| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 966.1 | Too fatalistic for me. | WRO8A::WARDFR | Going HOME--as an Adventurer | Tue Jan 24 1989 14:37 | 10 |
| re: .0
If nothing else, I object to the passivity, almost futility
that the words "ACCEPTING your own reality" say or imply.
The words, as a philosophy, do not have the strength they need
to stand on their own. While I could agree to acceptance, there
is nothing in the words that conveys a potential for upward change.
Frederick
|
| 966.2 | Keep on going, Bruce! | USIV02::CSR209 | | Tue Jan 24 1989 15:34 | 9 |
| Accepting one's reality is a tough opening step for many people.
To me, it is the foundation for change. Attaining an on-going
recognition of a changing reality ia a continously active process
to me, not passive , not futile.
I think this is a good new direction.
-roger
|
| 966.3 | 2 cents | EXIT26::SAARINEN | | Tue Jan 24 1989 18:09 | 17 |
| I agree..what comes your way in life, can be bigger than you
are. I am talking major changes death,divorce, babies, sudden
sickness, having a gun pulled on you on a dark city street... etc.
Even have your spiritual cover blown...Who Meeee cheat on tax returns?
No I would NNeeevvveeerrr do that.... ;-)
It's enough to be able to deal with these things gracefully and
with dignity, and not like a wimpy shmuck, who has to run to his/her
local resource of spiritual enlightenment to find out what to do
next.
I agree this is not passive, to deal with accepting your reality
with a style that manifest positive intense courageous loving
energy is a mark of somebody who has it together on the spiritual
plane as far as I am concerned.
-Arthur
|
| 966.4 | | GENRAL::DANIEL | | Tue Jan 24 1989 19:15 | 4 |
| In order to get "there" from "here", one has to start with the "here" that is.
If I'm trying to get "there" so hard that I am not totally "here", it will take
me longer to get "there" because I'm losing the present moment by not being
"here".
|
| 966.5 | Reply | CLUE::PAINTER | To dream the impossible dream... | Wed Jan 25 1989 11:07 | 156 |
| Hi Bruce,
You've raised some interesting points. Here are my responses to a few.
Cindy
=========================================================================
RE: 965.1 (Sloane)
>Often the wish is not even real. It does not correspond to the true
>world or to a the real problem.
Yes. Good point on the map that Peck discussed - we all have to find our
particular spot on the map before we can adequately travel from that point.
Know thyself - this is true.
>The first step is to accept the reality of your life today.
Yes, this is true. Forgiveness and understanding are also 2 very important
points to accepting reality, especially if it is/has been a particularly
bad one.
>THE PARADOX OF THE GREAT CHANGERS
>Those who have changed the world the most have been the greatest
>dreamers. They have also been the greatest realists. Jesus, George
>Washington, and Martin Luther King were all dreamers. But their dreams
>were firmly grounded in truth and reality.
From "The Sacred Journey" by Lazaris (only quoting because it is said
far better in this book than I can think of saying it at the moment):
'A "space cadet" is either someone who is hiding in their
adolescent fantasy, which they never really want to have manifest,
or is someone who is dreaming a dream that no one understands yet.
Certainly Albert Einstein was considered a "cadet". In fact,
Einstein had a dream one night. He dreamed about what it would
be like to ride on a beam of light. He was so taken with this
dream that he could not let it go. He was a "cadet" with a dream
that no one could even begin to understand. He was a "cadet"
until that dream evolved and manifested into the Theories of
Relativity." (end of quote)
Back to my own comments:
Einstein was also very much a realist, however until he was able to put his
dream in terms that others could understand in a more practical sense,
he fell into the 'space cadet' category. Along these same lines,
Martin Luther King had the vision that all people would be free. He
started small, but there are lots of people who are far too cynical to
believe that ultimately world peace will only take place in an
environment of MAD (mutually assured destruction). Yet I have this
feeling that ultimately this is what King's vision/dream also had in it.
>He (Washington) accepted the realities of war, including the human
>tragedy of death. He accepted the possibility of failure. Had his view
>of reality been less accurate -- had he been too optimistic and
>overconfident, or if he had underrated his strengths -- the war might
>have had an entirely different outcome.
Yes, the risks must always be taken into account. While light, fluffy
dreams are wonderful, Peck writes in "The Different Drum" that one way
to trust and world peace is NOT to take the locks off your door if
you're living in the middle of a city, because you won't be ripped off
tomorrow - you'll be ripped off tonight!
>Martin Luther's King's dream (only partially realized at his death) is
>well known. His dream was sweeping and all-encompassing. He succeeded
>because the dream itself was firmly grounded in reality. King did more
>than merely accept the reality of racial injustice. His reality
>included an understanding of the social, institutional, and individual
>underpinnings behind the facts. His map was accurate. He knew where he
>was, where he wanted to go, and how to get there.
I sincerely do not believe that I, or anyone else, fully understand
the entirety of the dream that Dr. King was attempting to describe.
Along the same lines, there were many people who would have taken a look
at the same situation and say, "IMPOSSIBLE!". You cannot possibly get
there from here. There are still people saying that today. Lots of them.
Do you believe the reality proclaimed by the 'IMPOSSIBLE' crowd, or do
you believe Dr. King's and that crowd?
>The great world changers have three things in common:
> o They accept reality, themselves, and the world as it is, good
> and bad.
> o They set realistic goals for change. The goals are visionary,
> but achievable.
> o They formulate realistic plans for achieving the goals.
> o They realize that the world and reality is constantly
> changing. Sometimes the change is for the better and sometimes
> it is for the worse. Because reality is changing, goals and plans
> must be revised to fit.
>There is nothing magical about this.
Yes. This is reality creation (the last part). There really is
nothing magical about it. I think I can, I think I can...and then go
DO it! Nothing really out of the ordinary about this. But a lot get
told "I don't think you can." and they believe it. And feel powerless.
>Most of us don't have the administrative genius of George Washington
>or the horizon-extending visioning of Martin Luther King. But we can
>use these exact same techniques in our daily lives: Accepting reality,
>setting realistic goals, formulating realistic plans, and revising
>goals and plans as the world changes.
But we can dream. And then we can work at making our dream a reality
(aka: reality creation), which is precisely what you are describing.
At the Lazaris 1989 session I attended in Florida in December, what you
say about setting realistic goals, plans and revising them is almost
word for word what Lazaris said there. We must have realistic priorities.
I have a list - a personal list which is separate from my JP&R here at work.
Kind of a New Year's resolution list, if you will.
>The keystone to these steps is "reality" and "realistic." Foremost
>among them is accepting reality.
>If your views of the world are not realistic, your goals and plans
>will be out of touch with reality, and you will stand little chance of
>realizing them.
True. One can 'blue-sky' all day, but at the end of that session,
some goals and objectives based on the blue-sky proposals/dreams must
be the next step. Talking about a worldwide network with thousands of
nodes is one thing, but then we have to get the hardware built, the
software coded, the people trained, etc., before it will become reality.
Nobody said it would be _easy_.
>These people tend to make the same types of mistakes again and again
>through their lifetime. One of the goals of psychotherapy and other
>types of counseling it to help people view the world more
>realistically.
Not only this, but people tend to also carry these mistakes again and
again into future lifetimes as well (if you believe that sort of
thing).
As for the _realistic_ part, well, my guidance counselor (a _trained_
psychologist was being _realistic_ when he thought I shouldn't pursue an
Engineering Science degree. I managed to overcome his _realistic_ (limiting)
view and went on to earn my degree nonetheless. Surprise, surprise!
If you think you cannot, then you won't (succeed). If you think you can
and really work hard at it, then you probably will (succeed).
More to follow.
|
| 966.6 | Some Things to Consider | MOSAIC::R_BROWN | We're from Brone III... | Fri Jan 27 1989 16:29 | 75 |
| Bruce:
Accept Your Own Reality has certain elements I agree with. It also has
certain elements that I do not agree with.
I agree, for example, that those who brought about great change (for
good or ill) were dreamers rooted in "reality". I also agree with the
idea of getting to know oneself and setting "realistic" goals for oneself.
My problems with AYOR are related to your implied definition of reality.
Part of my objections, I grant, are emotional. Your discussion of
"reality" reminds me of certain elements of my own experience. "Realistic"
people, with the best of intentions, have attempted to make me conform
("for my own good", of course), to their vision of reality. And when I have
set for myself goals that they disapproved of, I was considered "unrealistic".
Examples: In grade school, my teachers were certain that I would not
complete high school. When I got academic scholarships to private schools,
my teachers there were certain that I wouldn't get to college. In college,
I encountered "experts" who thought that the most "realistic" career for me
was in art or sociology (in fact, it was "realistic" for all Blacks
at Duke University to be artists, sociologists, or athletes!). When I
suggested that my career would be Engineering, I was laughed at for being
"unrealistic". When I became an engineer at Bell Laboratories, it was
considered "unrealistic" for me to even dream of developing my engineering
career any more than I had.
Many years and many promotions later, I laugh; it seems that all of my
"unrealistic" goals were attainable after all.
The examples above are, admittedly, emotional, but they illustrate an
important point: when you have chosen to accept your reality, whose reality
are you actually accepting?
"Reality" has some universal elements. When anyone releases an object,
it will fall to the ground unless some force holds it up. If I stab, shoot,
or choke you properly, your body will become inert meat, whether you
believe in death or not. The process of birth is the same for all humans,
regardless of their beliefs. These and other aspects of reality are universal.
They cannot be changed by us, whether we accept them or not.
But whenever human minds interface with "reality", there are different
interpretations. Each of us has his/her own view of what reality is. This
view is influenced partially by the universal aspects of reality -- but is
also influenced by our experiences within the reality and our relationship
to it. No one -- including you or me -- can really say what reality really
is.
Reality according to many teachers, engineers, and others did not
include me making a successful career in engineering. I rejected their
reality and became very successful.
Dr. King, according to you, set realistic goals for his movement. I
agree with you. Unfortunately, there are many who did not see his goals as
realistic. This is why his dream is, to this day, unrealized. In the
reality of some today, King was a great man. In the reality of many others,
King was a communist who threatened this country. This is one reason why so
much of what he has accomplished is being reversed today.
I believe you are right about accepting your reality, but I also believe
that the reality you accept must be your own. No matter how "realistic" a
person thinks he/she is, the reality he/she is accepting is always
influenced by feelings, desires, and biases. No human being is completely
objective. No human being has a corner on what is real. This, possibly, is
the only true reality there is.
What you have said so far is good, but in my opinion AYOR will not be a
viable philosophy unless the issues I mention here are addressed.
Okay, I've said my piece. You folks may flame when ready.
-Robert Brown III
|
| 966.7 | Acceptance is the first step... accept responsibility | HSSWS1::GREG | Malice Aforethought | Fri Jan 27 1989 20:09 | 93 |
| re: .6 (Robert Brown)
About the only thing I'd be inclined to flame you for is
using a weak example to illustrate a very valid point.
Nevertheless, I suppose your example will 'reach' more people
than a more obscure one might, so in that way perhaps your's
is better than mine.
Accepting your reality is an essential step to creating it.
If you do not accept what is, you cannot build upon what is to
make it into what will be. Yet we need not accept anyone else's
definitions of "what is", we create our own definitions from
birth forward. Others may seek to impose their definitions on
us, but unless we accept them as valid they hold no weight with
us.
Of course, almost anyone will be able to ascertain that a
properly placed bullet or blade will end their life. By
accepting that, they make it real for themselves. You might
say they have no choice in the matter, but in fact they do.
As you mentioned, some things from the ETIC reality simply
will not cease to exist just because we don't believe in
them. Yet, until they enter our EMIC reality they do not
exist for us. If I do not believe bullets kill and you
shoot me, my death confirms that bullets kill, and death
becomes a very real part of my reality... the last part.
You see, there really is an element of choice. If I
go around believing bullets won't kill, then I may feel
empowered to confront armed felons. I might actually get
away with it once or twice, and be labelled a hero for
doing so. Of course, this same heroic attitude might lead
to me running into the path of a bullet. If that happens
then I'd probably be labelled as a dead hero, or just
plain foolish. Either way, my reality was one in which
bullets do not kill... and having that reality I felt free
to do what others are not able to do. By creating a
death-free reality I was able to live closer to the edge
than most.
That's the power of reality creation. Now, once we get
away from these bipolar examples (life/death, heroic/idiotic),
we see that the power is just as useful. For example, I have
created in my mind the reality that I am a published author.
I even have a couple of stories in print to prove it. Two
years ago I had not written anything more significant than
a program.
By creating the reality in my mind that I am an author, I
have begun to adopt the attitudes and actions of an author.
I have written several stories, and sent a few out to
publishers. This may not seem like such a great deal, but
the truth of the matter is that had I not first decided that
I could write then I would not have developed the skills of
a writer.
In the longer term, I am creating the reality of being
wealthy (no specific dollar figure attached, just comfortably
above the upper middle class). As long as I believe I am
becoming wealthy, then I will continue to become wealthy.
My attitudes drive my actions.
If, on the other hand, I had no confidence in my ability
to write, and I accepted that most authors never get published,
and I acknowledged that the odds against my becoming wealthy
were very steep indeed... well, I probably would not achieve
these goals. That's the dark side of reality creation. You
can make your life miserable, if that's the reality you are
focused on. I choose not to accept that reality.
My neighbor is a good example of this. She is a God-fearing
woman who thinks money is the root of all evil. She loathes
having to work every day just to pay bills, and would rather
spend most of her time meditating and praying. As a result,
she does not last long in any job she accepts (usually quitting
for some moralistic reason after only a couple of months),
and has spent the bulk of the last three years on welfare and
unemployment. Her daughter has learned that women don't need
to work to live comfortably, and I suspect she will carry on
her mother's tradition. She has created the reality that
poverty is survivable (even normal).
Yet she whines and complains about it all the time. She's
forever talking about how the world treats her like shit.
She refuses to accept that she is bringing this upon herself,
often blaming God for her misfortune. It's really sad to see
someone who plays the victim so completely.
Accepting your reality is essential, but accepting it as
being unchangable is ridiculous. Take responsibility for
your reality, and you will have the power to alter it.
- Greg
|
| 966.8 | Well Put | CARTUN::MISTOVICH | | Mon Jan 30 1989 12:18 | 4 |
| re: .6
Thank you. Extremely well put, nothing to flame. And _I_ don't
believe your examples were in any way weak.
|
| 966.9 | Response | CLUE::PAINTER | Wage Peace | Mon Jan 30 1989 17:57 | 16 |
|
Re.6 (Brown)
Hi Robert - excellent note! I know where you're coming from - all
too well. (;^)
Re.7 (Greg)
I don't think this is a 'better than' or 'worse than', since this
isn't really a game (unless you would like to make it one, and I
don't really think you are consciously trying to do that). Your
writings are appropriate for some, and Robert's writings are
appropriate for others. Win-win situations are by far the most
elegant of all, I find.
Cindy
|
| 966.10 | | TOPDOC::SLOANE | A kinder, more gentle computer ... | Wed Feb 01 1989 16:39 | 37 |
| Re: .6 - Robert
I agree with you completely - the reality you must accept is what
*you* believe - not what someone else thinks you should accept.
You accepted your own inner reality, and that helped you to achieve
what others thought you never could do.
Accepting reality also means accepting negatives that are real, and
I think this is where I disagree most strongly with the YCYOR group.
For example, I have lousy hearing and wear hearing aids in both
ears. When my hearing first began to deteroriate, it took me several
years to accept the fact that my hearing was so bad that I needed
aids. This was rejecting reality, a reality that I or anyone else
was powerless to change.
Some of the YCYOR followers would say that the reason I have poor
hearing is because I have chosen (either in this life or a previous
one) to have poor hearing. And, by extension, the YCYOR group says
that we actually choose the misfortunes (and good fortunes) of our
lives - even going so far as to say if a woman gets raped it is
because she has chosen to get raped.
Most of YCYOR sounds to me like 18th century Calvinism and
Predestination: whatever happens to you in life happens because that is
the way you want it to happen, but if it happens some other way,
then that is what was supposed to happen.
If you had followed your advisors' advice years ago, and never went to
college or earned an engineering degree, then you would have created a
reality which reinforced the other people's views of reality (i.e,
Blacks can't go to college/become engineers, etc.). Because you
accepted your reality and not theirs, the outcome was different. But
the first step was for you to accept your reality - then you could go
about making it happen.
Bruce
|
| 966.11 | Re.10 | CLUE::PAINTER | Wage Peace | Wed Feb 01 1989 18:55 | 80 |
|
Bruce,
This is about as close to a flame as I get. Here goes...
>Accepting reality also means accepting negatives that are real, and
>I think this is where I disagree most strongly with the YCYOR group.
>For example, I have lousy hearing and wear hearing aids in both
>ears. When my hearing first began to deteroriate, it took me several
>years to accept the fact that my hearing was so bad that I needed
>aids. This was rejecting reality, a reality that I or anyone else
>was powerless to change.
I know of a person (who actually reads this conference from time
to time) who grew up in an abusive household situation which was
extremely bad. This person's eyes were tested at 20/200 in the
early years. After this person moved out of the house, the vision
problem went away and now it is 20/20. Explanation - she didn't
want to _see_ what was going on because it was so terrible, and
this thought manifested itself through the physical form.
Now, I'm not going to say to you that this is the reason behind
your poor hearing, because I don't know you and this isn't mine
to say anyway. It is, however *possible* that there is an emotional
cause behind it, though it might take several years to uncover what
it is. I say this because I used to suffer from severe migraine
headaches. It has taken me YEARS to get to the root of them, and
yes, they are related to my relatively abusive childhood mentioned
earlier. I still have them, but now I know that eventually I will
be able to overcome them completely (which, interestingly enough,
was when I first used a Lazaris tape and found that at the end I
was completely pain-free without taking medicine). The mind is
a truly incredible and powerful thing. I could choose to believe
that I must _accept_ my headaches (_accept_ my reality) and that's life
forevermore. But since I haven't, and have opened myself up to
the possibility of alternative treatments, I have found possible ways of
getting out of this current situation. Let me also add that there
is absolutely nothing wrong with using aids (glasses, aspirin, hearing
aids, medicine, etc.). But if you completely discount the possibility
that there MAY BE a connection between the mind and body (that there
may be an emotional reason behind your poor hearing) in your case,
then yes, you will have to accept your reality as is, because for you
there is no other. There isn't even the POSSIBILITY of another. And
that's fine too. I'm not trying to convince or convert you. I
can only speak from my own experience.
>Some of the YCYOR followers would say that the reason I have poor
>hearing is because I have chosen (either in this life or a previous
>one) to have poor hearing. And, by extension, the YCYOR group says
>that we actually choose the misfortunes (and good fortunes) of our
>lives - even going so far as to say if a woman gets raped it is
>because she has chosen to get raped.
WHY IS IT I GET THE FEELING THAT YOU HAVE COMPLETELY IGNORED WHAT
I'VE WRITTEN ABOUT THIS? <Now change back to lower case.>
>Most of YCYOR sounds to me like 18th century Calvinism and
>Predestination: whatever happens to you in life happens because that is
>the way you want it to happen, but if it happens some other way,
>then that is what was supposed to happen.
No further comment, unless you are willing to discuss this with
me directly, since anything else written here would be a waste of my
time and effort.
>If you had followed your advisors' advice years ago, and never went to
>college or earned an engineering degree, then you would have created a
>reality which reinforced the other people's views of reality (i.e,
>Blacks can't go to college/become engineers, etc.). Because you
>accepted your reality and not theirs, the outcome was different. But
>the first step was for you to accept your reality - then you could go
>about making it happen.
It would sound to me like he created a new reality instead of accepting
concensis reality at the time.
Cindy
|
| 966.12 | in line with .11 | ATSE::FLAHERTY | Nevermore! | Thu Feb 02 1989 08:58 | 19 |
| Bruce,
I recently attended a lecture given to a packed auditorium by
Dr. Bernie Siegel, author of Love, Medicine, and Miracles. A large
part of his message was exactly what Cindy points out in reply .11.
The direct connection between the mind and the body. Illness being
the manifestation of our our thoughts; be it stress, fear, anxiety,
whatever, it will eventually express itself through the body in a
form of 'sickness'.
I might add that at the end of the lecture, Dr. Siegel received a
standing ovation from the audience which consisted mostly of people
in the medical profession and cancer patients.
No flames, just giving some information that you may want to think
about...
Ro
|
| 966.13 | Further Thoughts | MOSAIC::R_BROWN | We're from Brone III... | Thu Feb 02 1989 13:26 | 69 |
|
In reference to 966.10 (Bruce):
It appears that we have, to some degree, established agreement on
certain aspects of the issues I've raised.
At the same time, however, much of what you are saying is in agreement
with YCYOR -- at least YCYOR as I understand it. And while your reply was
enlightening in some areas, I still have questions (objections?) that
remain unanswered.
For your information, I am not a follower of YCYOR or any of its
variations, though I am familiar with the philosophy. My own philosophy
has certain elements which happen to be in "agreement" with certain aspects of
YCYOR, and, I am discovering, "agrees" also with certain elements of AYOR.
I am still unclear on exactly how AYOR deals with "reality". Though
966.10 (and some previous replies) have said much about accepting
responsibility for one's reality, I have seen very little in the philosophy
that really helps one define the reality that one is accepting.
My initial objections to AYOR were based on my perception that AYOR is
fatalistic; that is, that we are born into a reality that must be accepted.
But by acknowledging different "realities" for different people, you appear
to be closer to YCYOR than you may realize.
I am beginning to suspect that your objections to YCYOR are less against
the philosophy itself than the way many people have interpteted/
implemented it. I am uncertain, however; I must gain more information about
AYOR.
Believe it or not, the acceptance of one's inner reality is an important
aspect of YCYOR; it is only misinterpretations and corruptions of that
philosophy that have caused the idea of acceptance to be "lost".
I think what I am trying to get at is this: in what way would a follower
of AYOR determine his/her inner reality?
In YCYOR, one's current situation, good and bad, is first known and accepted,
then changed. This is based on the idea that all things in one's life are a
reflection of one's attitudes and beliefs. Change the inner beliefs and
attitudes, and the outer world will change accordingly. This is the basic
YCYOR philosophy: that one's outer experience is determined by one's
interior outlook. All else springs from this premise.
How does AYOR differ? From what I have seen so far, it would appear that
AYOR disagrees with some of the superficial beliefs associated with YCYOR
(such as reincarnation and personal choice of all experience, good and
bad), yet agrees (at least in principle) in describing what is required to
make positive (or negative) changes in our lives.
Is there a process that a follower of AYOR would use to determine
his/her inner reality? Is that process different from the one used by
YCYOR? In short, what is it about AYOR (other than superficial
disagreements about theories of "soul - choice" and such) that distinguishes
the reality "accepted" by a follower of AYOR from the reality "created" by a
follower of YCYOR? On a practical level, how are they really different?
I suspect that the answers to these questions will not only answer my
objections to the "reality" implied by AYOR, but will also make clear any
real or perceived weaknesses in the YCYOR philosophy that AYOR seeks to
overcome.
Despite my stated misgivings, I look forward to learning more about
AYOR.
-Robert Brown III
|
| 966.14 | There are limits, but they must be found. | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Thu Feb 02 1989 14:16 | 21 |
| I too have a problem with the YCYOR system, but I understand the
problem with AYOR; to whit, the meaning of "accept".
I would now like to offer a metaphor to demonstrate what I think
is the Unified Field Theory of both systems:
There is a genuine, real objective reality in which each of us
lives. Think of it as a room, with a floor, four walls and a
ceiling. Things like "gravity is thirty-two feet per second per
second" and "oxygen is twenty-one percent of the atmosphere and
is required by all living things for respiration" make up the real
boundaries of the room.
Each of us stands in the room. You may think of us doing it all
together, or each of us being alone in this same room.
Now, what each of these philosophies is saying is:
STOP STARING AT THE FLOOR. THERE IS MORE TO LOOK AT.
Ann B.
|
| 966.15 | WIR (What Is Reality) ? | IJSAPL::ELSENAAR | Fractal of the universe | Fri Feb 03 1989 09:22 | 81 |
|
RE last few
Especially Ron's words appealed to me. I also feel myself swaying between YCYOR
and AYOR, but I can't find the words to express. Yet I try. It's a long reply:
first I explain my feeling that we basically *are* talking about the same, and
then I try to compare that to some of Ron's words.
Let me introduce the basic concept I am using. We never defined "reality",
right? So we all could be right, for several reasons:
1. we are talking about different things
2. we are using words to convey the same message, but it's a difference in
interpretation of the words.
About the first. What are we discussing? An example: suppose you stumble over
a chair. Do you regard the chair as part of the reality, or the event of
stumbling over it? Or both? I feel this as a tricky question, since my first
reaction always is: the chair, but after some thinking, I arrive at the
conclusion that the chair may or may not be part of the reality, but the
stumbling really is!
If we accept the chair as part of the reality, then I would advice to start
AYOR very quickly: you may stumble over it in a few seconds! ;-)
If not, then what we view as "reality" basically is the "set of interaction
between me and the rest". Since that is always related to one's own beliefs,
we are entering a very difficult area. What, then, is the difference between
"acceptance" and "creation"? Acceptance seems to convey some sort of initiator
outside yourself, while creation puts the initiative inside. But now we enter
the realm of the second statement. Is this difference relevant? Only if you *add
meaning* to it concerning your attitude towards future events, or events that
are happening now.
For me, it is a constant changing between actions that I would describe as
"accepting" and actions that I would describe as "creating".
Please let me not have the feelings of guilt when my son dies, by saying I
created that reality, thus implying some form of guilt: realize that the end
result of complete acceptance is the same as the end result of creating a new
reality in this case. But also: please let me not get the feeling of passivity
when the whole world seems to conspire against me by suggesting I have to
accept. Yet realize that the end result of creating a new reality would have
been the same as the end result of complete acceptance of the conspiracy.
D**n it is tricky to use language to explain beliefs. But am I close to your
thinking, Ron?
> My initial objections to AYOR were based on my perception that AYOR is
>fatalistic; that is, that we are born into a reality that must be accepted.
Yes, we are born in the "chair reality". Then we start to interact.
>But by acknowledging different "realities" for different people, you appear
>to be closer to YCYOR than you may realize.
This comes close to my view that it is basically *not relevant* whether or not
the chair is part of reality.
> I am beginning to suspect that your objections to YCYOR are less against
>the philosophy itself than the way many people have interpteted/
>implemented it.
Oops Ron. For me, a philosophy IS COMPLETELY EQUAL TO the way people
interpret/implement it! Since a philosophy is a mental entity, there is nothing
left when you separate the interpretation and implementation from it.
But now I am playing words, I guess. I feel what you mean, and I agree, but have
no words to express it.
>.... In short, what is it about AYOR (other than superficial
>disagreements about theories of "soul - choice" and such) that distinguishes
>the reality "accepted" by a follower of AYOR from the reality "created" by a
>follower of YCYOR? On a practical level, how are they really different?
To me, I guess they are as different as what people are doing with it. Two YCYOR
(or AYOR) followers can come up with two completely opposite choices, whereas an
YCYOR and an AYOR follower may end up in choosing exactly the same.
Arie
(BTW it will take more than a week before I enter the discussion again: I have
accepted the reality that I am on vacation in a few hours ;-) Yippee!)
|
| 966.16 | | GENRAL::DANIEL | | Mon Feb 06 1989 16:39 | 14 |
| Re; the neighbor who would rather stay home meditating and praying and wishes
she didn't have to go out to work; complains about being on welfare and poor;
The trip-up about YCYOR for me is this; When I find myself talking about what
someone else's reality is doing for them, I'm ignoring the fact that because
this person is doing this in MY reality, what I perceive is MY issue. Now,
because you have told me about this woman, she is MY issue, too. What is this
saying to me about myself? A lot, actually.
So, instead of saying, "She should really listen to her reality!" what I need
to be saying to myself is "What does my perception of her reality say to me
about myself, my own reality?"
Just try doing that all the time! I find it hard.
|
| 966.17 | How close are you getting? | WRO8A::WARDFR | Going HOME--as an Adventurer | Mon Feb 06 1989 16:59 | 24 |
| re: .16 (Meredith)
Well, I'd agree. But what may help is in seeing "near" versus
"far" (sounds like something I've laughed at in "Sesame Street".)
To the extent it is in your life could be seen as the extent of
the issue for you. Hearing about 40,000 children dying in Africa
each day of starvation is different than observing your mate
dying of the same thing, or you yourself experiencing it. We have
thousands, perhaps millions of separate issues, each of us experiencing
not only different qualities of them but quantities, too. Just
"observing" an issue does not make it a *priority*. One of the
biggest jobs we have is discovering "common threads" and reducing
the biggest blockages down to their core emotions. My opinion is
that resolving those will result in fewer "related" emotional issues
(a trickle-down sort of effect.) And that those types of issues
will be further and further removed from you the closer you get
towards resolving the "blockage." So, from my perspective, unless
you keep getting the message, maybe it isn't too "important."
Idealized, one could say then that resolving all the blockages (to
self-realization, love, etc.) will result in a reality free of
these "dramas." For me, that's the point.
Frederick
|
| 966.18 | | GENRAL::DANIEL | | Mon Feb 06 1989 20:07 | 38 |
| > -< How close are you getting? >-
This brings up the next thought!
>But what may help is in seeing "near" versus
>"far"
Circular motion. Things are either moving toward me or away from me. I used
to think like the woman being talked about there, that I wanted to stay home
and meditate all day and resented working to get the bills paid; all of that.
Now I hear it about her, and I think to myself, gee, that used to be a lot
_closer_ to home than is it now. So in effect, she's a barometer for my
development.
>(sounds like something I've laughed at in "Sesame Street".)
I like that show, too!
>"observing" an issue does not make it a *priority*.
Agreed.
>My opinion is that resolving those will result in fewer "related" emotional
>issues
We share that opinion.
> And that those types of issues
> will be further and further removed from you the closer you get
> towards resolving the "blockage."
Kind of like in circles toward me or away from me, which is from where I got
the term, "circular effect"
> unless
> you keep getting the message, maybe it isn't too "important."
I hope so; that much input would be a bit hard to take %^} !
|