a mission, you are lost.” Being is also the one who says “if I am lost, that is when I create a mission and a goal.” Being may even say “the being is never lost. Only the being’s human persona can have the experience of being lost or found, being seen or being ignored, being heard or being misunderstood.”

>

Each human persona has a specific destiny and path. The Being simply is. The Being is the one doing all of the human personas (which are distinct from one another as various patterns in language) and moving them toward their destinies.

>

Once upon a time a sock puppet said to another sock puppet, “can you please tell me what is the nature of the kingdom of heaven?” The other sock puppet answered and said “yes, of course I can. The kingdom of heaven is like a sock puppet. Recall the following words of the prophet Isaiah which did not make it in to the book you are carrying, but are just as valid a symbolic metaphor as any one the ones that did make it in to that book.”

>

Once upon a time there was a human being that put a sock puppet on each hand. One sock puppet said to the other “I am not a sock puppet, I am a human being trying to find my way back to God.”

>

The other sock puppet said “I can see that. You clearly are not a sock puppet. You are that other human being over there which is so different from me and has such a very different reality than mine. The rules of biochemistry and electromagnetism over here for me must be very different from the ones over there for you and we should probably go together on a mission through a bunch of shadows to make the totally different biochemistry over here be the same as the totally different biochemistry over there.”

>

By the way, these are not all of the teachings of the great Sock Puppet. In fact, if all of the teachings of the great Sock Puppet were to be compiled, there is no library big enough to contain of all those teachings, mostly because the great Sock Puppet is going to be giving some brand new teachings this Sunday, you know, like every other day so far.

Related articles
עברית: ויקיפד מפעיל בובת גרב English: Wikipedi...

Image via Wikipedia

Related articles

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Idealism and shadows

January 25, 2012

A mother holds up her child.

Psychological shadows and pre-occupation with ideals

For a child there are two extremely reliable ways of attracting the attention of others. First is to do things like screaming for help.

However, sometimes that does not work to satisfy whatever needs may be present, including basic biochemical needs like nutrition and hydration. Regardless of the specific interests arousing someone to attract attention, the second method besides any direct call for attention is any indirect call. Indirect invitations for attention include performing behaviors that previously the child has been trained will bring attention in the form of either rewards or punishments.

An even more obscure way to indirectly attract attention is through fulfilling a role for another person that brings them attention, such as the reward of social approval or perhaps some other form of attention. The idea that other people’s attention is valuable to receive is of course just one possibility.

English: Himba mother and child about 15 km no...

Image via Wikipedia

Let’s imagine a scenario in which there is a mother who would like to be viewed by others as an ideal mother. She values having that perception for herself and so she values other people having that perception of her as ideal, such as her children or her peers.

More broadly, a person may value being perceived as an ideal person. What is a common ideal that defines an ideal person? One common ideal is the ideal of being a forgiving and accepting person (or mother). Of course, in order to be an unusually forgiving and accepting person, it is relevant for there to be something unusual for accept and forgive.

In regard to cultural ideals of a mother, there are several “challenges” that might prove the superiority of the mother. A child who is unusual, especially in some way commonly perceived as negative, is essential for evidencing that one is an ideal mother. The unusual detail could be some kind of physical oddity- whether athleticism or a deformation in the child- or something social such as wealth, poverty, or some type of fame. Fame could be “positive” as in heroic glory or “negative” as in shame.

If a child develops some socially positive characteristic, the mother is presumed to be ideal for any cultivating of that trait in the child. In contrast, a socially negative trait allows the mother to show how forgiving and accepting she is.

So, a more negative detail is better for the opportunity to prove how forgiving and accepting the mother is. If moderately negative developments do not fulfill the role, then more and more extreme developments may arise.

Is it possible that a child would internalize (develop) a program to perform behaviors or otherwise experience results that give a parent an opportunity to be perceived as accepting and forgiving? Is it possible that a child would take in to their adulthood an “assignment” to present a theme or issue to repeatedly explore? “Does my mother REALLY love me” or “does ANYONE really love me” would be a fitting “theme” for a child who is playing the role of providing the test to prove that a particular other person is “an ideal person,” such as “the ideal mother.”
“Does my partner/spouse really love me” is also one possible theme for someone to explore. We may test them with directly challenging talk or indirectly challenging behavior, such as addiction or other dysfunction.

All of these themes are variations on self-concern (pre-occupations), as in suffering. Providing other people opportunities for them to demonstrate their idealism can be quite an investment of energy. Demonstrating one’s own ideal qualities can also be quite an investment of energy.

“I am so accepting and forgiving” says one person, with a ready list of historic victimizations and dramatic betrayals and heroic challenges to share as evidence. “I am such a survivor!” is another common labeling or identifying. “I am so smart” is another, as is “my children are so smart” and “am I pretty enough” and “am I loyal enough” and “am I happy enough?”
“My mother was horrible… which proves that I am heroic. My boss is impatient… which proves that I am patient. My political party is glorious… which proves that I am going to heaven. My country is crumbling… which proves that I must rescue it immediately.”

Some of these themes stretch logic a bit further than others. They vary. However, all self-concern is like a cocoon inside of which other capacities may develop.

Related articles

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

* how to save the world

January 18, 2012

relocated to: https://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/how-to-save-the-world-parody

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Beyond the cult of heroic martyrs

October 16, 2011

Who is remembered fondly for dying for the cause of a rebellion, like for the rejection of a particular idea or phrase in language? What popular fictional characters? How about the founding fathers of US Tea Party movement heroes like Patrick Henry (who said “give me liberty or give me death!”) or even the once-violent Malcolm X?

Malcolm X may have felt guilty about his prior advocacy of violence. So, he acted to compensate for his guilt- speaking out against the advocacy of “political violence” – as in the phrase “by any means necessary”- and soon he was killed and many have glorified him as a hero or martyr.

So many of the heroes of our culture have been martyrs who lived (and often were killed) for some rebellion against some conformity: Jesus, JFK, Martin Luther King Jr. (who was named after the man who inspired the first seven letters of the word Protestant: Martin Luther), as well as Gandhi, former “terrorist leader” Nelson Mandela, a protesting Chinese college student in Tiananmen Square who stood in the path of a tank, the Vietnamese monk who burned himself alive in protest to warfare, and so on. Do these heroes actually serve as models of our behavior or do they mostly just remind us of the possible consequences of non-conformity?


Given that virtually none of the people who glorify the heroism of Jesus follow his actual life choices to become a wandering ascetic, consider that these heroes are not so much models of behavior as reminders and warnings. We may use these martyrs to produce guilt within ourselves, with the idea being that we should not conform as we actually have been, but that we should become a wandering ascetic like Jesus or the Buddha and so on.

Focusing on that ideal perhaps creates and sustains the experience of tension and guilt and shame, if believed.

Jesus, according to popular versions of his life story, publicly rebuked the religious leaders of his day as hypocrites, apparently resulting in his death. That pattern of action is actually rather distinct from simply developing inner peace and promoting a spirit of cooperativeness. 

Was the story of Jesus the first ever story of the rebuking of hypocrisy? Even Moses is well known for condemning the behavioral traditions of “his people,” though he was not killed for it by the people he rebuked. Further, Jesus frequently quoted the Old Testament prophet Isaiah, dramatically referencing the distinction between the activity of simply using words such as “peace” and “respect” as distinct from an actual experience of peace and respect.

Can one be peaceful and respectful while rebuking someone? Does rebuking imply animosity and resentment and antagonism and aggressiveness?

Also, should people experience shame for behavior patterns that could be labeled as selfish? Should people keep certain behaviors secret, at least from inquisitors who threaten torture and execution? Should people lie about selfish behaviors and rationalize them as actually having been unselfish? 

Should people always conform? Should people always condemn conformity? Should people always condemn hypocrisy? Should people discontinue the condemning of other people? Should people condemn condemnation?

My experience has been that I have repeatedly condemned other people (whether particular people that I personally know or remote groups even from distant times), and further that I have eventually noticed that I have sometimes done very similar things to much of what I have condemned. I can accept that the intensity of my condemnation of something may be proportionate to the extent of my own practice of that thing. I can also accept that the intensity of my glorifying of something may be proportionate to the extent that I avoid practicing that thing.

“Wouldn’t it be great if people completely stopped being involved in commercial activities and just donated all their wealth and all their time to other people?” I may say things like that, implying that such a pattern of action might be great or greater than some other pattern, but I might not really know if it would be great or not because I may not have actually done it and I may not ever, even though I may talk a lot about how great it allegedly would be.

What if what I really meant was this: “wouldn’t if be great if EVERYONE ELSE EXCEPT ME simply donated all their wealth and time TO ME?” I might experience that the competitiveness in the commercial economy in my midst is challenging for me. I might really like the idea of government benefits received by me that are derived from the collection activities of governments that result in me effortlessly having what used to be other people’s wealth or productivity.

“Government mercenaries, please go and find some rationalization to condemn or criminalize some behavior of other people and bring me the spoils of the conquest. Please hurry!”

“If the spoils come from a distant nation or from traffic tickets and confiscations from convicted local drug dealers, just keep these roads well-maintained and these medical services free. Do not betray me by leaving it to me to be responsible for my own finances, my own welfare, my own health, my own family, and my own experience of inner peace and respect.”

“If people insult us and disrespect us and threaten us, punish them. If people refuse to do business with us at the prices we consider fair, conquer them. If they have values and cultures distinct from ours, like if they decline to commit to pacifism (as in us having a monopoly on nuclear weapons), then give them an ultimatum between unconditional surrender and us bombing them to ashes, but please do not enlist me to be directly involved in the bombing, because that sounds rather dangerous… plus, military drafts are undemocratic, and our militant, imperialist bombings are the most democratic in human history so far, though we only bomb civilians when we are absolutely forced to do so by the majority voting for it and only in order to promote and demonstrate loving-kindness, peace, the combined compassion of Christ and Buddha, and of course the inalienable right to life of all people everywhere, except of course for those who do not recognize and worship the ideal of the inalienable right to life.”

So, do these words sound like the jokes of Charlie Chaplin or the ramblings of a mental patient or the typical statements of politicians and religious leaders throughout history? How about all of the above?

Remember, a martyr is someone who dies for identifying with a cause. Identifying with something involves language. Martyrs die for their language.

Should all people everywhere glorify the ideal of dying for a particular linguistic ideal? Uh, well, if that appeals to you, then you can go right ahead and “march on the Vatican to protest the inquisition” or “occupy wall street” or “march on the pentagon to protest bombs and propaganda and imperialism.” 

By the way, consider that no one is going to march on the pentagon because, for one thing, there is no open physical space there to make that convenient. Further, the popular conception that the US is a democracy does not fit with the idea of marching on the pentagon (or on to a military base or occupying a federal courthouse). Those who believe that a particular government is a democracy are more likely to march on the great temple of the elected senators (and the lobbyists who fund them).

If you think that you can go conduct a public demonstration on a military base or at the pentagon or in a federal courthouse (or a police station or fire station) simply because you live “in a democracy,” you may soon find that you are conducting demonstrations in a jail cell… if you are that fortunate.

Democracy is a component of many political processes. So is organized coercion. That is not a contradiction. Not every government in human history has involved any democratic procedures, from the governing of a household to an empire. However, has any government failed to use the procedure of organized coercion?

Should we be ashamed about a particular government’s use of organized coercion? Should we keep it a secret? Is there a general pattern of punishing with organized coercion those who directly reference organized coercion? 

Or, is there only a specific pattern of the punishing of those who directly antagonize the agents of organized coercion? Wouldn’t you be wary of populist campaigns to occupy the pentagon or even occupy to an airport in China? Your coercion is probably not even close to organized enough to successfully accomplish that kind of result!

Be realistic. In other words, if you like, for an interesting afternoon, go ahead and gather up a few thousand friends to occupy wall street. 

Further, if being a martyr especially appeals to your pride, then identify some linguistic ideal and commit to dying for it. If your idealistic sacrifice attracts enough publicity, then you may even be remembered fondly as one of a rather long list of trailblazers in the promoting of other people’s right to make themselves in to martyrs, too.

Of course, such a path of drama, pride and possible fame may not be the path of inner peace. If inner peace appeals to you, then dying for a linguistic ideal may not be of any relevance to you. You may find it more inspiring to question the nature of all linguistic ideals, including the ideal of the heroic martyr.

As-Salamu Alaykum. Aleichem Shalom.

Related articles

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »