attracting attention with “trauma”

From this thread, relating to some comments on Wayne Dyer‘s books “Manfiest your Destiny” and “Your biography becomes your biology”:

Trauma is not a trauma for me right now unless I say so. The words trauma, drama, and dream all have the same root. If I were to refer to my past as a trauma, I traumatize myself (or, some might say, re-traumatize myself… fine).

What actually happens is that we attract attention however we do. If we used a “distress signal,” then that either works for us well enough to keep using it, or it does not and we use some other method for attracting attention, that is, in the event that we are attracting attention.

Similarly an interpretation of unworthiness does not exist for me unless I generate it. “Unworthy” as well as “worthy” are arbitrary labels. To identify with an arbitrary label is not only the choice o suffer, but to be pitiful, to be traumatized, to identify one’s self as a victim. As a way of attracting attention, that is one possible way and either works well enough to keep using it or does not.

So, if you believe that some possible past development was “traumatic history,” then that is a choice to belief in trauma now. Rather than avoid describing the past as trauma (like to others), consider simply noticing whether or one describes the past at all, and if one does, how.

The idea ta we “should not” descibe the past as traumatic is rather silly to me, or at least an ironic judgment. Consider that however we have ever described the past is simply however we have described the past. To avoid something or worry about something is optional. Consider that there is no guilt in describing the past as a trauma. That is one entirely valid- yet entirely arbitrary- way to descrbie a possible past.

Remember the past is a dream unless you say otherwise. Attracting attention can apparently be rather valuable to us sometimes, huh? Consider attracting attention with a possible past sometimes and wih a possible future sometimes.

Words always happen only right as they are happening, but one thing I have noticed is that words can never refer to the eternal presence. Words just do not have anything to say about the eternal presence. They can reference a possible past or a possible future, but that’s it.

That’s what words do.They direct attention and they direct it away from the eternal presence. However, the eternal presence is always still here. Not only is the eternal pesence between all the words, but during them, and creating them now.

The eternal presence is the only time when words create a possible past, by which I mean a future. Remember, every past that you have ever dreamed was a possible fuure, then, according to your belief, actually happened, and then became a possible past. That is how the future is always the only possible source of the past. Please be very careful with how much fun you have with this, but not yet. 😉

January 6, 2010

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: