Yes, every moment, every feeling has great texture, tone, detail and richness to be fully experienced. I find that when I slow down I notice much more, I am able to move into actual relationship with what is happening.
Let's say this alleged "I" is feeling frustration. He wanted something to be easy and it is turning out to be more complicated. He can polarize with that frustration, thinking that "I am here and that frustration is over there" and "I need to do something about that". In this he is making the sensation into an object.
Or he can, as the previous quote suggest, experience the suchness of that, the as-is-ness of that as an independently arising movement in creation. He can enjoy it on its own terms as if he is watching a movie, or eating a meal at an ethnic restaurant, or watching a cloud going by in the sky of mind. Free of resistance. Free of judgment.
Then that can become an interesting dance partner.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Friday, October 12, 2007
Suchness
Well, if the discussion is going to turn to suchness, I feel I could do no better than to quote The Great Sage of the East on the subject:
"Idama is very significant; it means thisness, suchness, is-ness. To be in the present, to be now and to be here and nowhere else--that is the moment when bliss arises. And to live in suchness means that whatsover happens, accept it, drop rejecting. Even if you are feeling sad, accept it; live in that suchness. One is sad, so one relaxes into one's sadness; and immediately the quality changes. Then sadness starts having a beauty, a depth, a joy. It looks contradictory, but try, and you will be surprised: if you accept sadness, if you enjoy the flavor of it, soon you are celebrating it.
"Whatsover happens is good. It can't be otherwise, because behind everything is God's hand.
"So live in total acceptance; that is the meaning of suchness. And never go beyond this, because once you go beyond this, the mind arises, thoughts arise.
"If one can live in the present with total acceptance, bliss is bound to happen."
"Idama is very significant; it means thisness, suchness, is-ness. To be in the present, to be now and to be here and nowhere else--that is the moment when bliss arises. And to live in suchness means that whatsover happens, accept it, drop rejecting. Even if you are feeling sad, accept it; live in that suchness. One is sad, so one relaxes into one's sadness; and immediately the quality changes. Then sadness starts having a beauty, a depth, a joy. It looks contradictory, but try, and you will be surprised: if you accept sadness, if you enjoy the flavor of it, soon you are celebrating it.
"Whatsover happens is good. It can't be otherwise, because behind everything is God's hand.
"So live in total acceptance; that is the meaning of suchness. And never go beyond this, because once you go beyond this, the mind arises, thoughts arise.
"If one can live in the present with total acceptance, bliss is bound to happen."
Thursday, October 11, 2007
The Practicality Of Loving What Is
It is quite a delight to witness the same thing being said in different ways. I was at a Satsang recently with Peter Brown, the opendoorway.org and Peter was, in his own words, speaking what Tom writes and quotes Byron Katie as saying.
I suspect that most of the teachers listed at this link http://www.satsangteachers.com/links.aspx would concur.
I find that it is much easier for "me" to just experience the outside world and other people as simply "suchness" without judgement, than it is to do this with events in "my" own life.
It is where I think I can change something that more judgment comes in. Do other readers of this blog experience this? Perhaps we judge as an attempt to take action and change something, and yet as Karl Renz points out our very struggle to change something increases it.
Our reactions to George Bush creates a bigger George Bush. I find myself pondering, at times, if this is what Jesus was referring to when he said that if you try to cast out one spirit, ten more come.
Perhaps Byron Katie's path of Loving What Is, is the quickest path to having more of what we want.
I suspect that most of the teachers listed at this link http://www.satsangteachers.com/links.aspx would concur.
I find that it is much easier for "me" to just experience the outside world and other people as simply "suchness" without judgement, than it is to do this with events in "my" own life.
It is where I think I can change something that more judgment comes in. Do other readers of this blog experience this? Perhaps we judge as an attempt to take action and change something, and yet as Karl Renz points out our very struggle to change something increases it.
Our reactions to George Bush creates a bigger George Bush. I find myself pondering, at times, if this is what Jesus was referring to when he said that if you try to cast out one spirit, ten more come.
Perhaps Byron Katie's path of Loving What Is, is the quickest path to having more of what we want.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Dividing Reality into Opposites
As fate, and synchronicity, would have it, shortly after reading Bruce's last post, The Alchemical Mix of Differences, Tom opened up a new book by Byron Katie, "A Thousand Names for Joy," and came across the following:
Commenting on Lao Tzu's words, "When people see some things as good, other things become bad," Katie writes, "When they believe their thoughts, people divide reality into opposites. They think that only certain things are beautiful. But to a clear mind, everything in the world is beautiful....
"If you don't separate reality into categories by naming it and believing that your names are real, how can you reject anything or believe that one thing is of less value than another?... The mind's job is to prove that what it thinks is true, and it does that by judging and comparing this to that....
"By it's very nature, the mind is infinite. Once it has questioned its beliefs, it can find beauty in all things."
Taking Katie's lead, Tom and Bruce might do well in their efforts at learning to dance with their respective differences to realize that their thoughts about their differences are just that -- thoughts, and not reality. And reality, if we can say anything about it, is beautiful, with no part being more beautiful or valuable than another.
A way of dealing with all things disagreeable, including differences, that Tom likes to employ, which is essentially what Kaite is pointing to, is mindfulness. When faced with the unpleasant, the irritating, the frustrating, if one can be mindful, i.e., free of thoughts and judgments and simply aware, then one is immediately delivered from the unpleasant, as the unpleasantness of anything does not inhere in the thing, it lives in the think, the thoughts about the situation or person. Mindfulness brings us into direct contact with the thing, minus our thoughts about it being unpleasant or irritating or whatever. And then we simply deal with the thing as it is, free of our thoughts about it being negative in any way, there is no problem. There is just what is.
Another approach Tom likes to take, if he can only remember it at the time, is to regard all that happens, particularly the stuff he doesn't care for, the aggravating stuff, as teachers or teachings. "What can I learn here in the face of this disagreeable event or person or whatever?" Very humbling approach, and very useful.
The common thread in these various approaches to the "negatives" in our lives is the side-stepping of the ego. It is the ego which compares, and judges, and generally demands that life be a certain way, and resists or argues with life when it doesn't show up as desired. To meet everything just as it is without all our thoughts about how it is or how it should be is to gracefully dance with life in all its beauty and grandeur. This is peace and the end of suffering. This is enlightenment.
Commenting on Lao Tzu's words, "When people see some things as good, other things become bad," Katie writes, "When they believe their thoughts, people divide reality into opposites. They think that only certain things are beautiful. But to a clear mind, everything in the world is beautiful....
"If you don't separate reality into categories by naming it and believing that your names are real, how can you reject anything or believe that one thing is of less value than another?... The mind's job is to prove that what it thinks is true, and it does that by judging and comparing this to that....
"By it's very nature, the mind is infinite. Once it has questioned its beliefs, it can find beauty in all things."
Taking Katie's lead, Tom and Bruce might do well in their efforts at learning to dance with their respective differences to realize that their thoughts about their differences are just that -- thoughts, and not reality. And reality, if we can say anything about it, is beautiful, with no part being more beautiful or valuable than another.
A way of dealing with all things disagreeable, including differences, that Tom likes to employ, which is essentially what Kaite is pointing to, is mindfulness. When faced with the unpleasant, the irritating, the frustrating, if one can be mindful, i.e., free of thoughts and judgments and simply aware, then one is immediately delivered from the unpleasant, as the unpleasantness of anything does not inhere in the thing, it lives in the think, the thoughts about the situation or person. Mindfulness brings us into direct contact with the thing, minus our thoughts about it being unpleasant or irritating or whatever. And then we simply deal with the thing as it is, free of our thoughts about it being negative in any way, there is no problem. There is just what is.
Another approach Tom likes to take, if he can only remember it at the time, is to regard all that happens, particularly the stuff he doesn't care for, the aggravating stuff, as teachers or teachings. "What can I learn here in the face of this disagreeable event or person or whatever?" Very humbling approach, and very useful.
The common thread in these various approaches to the "negatives" in our lives is the side-stepping of the ego. It is the ego which compares, and judges, and generally demands that life be a certain way, and resists or argues with life when it doesn't show up as desired. To meet everything just as it is without all our thoughts about how it is or how it should be is to gracefully dance with life in all its beauty and grandeur. This is peace and the end of suffering. This is enlightenment.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
The Alchemical Mix Of Differences.
This is the focus of this blog for me: How can we each, as totally unique beings on the planet, dance with our differences and yet still hold each in our hearts and have fun with the process.
Differences are so often seen and braced against as being a problem, as being impossible to bridge. How can we turn any dialectic, any play of opposites into medicine and fuel for transformation?
The two main characters in the play of this blog, Tom and Bruce, are incredibly different in many ways, almost opposites. They have known each other since 1976 when they were both living near the Zen Center in San Francisco, and have, for the most part stayed in touch since then.
The playful navigation of differences has been a theme all along.
This morning Tom emailed Bruce about wanting him to post new posts rather than adding comments. He also wanted Bruce to move a comment to a post before he would read it. Now this may seem like a mundane event, hardly worthy of mention, and yet it points to this Dance of Difference.
For the Bruce Character, in this case, what is important and interesting is the fiery hot and happening flow of expressions and explosions. Keeping that going, no matter what the form, is the priority for him, how that happens is an incidental footnote. Also he likes mixing it up, doing it differently different ways.
As Bruce emailed Tom, I want 80% of we do to be about the alive doing of it, yeah structures are important, for 20% of it, but when that gets too big it is like a ocean of water putting out the fire.
In a long discussion of blog titles, he watched his energy drain out of this. For him, it felt like an on going conversation was hijacked, by trifles.
When he sees white-picket fences, part of him wants to mow them down. Of course he is fine with doing posts rather than comments, but having to move something before it gets responded to is, arggg, way out of the confines of his 80/20 preference.
So here we see a manifestation of a difference between these two characters.
It is so easy to think, whew it would seem to be so much easier to not to have to navigate this, and both Bruce and Tom have had this thought at different intervals.
And yet, God, through the two of them, is drawn to this challenge as well.
It is so easy to react, to judge, and there is something about really groking the others perspective that is sweet and can lead to breakthrough.
Bruce is still want to get, really get, feel why Tom sends out emails about Bush. This is something Bruce would never even think of doing, as he sees it as very counter-productive and even dangerous.
For me the context of how to work with differences is of greater interest than the content of any specific difference.
Differences are so often seen and braced against as being a problem, as being impossible to bridge. How can we turn any dialectic, any play of opposites into medicine and fuel for transformation?
The two main characters in the play of this blog, Tom and Bruce, are incredibly different in many ways, almost opposites. They have known each other since 1976 when they were both living near the Zen Center in San Francisco, and have, for the most part stayed in touch since then.
The playful navigation of differences has been a theme all along.
This morning Tom emailed Bruce about wanting him to post new posts rather than adding comments. He also wanted Bruce to move a comment to a post before he would read it. Now this may seem like a mundane event, hardly worthy of mention, and yet it points to this Dance of Difference.
For the Bruce Character, in this case, what is important and interesting is the fiery hot and happening flow of expressions and explosions. Keeping that going, no matter what the form, is the priority for him, how that happens is an incidental footnote. Also he likes mixing it up, doing it differently different ways.
As Bruce emailed Tom, I want 80% of we do to be about the alive doing of it, yeah structures are important, for 20% of it, but when that gets too big it is like a ocean of water putting out the fire.
In a long discussion of blog titles, he watched his energy drain out of this. For him, it felt like an on going conversation was hijacked, by trifles.
When he sees white-picket fences, part of him wants to mow them down. Of course he is fine with doing posts rather than comments, but having to move something before it gets responded to is, arggg, way out of the confines of his 80/20 preference.
So here we see a manifestation of a difference between these two characters.
It is so easy to think, whew it would seem to be so much easier to not to have to navigate this, and both Bruce and Tom have had this thought at different intervals.
And yet, God, through the two of them, is drawn to this challenge as well.
It is so easy to react, to judge, and there is something about really groking the others perspective that is sweet and can lead to breakthrough.
Bruce is still want to get, really get, feel why Tom sends out emails about Bush. This is something Bruce would never even think of doing, as he sees it as very counter-productive and even dangerous.
For me the context of how to work with differences is of greater interest than the content of any specific difference.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Coming Full Circle
I'm glad to hear, Bruce, that you agree with me that "studying the nature of darkness is a useful endeavor." Actually, I never meant to argue for the value of studying darkness per se; what I think is of value is to study the nature of what is. And in our dualistic universe, half of what is is of the light, and half is of darkness. So if we are going to take a look at what is, then about half of it will appear rather dark. My point was that I think it's important not to turn our gaze away from what is on account of it being dark. If we are to understand, we must persist in our looking, regardless of how pleasant or unpleasant the view may be.
With your latest post, Bruce, it seems to me you have pretty much come around to the position of RichM with which I started this thread. You write, "When I have a reaction to something that is happening out there, I can always find something similar within myself." Compare that to RichM's assertion that "it’s not really Bush who’s ruined our country.... Bush is the natural & inevitable product of the true nature of US society; he’s a perfect reflection of it." Are you two not saying essentially the same thing? RichM says the problem is not Bush, it's the American people. Bush reflects American society. You say the darkness that is out there is not the darkness of concern to you; it is the darkness within yourself which concerns you. The outer darkness reflects your inner darkness.
This is what I found so provocative about RichM's contention: that it's not Bush, it's us. And now I hear you saying pretty much the same thing: it's not the outer darkness that's important, it's the inner darkness.
So your final position is one of essential agreement with the opening position (of RichM) of my first post in this thread, a position to which you were strongly opposed for some time. Interesting, no?
With your latest post, Bruce, it seems to me you have pretty much come around to the position of RichM with which I started this thread. You write, "When I have a reaction to something that is happening out there, I can always find something similar within myself." Compare that to RichM's assertion that "it’s not really Bush who’s ruined our country.... Bush is the natural & inevitable product of the true nature of US society; he’s a perfect reflection of it." Are you two not saying essentially the same thing? RichM says the problem is not Bush, it's the American people. Bush reflects American society. You say the darkness that is out there is not the darkness of concern to you; it is the darkness within yourself which concerns you. The outer darkness reflects your inner darkness.
This is what I found so provocative about RichM's contention: that it's not Bush, it's us. And now I hear you saying pretty much the same thing: it's not the outer darkness that's important, it's the inner darkness.
So your final position is one of essential agreement with the opening position (of RichM) of my first post in this thread, a position to which you were strongly opposed for some time. Interesting, no?
Understanding AND Action
In your post, "Being a Demonstration of Peace," you write, "What concerns me about what you post is that it is so similar to things I would read way back then [35 years ago]." I want to respond to this, but I don't know to what in my post it refers, as I said quite a few things.
You go on to write, "for me personally, putting my focus there, it is a distraction to our taking further steps." To this I can only respond by repeating my idea of optimal response to societal or world problems: "Taking a good measure of the situation is only a first step. First, assess the situation, then calibrate one's response, then act to effect the desired change. But first and foremost, have a good look. Don't get hung up on that first step. We need to have that good look, without which we shall not understand the problem very well, and will not be able to come up with an optimal solution."
Yes, take "further steps" by all means. But I maintain that the clearer we see the situation, the better idea we will have as to just what steps will be optimal.
If one is shot by an arrow, I agree totally that "the important thing is getting that arrow out, where it came from does not really matter." But, again, we have to have a good look to determine if it's an arrow. And its placement may bear a good deal on the optimal approach to removing the arrow. I continue to insist that the clearer perception we have of any given situation, the better will be our response.
You ask, "Where would the civil rights movement be today, if Martin Luther King had only stayed with 'the first step' in that speech?" Not very far. But he did a good deal besides take appropriate action. He had a deep grasp of the situation, which could only have come from close inspection and deep analysis. Furthermore, (step 2) he calibrated his response. He devised strategies based on deep and clear understanding, not only of the situation, but of human nature, American society, Christian theology, moral philosophy, and Thoreau's and Gandhi's profound ideas of civil disobedience. He didn't consider all of this "distraction"; it was preparation. But of course all we see is his marvelousl action, but this action was all preceeded by much preparation. I maintain, that effective action, in fact, is rightly the last step to be taken. Gary Ryan, a skilled maintenance man I once worked with, once told me that 95% of any job he did was preparation. After the preparation was complete, then he would do the job, i.e., go into action.
So yes, let's have right action. But let's have it be effective. Let's have it based on clear understanding. Both/and, not either/or.
You go on to write, "for me personally, putting my focus there, it is a distraction to our taking further steps." To this I can only respond by repeating my idea of optimal response to societal or world problems: "Taking a good measure of the situation is only a first step. First, assess the situation, then calibrate one's response, then act to effect the desired change. But first and foremost, have a good look. Don't get hung up on that first step. We need to have that good look, without which we shall not understand the problem very well, and will not be able to come up with an optimal solution."
Yes, take "further steps" by all means. But I maintain that the clearer we see the situation, the better idea we will have as to just what steps will be optimal.
If one is shot by an arrow, I agree totally that "the important thing is getting that arrow out, where it came from does not really matter." But, again, we have to have a good look to determine if it's an arrow. And its placement may bear a good deal on the optimal approach to removing the arrow. I continue to insist that the clearer perception we have of any given situation, the better will be our response.
You ask, "Where would the civil rights movement be today, if Martin Luther King had only stayed with 'the first step' in that speech?" Not very far. But he did a good deal besides take appropriate action. He had a deep grasp of the situation, which could only have come from close inspection and deep analysis. Furthermore, (step 2) he calibrated his response. He devised strategies based on deep and clear understanding, not only of the situation, but of human nature, American society, Christian theology, moral philosophy, and Thoreau's and Gandhi's profound ideas of civil disobedience. He didn't consider all of this "distraction"; it was preparation. But of course all we see is his marvelousl action, but this action was all preceeded by much preparation. I maintain, that effective action, in fact, is rightly the last step to be taken. Gary Ryan, a skilled maintenance man I once worked with, once told me that 95% of any job he did was preparation. After the preparation was complete, then he would do the job, i.e., go into action.
So yes, let's have right action. But let's have it be effective. Let's have it based on clear understanding. Both/and, not either/or.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Impeachment Proceedings Beginning Here
I agree with you, Tom, that studying the nature of darkness is a useful endeavor.
We do want to "get it", grok it, get the structure of it, enter into that terrain.
And yet, I find that the best way to understand darkness is to look directly into the manifestations of that in myself. Here I have access to first hand information. Reading stuff on the web, I cannot know what is true and what has been distorted or magnified or minimized.
If I am not dealing with that here, how can I be effective with dealing with it there?
When I have a reaction to something that is happening out there, I can always find something similar within myself if I look hard enough. It may be much more subtle in me than in its its outer manifestations, but it is still there are locatable.
In fact, I doubt that I could even see that out there, if I had not already experienced it in here.
As I was watching the movie tonight that I mention in my earlier post, I kept asking myself: "Why am I watching this?" Here is my answer: I was watching an outer expression of what I do inside. A specific frequency here could relate to what was out there, it was feeding on that same frequency in the movie, growing bigger from this dinner.
Then the point came when I really caught what was happening and chose to turn off that aliveness destroying downward spiral, and create a different more positive and productive current.
Reading about that short feller in DC that some folk call the President, (he has never been my President), feeds, for me, the very aspects of myself I want to phase out. It might be the perfect path for someone, and perhaps you Tom, but for me doing so is just not congruent with my deepest commitment to myself to focus on solutions and not problems.
Impeachment proceedings are well on their way for those parts of myself here, and they need my full attention. New leadership is being installed here and this needs my full attention.
Here, every day, I can vote out more and more of that which blocks positive change and vote in that which brings in creative positive change. Here I can upgrade the media of this mind. Here I can end that which makes needless war and comes up with empty justifications for that. Here I can rebuild destroyed cities inside.
Here I can be a radical activist for who is totally engaged in rebuilding this local part of America. That which I have destroyed I can rebuild. As I rebuild this part of our country, I can help other parts rebuild as well.
We do want to "get it", grok it, get the structure of it, enter into that terrain.
And yet, I find that the best way to understand darkness is to look directly into the manifestations of that in myself. Here I have access to first hand information. Reading stuff on the web, I cannot know what is true and what has been distorted or magnified or minimized.
If I am not dealing with that here, how can I be effective with dealing with it there?
When I have a reaction to something that is happening out there, I can always find something similar within myself if I look hard enough. It may be much more subtle in me than in its its outer manifestations, but it is still there are locatable.
In fact, I doubt that I could even see that out there, if I had not already experienced it in here.
As I was watching the movie tonight that I mention in my earlier post, I kept asking myself: "Why am I watching this?" Here is my answer: I was watching an outer expression of what I do inside. A specific frequency here could relate to what was out there, it was feeding on that same frequency in the movie, growing bigger from this dinner.
Then the point came when I really caught what was happening and chose to turn off that aliveness destroying downward spiral, and create a different more positive and productive current.
Reading about that short feller in DC that some folk call the President, (he has never been my President), feeds, for me, the very aspects of myself I want to phase out. It might be the perfect path for someone, and perhaps you Tom, but for me doing so is just not congruent with my deepest commitment to myself to focus on solutions and not problems.
Impeachment proceedings are well on their way for those parts of myself here, and they need my full attention. New leadership is being installed here and this needs my full attention.
Here, every day, I can vote out more and more of that which blocks positive change and vote in that which brings in creative positive change. Here I can upgrade the media of this mind. Here I can end that which makes needless war and comes up with empty justifications for that. Here I can rebuild destroyed cities inside.
Here I can be a radical activist for who is totally engaged in rebuilding this local part of America. That which I have destroyed I can rebuild. As I rebuild this part of our country, I can help other parts rebuild as well.
Being A Demonstration Of Peace
My first exposure to the darkness in the world came when I was a very small child.
I would stand in the snow in Upstate New York at "ban the bomb" demonstrations.
I participated in many large protests in Washington, DC and even organized some myself.
I worked full time for George McGovern in 1972.
Our efforts were sincere, we cared a lot, we saw the shadow in this country very vividly. We knew the toilet well, we studied it contents, we took this "first step" as you, Tom, mention.
What concerns me about what you post is that it is so similar to things I would read way back then. 35 years later, still staring into the the toilet. None of it feels new to me, or revelatory.
In fact, for me personally, putting my focus there, it is a distraction to our taking further steps, building power for making lasting changes, and being the change we wish to see.
There is a big difference between demonstrating against war, ie: making war with war, and Being A Demonstration Of Peace.
Tonight I found myself watching a very, very dark movie from Netflix. Finally I was able to tear myself away, but that took real effort.
I saw how seductive trudging through the sewers can be. To what avail?
Did it elevate my spirit, no. Did it inspire me, no.
The Buddha had this to say: When one is walking through the woods and finds that he has been shot with an arrow, the important thing is getting that arrow out, where it came from does not really matter.
Where would the civil rights movement be today, if Martin Luther King had only stayed with "the first step" in that speech?
I would stand in the snow in Upstate New York at "ban the bomb" demonstrations.
I participated in many large protests in Washington, DC and even organized some myself.
I worked full time for George McGovern in 1972.
Our efforts were sincere, we cared a lot, we saw the shadow in this country very vividly. We knew the toilet well, we studied it contents, we took this "first step" as you, Tom, mention.
What concerns me about what you post is that it is so similar to things I would read way back then. 35 years later, still staring into the the toilet. None of it feels new to me, or revelatory.
In fact, for me personally, putting my focus there, it is a distraction to our taking further steps, building power for making lasting changes, and being the change we wish to see.
There is a big difference between demonstrating against war, ie: making war with war, and Being A Demonstration Of Peace.
Tonight I found myself watching a very, very dark movie from Netflix. Finally I was able to tear myself away, but that took real effort.
I saw how seductive trudging through the sewers can be. To what avail?
Did it elevate my spirit, no. Did it inspire me, no.
The Buddha had this to say: When one is walking through the woods and finds that he has been shot with an arrow, the important thing is getting that arrow out, where it came from does not really matter.
Where would the civil rights movement be today, if Martin Luther King had only stayed with "the first step" in that speech?
Look Before You Leap
Questioning the value of a "one-sided perspective" seems rather odd to me, as virtually all perspectives are one-sided. We see things as either good or bad, right or wrong, positive or negative. Only very rarely, as in Dickens' famous "They were the best of times; they were the worst of times," do we ever encounter a point of view inclusive of more than one side.
As to how much influence we have on our country, it seems to me we have as much influence as we have, not as much as we believe we have. It's an objective thing: You either have the vote or you don't. You either have money to contribute to campaigns or you don't. You either work for political change or you don't. Where does belief enter into it?
"What is the value of staring into the toilet bowl?" Well, if you think it might need cleaning, it might be a good idea to take a good look first to see if in fact it does. The value of taking a good look at a most unpleasant situation, political or otherwise, is to try to come to some understanding of it. What are its dynamics? What is its structure? How did it get to be the way it is? What externally applied forces might impact the situation? Et cetera. Until we understand a situation, trying to affect it in any way can only yield partially effective results at best. And clearly the first step to understanding anything is to have a good look, what some might call "staring."
As far as "what is to be gained by only having our attention there," who ever suggested we only have our attention there? Taking a good measure of the situation is only a first step. First assess the situation, then calibrate one's response, then act to effect the desired change. But first and foremost, have a good look.
"What we focus on does indeed expand." Indeed. So don't get hung up on that first step. But we can't afford to overlook it either. We need to have that good look, without which we shall not understand the problem very well, and will not be able to come up with an optimal solution.
In addition to the above considerations, I think my first post, "The U.S. War Machine" was first of all rather interesting and provocative. That's value no. 1. Beyond this rather limited value, is the value of an accurate assessment of the current political situation. The idea that it's not Bush alone who is ruining the country, but the country itself, by virtue of the fact of 1) the general population mostly just going along with his massively destructive policies, and 2) the nature of our political economy, which has become to an alarming degree a war machine, this idea will need to receive wide circulation and be clearly seen by the American people if there is to be any hope of changing the situation. We are not going to be able to save our country if we don't know it's being lost, and we won't know it's being lost if we don't take a good, long look at it and what's happening to it. Problems cannot be solved if they are not recognized.
As to how much influence we have on our country, it seems to me we have as much influence as we have, not as much as we believe we have. It's an objective thing: You either have the vote or you don't. You either have money to contribute to campaigns or you don't. You either work for political change or you don't. Where does belief enter into it?
"What is the value of staring into the toilet bowl?" Well, if you think it might need cleaning, it might be a good idea to take a good look first to see if in fact it does. The value of taking a good look at a most unpleasant situation, political or otherwise, is to try to come to some understanding of it. What are its dynamics? What is its structure? How did it get to be the way it is? What externally applied forces might impact the situation? Et cetera. Until we understand a situation, trying to affect it in any way can only yield partially effective results at best. And clearly the first step to understanding anything is to have a good look, what some might call "staring."
As far as "what is to be gained by only having our attention there," who ever suggested we only have our attention there? Taking a good measure of the situation is only a first step. First assess the situation, then calibrate one's response, then act to effect the desired change. But first and foremost, have a good look.
"What we focus on does indeed expand." Indeed. So don't get hung up on that first step. But we can't afford to overlook it either. We need to have that good look, without which we shall not understand the problem very well, and will not be able to come up with an optimal solution.
In addition to the above considerations, I think my first post, "The U.S. War Machine" was first of all rather interesting and provocative. That's value no. 1. Beyond this rather limited value, is the value of an accurate assessment of the current political situation. The idea that it's not Bush alone who is ruining the country, but the country itself, by virtue of the fact of 1) the general population mostly just going along with his massively destructive policies, and 2) the nature of our political economy, which has become to an alarming degree a war machine, this idea will need to receive wide circulation and be clearly seen by the American people if there is to be any hope of changing the situation. We are not going to be able to save our country if we don't know it's being lost, and we won't know it's being lost if we don't take a good, long look at it and what's happening to it. Problems cannot be solved if they are not recognized.
What Is Our Dream?
I do not see the value of such one sided perspectives on what is happening in this country.
As I see it, if we believe we have no power to impact what is happening in this country we are right. If we believe we really can make a difference we are right.
What is the value of staring into the toilet bowl? While certainty there is truth to the assessments presented in the previous post, and what is gained by only having our attention there?
What we focus on does indeed expand.
Martin Luther King started out his famous "I have A Dream" speech with a very pessimistic and discouraging assessment of the present situation of the civil rights movement. I women in the audience shouted to out, "Martin tell us your dream!!!" and one of the most famous speeches of all time came forth.
That speech made a difference.
Tell me, Tom, what is the value of the material of your first post to this blog?
As I see it, if we believe we have no power to impact what is happening in this country we are right. If we believe we really can make a difference we are right.
What is the value of staring into the toilet bowl? While certainty there is truth to the assessments presented in the previous post, and what is gained by only having our attention there?
What we focus on does indeed expand.
Martin Luther King started out his famous "I have A Dream" speech with a very pessimistic and discouraging assessment of the present situation of the civil rights movement. I women in the audience shouted to out, "Martin tell us your dream!!!" and one of the most famous speeches of all time came forth.
That speech made a difference.
Tell me, Tom, what is the value of the material of your first post to this blog?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)