Conference hydra::dejavu

    reply to .0,
    
    To me the major portion of the problem is that many people have been
    programmed--trained if you will--to blame others for their internal
    responses. [Jimmy made me feel bad. I hate Jimmy.]
    
    It seems freedom comes from being responsible for oneself.

    
    Perhaps the reason some people hang on to such "programming" is 
    because it provides a known set of rules (however non-sensical)
    to live life by.  They find security in it.  Or they think they 
    do.  I agree that they should let go of it, that that is what life
    is all about - letting go of the parents *and* their effects on us.
    Or rather that is part of what life is about.  But telling someone
    to let go (especially that they "should" let go) often backfires.
    You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him/her drink.
    
    Guy
    

    re: .0 (Jerri)
    
         Nicely put.  Real good and real tough questions for me.  I find
    myself asking some of them and getting some answers and then forgetting
    those answers whenever the feelings arise again. It's true that we
    hold the past hostage and then use it as an excuse.  But what is also
    true is that we often forget without forgiving...and this seriously
    gets us in trouble.  So it seems to me (initially, at least) is
    that it is important to forgive the past, not worry about forgetting
    it or not, and THEN being in the present with the future as the
    pull.  Clearly if one is hanging onto the past "too long", then 
    something else is probably going on.
         There is no end to growth...every answer can provide even more
    questions.  I guess we'll never get bored, huh?
    
    Frederick
    

re: .0 (Jerri)

    I don't think it is as simple as just forgetting.  Surly, there are
    those that are blaming their childhood/past on anything and everything
    bad that happens to them, but then there are those whose scars are so deep
    that they don't even know they exist.  They may be able to recall the
    abuse, fear, etc, but don't really have a handle on how it is affecting
    them now.  They could forget it, as you say, but what about the scars;
    how do they become healed?  It's easy to say, "Why don't you just forget
    it and get on with your life?" but is it so easily done?  It seems to
    me that the "why don't you forget it" approach is typical of our cultures
    insistance of telling us it's not okay to feel.  People who have been
    emotionally injured need healing.  If you break your leg, having a friend
    tell you to forget it won't help, unless of course, it has had a change to
    heal.

    I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I would just like to point out
    that there may more to it than just forgetting.  

    Terry

    Re: .4 (Terry)
    
    I didn't say, or mean to imply, that people should forget.  I think 
    forgetting would be pretty useless; there's much to be learned from
    the things we are involved in, and how we react with them.  My focus 
    was on not giving the "negativities" so much credit and power for
    one's life.  I don't think there's anything wrong with remembering;
    it's how we remember it and what we think about it.  There are ways
    to remember and think about even the worst things, and then 
    understand them and let go.
    
    Jerri

    Thanks for bringing this subject up Jerri.
    
    I am reminded of an "incident" which happened to me some years ago
    (hmmm, not THAT long ago really) of a time in my life that was
    particularly difficult.  As I lay around lamenting, (not as a total
    jerk, mind you, but in my own cool, got_it_together_way_that_is_really_
    a_facade), a dear companion/teacher asked me a question that changed 
    my life.
    
    He asked:  "What would have the greater effect in your life - my
    compassion for you, or your compassion for yourself?"
    
    :-)
    
    Anyway, the notion and experience of compassion, particularly
    *self-compassion*, seems to hold the key for me.  It combines celebrating
    oneself on one hand, and forgiving oneself on the other, as the 
    experience prescribes.  Doesn't always "kick in" immediately, but it 
    takes less time than it use to, thank Gawd.  (No disrespect intended
    Mother/Father/ATI...just a little humor :-)  
    
    Hmmmmm, I wonder if there's an auto pilot switch in here somewhere...
    
    ~~~ tinker tinker tinker (imagine look of concentration) ~~~
    
    Karen                   

re: .0 (Jerri)

>It is not a given that someone with a 
>difficult childhood will be greatly affected by it in their adult life...
>so perhaps it is a choice that this happens.  

Likewise, it is not a given that someone won't be seriously unaffected
by their childhood.

>And perhaps it is more an 
>issue of a person's basic attitude, rather than the obstacles that they are 
>presented with (in childhood and throughout life).  

I don't understand this.  No-one has established that there is such a thing
as "a person's basic attitude."  Could you clarify what you mean by this?
For perspective as to where I'm coming from, no-one has established whether
nature (i.e. genetics) or nuture (i.e. a person's childhood situations)
influences the development of the personality and/or the development of
mental illness.  I will credit you that there is definitely a question
present in the mental health community as to why there are children who
grow up in horrible home situations and who end up not being seriously
damaged by the lack of "nuture."

>If this were true, could 
>it be that more than a necessary amount of focus is being placed on dealing 
>with things from childhood...as dusty relics in an attic...instead of 
>walking out into the sunshine and discovering how to feel it right now?  

I believe that this evaluation would have to be made on a case by case
basis, rather than as a generalization.  There are many circumstances
where it is necessary to confront and deal with the past, two examples
that come to mind are adult children of alcoholics and victims of 
childhood sexual abuse.  (Even here, healing will happen differently
with each person.)

>Is it possible that our preoccupation with the effect of childhood traumas is 
>a way of excusing and hiding from the way we feel about the world in general?  

I don't think you can generalize this.  Each person has an individual
personality (however it was constructed) and each person is at a different 
place in their psychosocial development.

>Perhaps instead of saying, I have this attitude because of my programming or
>"so-and-so"...we could say (and try to feel), "Now just why DO *I* have this 
>attitude...and why am *I* keeping it?"

Yep.  I agree.  That's a fairly healthy way of dealing with reality.  But
I caution making generalizations about people and their process of healing.
Just because someone isn't at this point now, doesn't mean that they
won't be there tomorrow.

>By the way, my credentials for this discussion are that I had a very...

You were very lucky.


re: .2 (Guy)
    
>    to live life by.  They find security in it.  Or they think they 
>    do.  I agree that they should let go of it, that that is what life
>    is all about - letting go of the parents *and* their effects on us.
>    Or rather that is part of what life is about.  But telling someone
>    to let go (especially that they "should" let go) often backfires.
>    You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him/her drink.
    
Guy, perhaps the horse isn't drinking because the horse isn't thirsty.
Or, maybe the horse knows that to drink right now would make the horse
really sick.  

Remember that healing/helping isn't fixing.  A person will heal at their
own rate no matter what anyone does.  All we can do is gently lay
our solutions for ourselves out before them.  And realize and remember
that the solution that works for us, does not/will not necessarily
work for someome else.  

    
re: .3 (Frederick)

>    There is no end to growth...every answer can provide even more
>    questions.  I guess we'll never get bored, huh?
    
Yep.  Right on.

    
re: .5 (Jerri)
>  There are ways to remember and think about even the worst things, and then 
>  understand them and let go.
    
But the ways aren't the same for all of us.  I had repressed (totally - had
no inclination whatsoever) the memories of being sexually abused by my
father until about three months ago.  I need to work through my pain, own it,
deal with it and then move on.  The problem I find is that people who
haven't been through this type of healing process do not know what to do
with me.  People overgeneralize from their own experience which may not
even map to mine.  My point in all this is to caution people, each person
is an individual,  and what may appear to be wallowing in the past, may
not be that at all.

I leave you all with one short story example.  My remaining cat, Caedmon Cat,
has several vocalizations for various things.  Some are obvious, some are not.
A while back, he took to meeting us within a few minutes of our coming 
into the house and giving his "feed me now" vocalization.  Except that
he usually had food in his bowl, so it didn't make much sense to us, though
it was clear that he wanted something.  Turns out that his vocalization for
"feed me now" is indistinguishable (to my ear) from his "I want a visit"
vocalization.  A "visit" is physical contact.  I sit on the floor or
lie down and he stretches out next to me - just contact, no pets except
for a few scratches on the head.

Moral of the story - two very different requests by Caedmon Cat which 
for a time were indistinguishable by me.  And the recognition only
happened after a lot of interaction.  

alison

	re .0-

>I'm very curious...and honestly confused...about why some people find
>it so hard to forgive -- and why we harbor so much anger and resentment?

	It's hard to forgive because sometimes forgiveness is a long, hard,
drawn out *process*. Going through this process and making it to the "other
side" where you can forgive is not a trivial task. "Some people" just dont
have it in them to do so, they cannot see the utility in doing so, and they
choose instead what's _apparently_ easier - staying the same.

>What is it accomplishing?  Don't we feel that we deserve to be happy?

	Yes, a lot of people do not trully feel that they deserve to be happy.
This is a subconscious belief, to which many of these same folks would never 
admit to *consciously*. Yet, they keep setting themselves up for failure and 
continued misery for some reason. The reason is that they believe in their
subconscious that they deserve to be miserable, and as soon as they catch 
themselves being happy, their subconscious gets very creative in "swaying"
their reality back to match this belief.

>Can't we have a little understanding for others, as we would want for 
>ourselves?  What are we so angry about?  Why are we so insecure?  

	It's tough enough to understand one's self, and this has to be a 
precursor to understanding someone else. The anger comes from failing to
understand ourselves, just why we keep doing the things we do, and where
this comes from. It may be apparent to you that you want "universal 
understanding", however, going by what's "apparent", you're really seeing 
only what you want to see, hardly what's actually there. We're insecure 
because we feel the discrepancy between what we think we see and what's
actually happening and cannot understand why.

>Must we attribute our awareness, or lack of it, to our past programming?  
>What are we hiding from, and why are we blaming our lives away?

	Yes, we must. However along with this we must also realize that we
cannot *change* our past and that "blaming" is just a method of blinding 
ourselves to the possibility of change. We are hiding from the possibility
of getting better, because the subconscious picture of ourselves is one of
a sick person, and it's getting very creative in keeping us that way. By
attributing this to our past programming, we realize that our *present*
programming (often a rehashing and reconfirmation of our past messages)
is the only thing which can change our subconscious picture and thus, 
ourselves.

>There is a lot of talk these days about people dealing with bad feelings 
>from their childhood...and sometimes I get the feeling that they place the 
>responsibility for these feelings (and its affect on their lives) on their 
>childhood, not on themselves.  It is not a given that someone with a 
>difficult childhood will be greatly affected by it in their adult life...

	I believe if not a given, then the probabilities are very high. People
dealing with bad feelings from their childhood are in a process of realizing
where they came from and how they were brought about. Yes, one can get stuck
in a endless "Why_why_why_" loop, which is one creativity of the subconscious
that keeps a match between reality and the self beliefs it holds, by thwarting
change. We are not responsible for the feelings that we felt in our childhood;
we are responsible for taking them out of repression by feeling them now. They
will remain intact until we choose to do this, rearing their ugly heads at the
most inopportune moments. After this process is gone through, only then we can 
begin to replace the messages about ourselves which corresponded to these 
feelings with better ones. This is why there's "a lot of talk" about it these
days - people are recovering themselves - which is a process that takes time 
and is filled with obstacles.

	Joe Jasniewski

    When a situation comes up that requires forgiveness, perhaps it's not as 
    important to forgive the other party, but to find a way to forgive *our 
    self*.
    
    Can we find the strength and courage and compassion to forgive our self
    for being vulnerable, for seemingly not being able to take care of our
    self in the manner we would like - endeavoring to guarantee that we will
    never be hurt?  And when we do get hurt, we get pissed off, because
    someone else revealed this so-called vulnerabilty and inability in our
    own eyes?
    
    Can we find the faith (do we have it at all?) to pick our self back up
    and continue on, or are we afraid that we'll just lie on the ground 
    destitute, and not get back up again?
    
    Isn't this what makes forgiveness so difficult?
    
    - Karen
    
         

Some years ago I came up with my own definition of forgiveness:
noticing what someone does is not who they are.  This separates
the player from the piece and move.  Disidentifying oneself
from one's piece is self forgiveness.

Mostly, for me it is recognizing my automaticity and reactions
where I did and said things when I was not fully present and
operating out of old patterns and tapes.  Forgiving myself and
others for unconsicous behavior has been the first step in
letting go.


Larry

    
    re: .10 
    
    Why Larry!  We have the same definition of forgiveness! 
    
    
    Small world ain't it?  ;-)
    
    Guy

    
    	Behaviorists/pyschology states that 90% of what we know as adults
    	we learn before the age of 5.
    
    	I don't think of it as just learning to 'forgive', though I believe  
        that is a part of the overall process toward consciousness/enlighten-
        ment, growth and personal power.
    
    	I see it as understanding the programming.  For most of us, 
    	understanding the weaknesses in our programming is our method of 
        extricating ourselves from the bonds of that conditioning - not a 
        focus of blame and the reason for abdicating our accountability
        for our actions.  

        Most parents, even well-meaning ones like ourselves, do not fully 
        understand the response-abilities we have in introducing this new 
        person into this world...in providing the child with a foundation 
        that includes a healthy self confidence, rationality, and love.
    

Re: .7  (Alison)

I am in agreement with you that individuals act individually; and I did
not mean to imply that everyone should or could act the same.  My comments
were simply meant to question many of us on those subjects.  

For me, those questions were thought-provoking.  Anytime someone offers
alternatives to (or questions) behaviours, it's easy to come up with 
reasons why those behaviours must exist, or must continue to exist, for 
some.  I'm suggesting that there's a new way of being (perhaps for many of 
us), that doesn't rely on these old behaviours -- thus, my questioning.  
It was not an attempt to generalize and define answers for everyone.  It 
is a desire to share with others, the idea of death for certain limitations.

>No-one has established that there is such a thing
>as "a person's basic attitude."  Could you clarify what you mean by this?

Sure.  What I was referring to was my belief in an attitude that is 
perhaps a part of us from the beginning of our life -- an attitude that
is not necessarily a result of our experiences, but rather the thing with
which we initially judge our experiences.  (For instance:  Happy babies vs.
unhappy babies: they haven't had enough experiences to create that behaviour.)

>For perspective as to where I'm coming from, no-one has established whether
>nature (i.e. genetics) or nuture (i.e. a person's childhood situations)

I agree that many things have not been "established"...but if I waited for
things to be established, I'd never learn or do much. ;-)  I trust my own
intuition (somewhat) in directing me down unestablished paths...and asking
questions serves as a way to help clear the path for intuition.

>There are many circumstances
>where it is necessary to confront and deal with the past, two examples

Right; I don't believe I indicated differently.  I don't think the past
is something to be avoided, or ignored, or forgotten.  But I do think that
by asking ourselves questions, we can perhaps see things differently.  My
comments are directed towards HOW we go about confronting and dealing with 
the past -- I think there are many ways to do it, for EACH of us.  I'm not 
proposing an appropriate way for everyone -- I'm questioning the effective-
ness of our current methods (whatever that be for each individual). 

I don't see anything wrong with questioning ourselves, and our current
beliefs and methods about who we are, what we're doing, and why we're doing
it.  That includes the effects of childhood (or other) traumas on our lives,
and how we reacte to them.  Some people may reacte a certain way...but I
believe that those same people can reacte differently too.  So, in that way,
my base note was directed to everyone, and that may be why you saw multiple
things as generalizations -- when really, it's just that I don't see that
anyone could not be questioning their current way of dealing with something.
How else are we ever to evolve individually or as a group?

>>By the way, my credentials for this discussion are that I had a very...

>You were very lucky.

That's one view. ;-)  I didn't think so!  What is luck?

>>  There are ways to remember and think about even the worst things, and then 
>>  understand them and let go.
    
>But the ways aren't the same for all of us.  

Right.  And none of us are limited to one way.

>People overgeneralize from their own experience which may not
>even map to mine.  

Some may.  Some may see other ways too -- which does not invalidate what
you're doing.

Jerri

    
    re: .-1 (Jerri)
    
    I must have mispoken myself quite badly.  I did not intend (and do not
    believe) that we should not ask questions.  Having grown up with the
    dogma of a particularly nasty western religion, I fully realize the
    need for asking hard sharp questions.  Otherwise I would still be
    trapped there.  
    
    Well, any more and I think I'd be flogging the horse that died of
    thirst a few notes back.
    
    alison
    

    re: Joe Jas (a few back)
    
         Pretty good, I think.
    
    re: Alison
    
         It is absolutely true for me that we are individuals and unique.
    I agree that each thing/case needs to be looked at and not necessarily
    generalized.  It is clear to me that reality is subjective and that
    any objectivity lies within the realms of
    conscious/sub-conscious/unconscious reality belonging to the observer/
    participant.  So to fit that to this, yes, consensus view may hold
    and yes, it need not.
    
    re: Jerri (.13?)
    
         I think it's great that you have recognized the possible/probable
    or maybe actual step of jumping sets.  That is, I also believe that it
    is possible to jump sets, to leap from the set wherein the past locks
    us in, to that other set wherein the past is simply "noise" that doesn't
    affect the REAL draw, the FUTURE.  What is important to realize,
    though, from my perspective, is that what some of the others who have
    responded have noted, one may simply not be ready to leap.  How not?
    Well, if I "pretend" to be in another set but am not really there, 
    the chances of later damage will most likely happen.  No we do not
    need to be locked into pasts of any kind, but most of us do/are.
    If we are, we would be strongly advised to hurry up and move on,
    to release the shackles of that past.  Deal with the past in whatever
    method it's appropriate to do so, however much is necessary, then
    be done with it.  
         Let me hypothesize something...say someone has dealt with all
    the things they can think of from childhood (such as when they were
    beaten, etc.)  They then take on the attitude of the here-and-now.
    But somehow they find that maybe they get angry during certain 
    situations.  Now what?  Is this person in the here-and-now?  Are
    they dealing with only the present or is the past still haunting
    them?  Difficult to say...for starters, if one is coming "clean"
    with their anger, that's useful and helpful to them.  But that the
    anger seems to come from a certain situation might be worth
    investigating.  Investigation might lead to remembering the original
    source of that anger.  Or, it might not.  Are they stuck then?
    NO.  IT is then entirely fixable by changing the sub-conscious
    to reflect new beliefs.  It is entirely fixable by meditating on
    that anger and forgiving the source (even if unknown.)  It is 
    entirely fixable by self-forgiving the times the anger is felt.
    REALLY forgiving, not just mouthing it.  
        So, what does all this say?  Maybe not much, but hopefully it
    leads to show that BOTH realities are available and that BOTH
    can be successful.  Eventually, though, I would say that the
    "goal" is to get to the space where the past really doesn't matter.
    BUt that its dismissal has been very consciously worked towards...
    Again, forgetting isn't important...the importance is the forgiving.
    What I talked about above is the "danger" of forgetting without
    forgiving.  So, yes, move into the present, by forgiving the past.
    For each of us the time it takes to accomplish this is different.
    For too many of us, it never gets done.  Jerri, you may have...I
    am still in process, I know it.  But I do believe I see an end to
    it sooner than later.
    
    Frederick
      

Re:  Frederick (.15)

Things to ponder... 

>         I think it's great that you have recognized the possible/probable
>    or maybe actual step of jumping sets.  That is, I also believe that it
>    is possible to jump sets, to leap from the set wherein the past locks

Perhaps they're only perceived as "separate sets" because that's what we
make them.  Perhaps everything is one continuous flow of energy and
experience, and we build the fences.  We may also determine the size of
the fences and how long it might take or how difficult it might be to get 
past them.

If someone isn't ready or willing to "jump" sets (as you say), then there
is no reason that they should.  Usually, there is no one standing around 
saying, "You idiot, you're stuck in the past! Move on!"...except the
individual themselves.  Then the harder they try to move on to where they
think they should be, the harder it becomes.  I think this may be because
they are the ones who built the fences in the first place, so the pretense
and dellusion that they must traverse the fence continues because they
haven't admitted that they put it there.  It's like a game we play with
ourselves.  I don't think there's anything wrong with this other than the
person is usually struggling unhappily.  By questioning our limitations,
instead of defending and defining them, I think we may be able to change
some rules for ourselves.

When we say that facing the past and dealing with it will be a long, hard 
process...then I believe we have just defined and created it!  Have we
ever said, "This will be fairly easy!" ???  Why not?  Why couldn't it be?
The possibilities are endless.  Instead of kicking myself for participating
in various limitations, I try to keep enjoying my life experience...with
the understanding that a lot of it is my creation, so hating it and
resisting it would seem stupid!

>    But somehow they find that maybe they get angry during certain 
>    situations.  Now what?  Is this person in the here-and-now?  Are
>    they dealing with only the present or is the past still haunting
>    them?  

Well, I don't think it helps to judge why they're getting angry...because
the reasons could be endless.  As to judging "what that makes them"...
well, that's just a bummer trip.  I think what is important is to focus 
our mind on realizing the vastness of the Universe...and realizing that the
way we are being is not the only way to be...and in realizing this, we
see how unnecessary so many of our actions are.

I think there are many (perhaps infinite) ways to deal with ourselves, our
lives, our realities, our surroundings.  I don't think there is a particular
way to do it, nor do I think it's something we must strive for and
accomplish.  I think the self-improvement path, in many ways, is like a
carousel -- we go round and round and round, until we get tired and get off.
Perhaps that's when we feel the most relief and freedom.

Maybe our quest to disect our feelings and thoughts and actions is the 
stage and drama we have created for pretending to teach ourselves something.

>    For each of us the time it takes to accomplish this is different.

Yes, because we are all writing our own scripts.  Do we want to kick 
ourselves for the script we are writing?  Well, we can if we want.  That
could be part of our script too.

Jerri

    RE: .0 Jerri
    

>> ..............................It is not a given that someone with a 
>> difficult childhood will be greatly affected by it in their adult life...

This may be true, but we also must keep in mind that a person may be
greatly affected by their difficult childhood experiences in ways that
they may not attribute to the experiences, i.e. the experiences helped
to build a strong character, or a compassionate heart, or a joy in the
real beauty of life, etc.  The effects are not always necessarily 
struggles and anger and resentment.  Does that make the process
any more worthwhile?


>>so perhaps it is a choice that this happens.  And perhaps it is more an 
>>issue of a person's basic attitude, rather than the obstacles that they are 
>>presented with (in childhood and throughout life).  If this were true, could 
>>it be that more than a necessary amount of focus is being placed on dealing 
>>with things from childhood...as dusty relics in an attic...instead of 
>>walking out into the sunshine and discovering how to feel it right now?  

I feel that we make choices on many different levels, and that we come into
this life with a basic pattern of potentials.  Our basic pattern and the
environment we are born into interact with one another to create our egos.
This ego is created in the most expedient way possible so that we can
deal with our environments, and this becomes our survival mechanism.  The
process is the same but the results are purely subjective.  I believe that
the large amount of people involved in this process of reflection is a very
important sign.  It is important for us to do this.  The basis of it all is
that we are making the choice to recover the joyful, loving souls that we
are.

>>Is
>>it possible that our preoccupation with the effect of childhood traumas is 
>>a way of excusing and hiding from the way we feel about the world in general?  
>>Perhaps instead of saying, I have this attitude because of my programming or
>>"so-and-so"...we could say (and try to feel), "Now just why DO *I* have this 
>>attitude...and why am *I* keeping it?"

Yes, some may get stuck in the past and continue to place the blame there
for all the troubles in their life.  I think it is important to remember
that some people might have more of a tendency to do this than others, and
it would be based on their basic pattern of potential that I mentioned 
above.  The approach to the world that you are suggesting may not be as
easy for some to do as others.

>>By the way, my credentials for this discussion are that I had a very
>>difficult and unstable childhood, experienced a mentally crazy atmosphere 
>>complete with lies, confusion, and manipulation through terror, and was 
>>physically abused.  I have never felt a need to blame my past for the
>>quality of my current life.  I've viewed my life in phases, which I've
>>passed through and let go of.

As I said above, where you are today could be directly attributed to
where you were yesterday - the effects happen to manifest in a different
way.  I do appreciate and applaud what you have done, and do enjoy the
fullness of your presence.

>>I'm trying to learn and understand why some of us hold on to, or feel 
>>trapped by, the *shit*, instead of living our lives anew.

Because people's basic patterns are different.  Some have stored away
their feelings into much deeper recesses than they are able to reach.
And these buried feelings are running their life.  To make a journey
into dark places like that takes courage indeed.  

Oh, and just one other thing...about anger.  I believe that anger
repressed is debilitating and destructive; anger owned and expressed
can be constructive and healing.

Carole

    
    re: .16 (Jerri)


I know I may regret this in the morning, but I have this unquenchable
desire to play with thorny problems.............

>When we say that facing the past and dealing with it will be a long, hard 
>process...then I believe we have just defined and created it!  Have we
>ever said, "This will be fairly easy!" ???  Why not?  Why couldn't it be?

aahh...... I think this is the root of what has been gnawing at my mind.
You appear to be working from the assumption that we must choose, define,
create, etc whether something will be a hard process or choose that it
will be an easy process.  

My question is, why predispose yourself by choosing one or the other?
Why not just be and let the process flow around you, being at any given
point in time, whatever it is at that point in time?  Why limit or bias
your experiences?  A choice to believe some process will be easy is no
different than choosing it will be hard.  How about not choosing anything
and just experiencing the interactions which occur?

And here are a few more related questions:
Why is having something be easy preferable to having something be difficult?
Why is it necessary to quest after happiness? or easiness?
Why not grow and learn via what is presented in your reality? (Frederick,
how does this tie in with what Lazaris says?)

I believe from here we can branch neatly to what is the point of existance?
Is it to be happy?  Is it to grow (gain knowlege, wisdom, understanding, etc)?
Is it to help others? ......Get the drift?  Because our perception of
'what's the point of coming down from the trees anyway?' will directly
influence the responses to the above questions.

Comments?

alison

Re: .18  (Alison)

>You appear to be working from the assumption that we must choose, define,
>create, etc whether something will be a hard process or choose that it
>will be an easy process.  

No, I don't think we must.  But I think that we do.  I'm suggesting that
we may be in habits of seeing things as difficult, but that there may be 
many other ways to see those same things.  I don't think we should try to 
make things "good" or "easy" unless we want to.  My life has been full of 
difficult challenges which is something I like (in moderation). ;-)  If 
it was always good and easy, it might be boring.  But it is my feeling 
that many of us forget that for those difficult paths, there are easy 
ones too.  We become so convinced that it can be no other way for us.  I 
just think if someone considers the possibilities, it removes a lot of 
the trappings.

>How about not choosing anything and just experiencing the interactions 
>which occur?

Well, I think we do make choices all the time...but I don't think there's
a particular code for what we should be choosing -- and I don't think I
said that.  What I've been talking about (in this note) is how people may 
be fighting with themselves over the limitations that result from their 
own creations and beliefs.  Suggesting that there are other possible 
choices does not mean that I'm making rules about what those choices must 
be -- and I'm wondering why you might think I'm saying that?

Jerri

    re: .18 (Alisonwonderland  ;-) )
    
         I have a strong tendency to agree with Jerri over this and
    yet something (an undefined fear) says, "wait."  So, I don't know
    if what she says is a greater truth or not, all I can say is that
    if so, I'm not there yet.  Also, I would see it as an ideal, perhaps
    to strive for, if I accepted it.
    
         What does Lazaris say over this?  Well, perhaps if I had that
    one down pat, I'd have an easier time figuring this out.  But what I
    *do* know he has said is that we (ALL humans) are here to do different
    things (different focuses) with two exceptions.  *ALL* of us share two
    common focuses (purposes, reasons) and they are: 1. To have FUN and
    2. to CONSCIOUSLY create success.  
    Fun he describes far more fully than what it originally gets seen as,
    (for reference either listen to one of several tapes or read an
    article he wrote for BODY, MIND SPIRIT magazine a few months ago
    wherein he elaborates more fully.)  Having fun, basically, is seen
    from the Higher Self point of view.  To the extent we can merge with
    our Higher Self is perhaps how we can separate from the illusion of the
    reality and enjoy it from that vantage point.  This really fits in
    well with what many say about enjoying life around us.  
        Why make life easy?  Well, clearly we don't have to since most of
    us don't.  BECAUSE WE ARE ATTACHED TO THE PAYOFFS!  Payoffs could 
    quickly be defined as negatives used as reinforcements.  An example
    of a payoff is self-pity (for the rest of them, they are listed in
    the volumes I typed in reply 358 somewhere.)  Those of us who are
    into self-pity (and all of us are at some point) do it because we
    LIKE it...maybe not consciously, but perhaps sub-consciously or
    un-consciously.  Because it can allow us to FEEL.  Because we have
    insulated ourselves from feelings to such an extent that it takes
    block-buster emotions to make us feel alive...and self-pity is a
    block-buster!  So, while we could learn *easy*, we don't.  We learn
    *hard*.  Does this need to be expanded on?  But this is why Jerri
    is correct to pursue this thought.  Because we really *could* make
    the "happy" choices and we don't.  Because we enjoy our shit too much.
    Not just you...ALL of us do.  
    
         As I typed this I recognized that something that bothers me about
    "Jerri's approach" is that it seems quick to go to the unconscious.  
    Maybe I'm not correct about this, but that is one of my fears.  I
    know that I will return to the unconscious "one day" but that I
    will/must do it consciously.  And prior to that I will have gone
    to my sub-conscious, ALSO consciously.  The fear is that I will do
    both of those from OTHER THAN conscious choice.  WE (humanity) have
    already done that.  We have already passed from our higher
    consciousness through unconsciousness and sub-consciousness to get
    to consciousness.  The return trip back to higher consciousness is by
    doing them again, only consciously this time, coming from the
    conscious mind.  So there is at least one of my fears.
      
         Also, learning and growth can be faster with ease and fun
    than with struggle and hardship.  Why is it necessary to go after
    happiness?  Well, it's a choice but one that you will eventually
    make, since the universe is a "happy" place.  Only "we" aren't
    happy.  But to resonate fully with it, so, too, we all will harmonize
    with it.  Sure, we can learn from the reality, but why learn from
    an unpleasant one?  If everything else holds true, then it is 
    undoubtably also true that we have already experienced dozens or
    hundreds or thousands of other incarnations wherein we experienced
    "shit."  Why do it again?  (For "old times' sakes?"  ;-) ) So why
    not make THIS reality THE ONE that experiences the fullness of what
    love and happiness are?  To fully accept the love of the universe,
    to fully merge once again with the Higher Self?  Choices, always
    choices...
    
    Frederick
    

    I haven't read all the replies - stopped at .8.  Some things come up
    for me... some estimates are that over 90% of us come from a family
    that is in some way disfunctional.  This doesn't have to mean overtly
    alcoholic, sexually abusing, or addicted.
    
    There is a wonderful book called "Healing the Shame that Binds You"
    by John Bradshaw.  His thesis is that most of us come from families in
    which shame is the pervasive emotion.  Where shame is used to control
    children's behavior.  Where shame is used to try to change anyone
    else's behavior.  Where one's acting 'correctly' and always being right 
    is an attempt to block the basic shame, and pass it on to others.
    Where EVERY addictive behavior is seen as an attempt to block the basic
    pain.  Where eventually the family dynamic is such that not only 
    behavior is shamed, but each family member's very SELF is shamed - this
    Bradshaw terms 'toxic shame'.
    
    So my current belief system says to someone with a 'bad childhood'
    (most of us), that "Putting It All Behind Me" is only massive denial.
    There is a way out - to work with an addictions counselor who does
    anger and grief therapy.
    
    karl

re: .19 (Jerri)

>What I've been talking about (in this note) is how people may 
>be fighting with themselves over the limitations that result from their 
>own creations and beliefs.  

Ok.  Apparently I was reading much more far reaching depth into what
you were suggesting.  If in fact you are non-judgementally stating that
some people are hitting their heads into brick walls of their own making
when they could alternatively follow the garden path to the other side,
then yep, ok, fine.  No problem.  That wasn't the impression I got from
the emotional overtones of .0 (which >>>TO ME<<< sounded judgemental.)
I agree that there are people who are stuck in the game of what we used
to call in the context of T.A. as "Aint it awful."  Proposing that
there is another alternative to this is fine.  However, again I caution
that you use care when tossing out the validity of what appears to you
to be negative self feeding behavior.  

>Suggesting that there are other possible 
>choices does not mean that I'm making rules about what those choices must 
>be -- and I'm wondering why you might think I'm saying that?

I was dealing with your suggestions as first principles, which was the
context I was speaking out of in my previous note.  As you say, you are 
suggesting choices, not roots of a philosophy of life.  You are reading
my note from your context, and I was writing from mine.  

Does this make sense?  Ask if it doesn't.

In the meantime, I'm going to go bury the dead horse from a few notes 
back.

alison

    
    re: .22 (Alison)
    
    Is that the same horse that didn't want to drink when led to 
    water?   All this talk of horses is confusin'....;-)
    
    Guy

    
    re: .-1 (Guy)
    
    Yes, same horse.  Actually it did drink, being talked out of its
    inner belief that driniking wasn't good for it at this time, and
    found that the water was indeed laced with arsenic.  The horse's
    dying though was "Should have listened to my higher self. - gasp -
    I'll have to remember that next time.....around....." 
    
    ;-) ? %-}
    
    alison
    

Re: .22 (Alison)

>If in fact you are non-judgementally stating that...

Is that the condition that would make my comments valuable? ;-)

>However, again I caution
>that you use care when tossing out the validity of what appears to you
>to be negative self feeding behavior.  

Thanks for the caution.  I am not tossing out the validity of anything.
I think the idea of "negative self feeding behaviour" may be the way you 
see it.

Just because I see potentially more productive alternatives...and 
potentially self-defeating behaviours...and am willing to discuss them 
in the open, does not mean that I am belittling anyone.  Any questioning 
we do of ourselves, each other, our behaviour, and our beliefs, can 
quickly be linked to being "judgemental" or "unrealistic" -- as a way of 
discouraging it.

>As you say, you are suggesting choices, not roots of a philosophy of life.  

What difference does it make?  I think you may be trying to disect [to an 
extreme] my comments and ideas, and I think that's a real effective way of 
destroying any benefit that might arise from them.

I'm not telling you or anyone else what to do, Alison.  I'm not into the
trip of telling people how it IS because I don't think any of us knows.
I'm questioning myself and the world (which includes all of us).  If I 
think it could be self-defeating for people to do certain things, and I 
express that -- I guess I must take the title of being "judgemental".  
However, there may be some value for some people to consider those things 
for themselves and find their own answers.  

Maybe we (the human race) ARE being ignorant or unaware (or whatever word
any of us can deal with) -- in a lot of ways, for crissakes!  It's 
possible, isn't it?!  Discussing it may be tricky, but may be very 
necessary!  I don't think I've been rude or acted like an authority, and
I don't understand the little "hand-slaps" you seem to have been giving me --
unless, of course, you think you are an authority.  Let's not get into
tip-toeing so carefully that our feet never fully experience the ground. :-)

I think (in general) your replies have presumed a lot of things about me...
many, despite comments I've made that have indicated otherwise.

There are many ways of being.

Jerri

re: .-1 (Jerri)

I get the drift we are miscommunicating.  I've tried to clarify some of
the things that I have said.  My intention in responding to this base
note and replies has been to offer my perspective, my opinion, my feelings.
My intention has NOT been to attack you, accuse you, judge you, and
whatever other negative things your reply may indicate.  I'm sorry that
we are having such trouble communicating.  (Though considering the 'bareness'
of electronic communication, it's amazing this cross communication doesn't
happen more often. ;-) )


>>If in fact you are non-judgementally stating that...
>
>Is that the condition that would make my comments valuable? ;-)

No.  My agreement does not add or detract from the value of your comments.
What I was trying to say was that I felt, for me when I was reading
your initial note, that your point of view sound judgemental.  You
have have said that is not true.  Ok.  I read the tone wrong.  Sorry.
It's one of the detriments of electronic communication.  Sorry for
misinterpreting you.  In the above comment, I meant only that I 
agree with you if it is, and may or may not if it isn't.

>>However, again I caution
>>that you use care when tossing out the validity of what appears to you
>>to be negative self feeding behavior.  
>
>Thanks for the caution.  I am not tossing out the validity of anything.
>I think the idea of "negative self feeding behaviour" may be the way you 
>see it.

Sorry.  Once again I misinterpreted your potential feelings about
'all this stuff' from the 'vibes' I picked up from your base note
and replies, and also from my reaction to the words you used.  I
take responsiblity for it.  As to how I see it, no I don't see
a person facing the darker aspects of their lives as negative
self feeding behavior.  For some people it's true, which I recapped
in my last reply.  If I did see it all that way, then we wouldn't
be having these lively discussions. ;-)

>Just because I see potentially more productive alternatives...and 
>potentially self-defeating behaviours...and am willing to discuss them 
>in the open, does not mean that I am belittling anyone. 

I did not in any way mean to imply that.  I'm very sorry that I did not
speak clearly enough.

>Any questioning 
>we do of ourselves, each other, our behaviour, and our beliefs, can 
>quickly be linked to being "judgemental" or "unrealistic" -- as a way of 
>discouraging it.

Yes.  Exactly, I agree.  I'm just hypersensitive to people (not you,
other people I have known) trading one set of judgemental rules for
another set.  One of the 'wonderfulnesses' of what is happening in
pockets of our society today is that people are continuing to question
ways of thinking, modes of life, etc.  I think I must have said the
wrong again.

>>As you say, you are suggesting choices, not roots of a philosophy of life.  
>
>What difference does it make?  I think you may be trying to disect [to an 
>extreme] my comments and ideas, and I think that's a real effective way of 
>destroying any benefit that might arise from them.

Sorry, just being philosophically nerdy.  I was trying to explain why
you and I were getting tangled up in what each other was saying.  Guess
I didn't make it clear here either.  My intent was not to put down your
ideas.  I was just trying to get a grip on the scope.  I don't agree,
though, that disecting systems of behavior down to their roots can
destroy the benefits.  If an idea is solid, it will hold up ( and I'm
not saying anything judgemental about what you have written.  This is
just a general statement of something I believe.  No implications intended
other than to say on this point I disagree with you.)

>I'm not telling you or anyone else what to do, Alison.  

I misunderstood the tone of your base note.  Sorry.

>I'm not into the
>trip of telling people how it IS because I don't think any of us knows.
>I'm questioning myself and the world (which includes all of us).  If I 
>think it could be self-defeating for people to do certain things, and I 
>express that -- I guess I must take the title of being "judgemental".  

I misunderstood the tone of your base note.  This is a good example,
though, of why I keep misunderstanding you.  Here you say "If I
think it could be self-defeating for people to do certain things...."
Ok, to me that sounds like you are meaning 'all people', because you
don't specify 'some people'.  This is what has prompted me to state
that you sounded judgemental.  See?  And that's why I kept adding the
caution, because of my sensitivity (hyper - maybe) to treating all
people as one large homogeneous group.  I'm not saying I'm right.  Just
trying to explain why some of my misinterpretations happened.

>However, there may be some value for some people to consider those things 
>for themselves and find their own answers.  

There's a lot of value to it.  I regret that I presented myself in such
a way as to make you think otherwise.  We're in violent agreement on
this point.

>Maybe we (the human race) ARE being ignorant or unaware (or whatever word
>any of us can deal with) -- in a lot of ways, for crissakes!  It's 
>possible, isn't it?!  

Possible?  I'd say it's on the order of 'Does the sun rise each day?'
(excepting Mass., where it is questionable whether the sun actually does
rise in the winter. :-) )

>Discussing it may be tricky, but may be very 
>necessary!  I don't think I've been rude or acted like an authority, and
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I don't remember saying that.  I did say that to me you sounded judgemental.
I tried to clear that up further back in this note.

Yes I agree, discussion is very necessary.  My intention was not to kill
discussion, but rather to sharpen up the edges and make things more clear.
It sounds like I didn't succeed.

>I don't understand the little "hand-slaps" you seem to have been giving me --
>unless, of course, you think you are an authority.  

I don't understand what you're refering to here.  I don't view myself as an
authority on much of anything, except maybe some of the stuff I work on
at work (but that stuff is finite.)  I think a lot of our problem is
miscommunication.  There seems to be something in my tone that sets
you off and something in yours that sets me off.  If you want to, I'd
be glad to further explore that via mail.  

>Let's not get into
>tip-toeing so carefully that our feet never fully experience the ground. :-)

???? Me no understand.

>I think (in general) your replies have presumed a lot of things about me...
>many, despite comments I've made that have indicated otherwise.

If you want to talk about this one more via mail, I'll be glad to.  I did not
intend to presume things about you.  Though, I guess interpreting the emotional
tone of your writing is presuming, so I guess I did.  But I really did
pick up on your comments as you wrote them.  Honest. 

>There are many ways of being.

Just about as many as there are individual souls, and probably several
infinities more. ;-)

alison

Re: .26  (Alison)

I don't think I can effectively express myself much differently than I 
already have, but I will comment/answer on a few things you said.

>I don't agree,
>though, that disecting systems of behavior down to their roots can
>destroy the benefits.  If an idea is solid, it will hold up ( and I'm

I don't think there are any "ideas", especially in the subject matter
we are discussing, that cannot be disected (mentally) to death by 
someone.  There are no absolutes that we all agree on...and that's why
we share perspectives.

>I misunderstood the tone of your base note.  This is a good example,
>though, of why I keep misunderstanding you.  Here you say "If I
>think it could be self-defeating for people to do certain things...."
>Ok, to me that sounds like you are meaning 'all people', because you
>don't specify 'some people'.  This is what has prompted me to state
>that you sounded judgemental.  See?  

Yes, I can see how you might see that.  I think there were many other
things I said, though, that could have helped show my meanings and
intent, despite the occassional abscence of a specific word.  I've 
done my best to communicate effectively.  I can only hope that most 
people did not misunderstand my overall meaning.  

>>Let's not get into
>>tip-toeing so carefully that our feet never fully experience the ground. :-)

>???? Me no understand.

I said that because, with all of the tip-toeing around being "judgemental" 
(and I think many of us use judgement as a way to determine the paths we 
want to take), we may tip-toe ourself right into a severe case of cramped 
toes.  I think anything can be taken to an extreme.

Fare thee well.  No hard feelings.

Jerri

I believe that when we speak, we can only speak of ourselves...
  "I experienced X, and I felt Y, and I did Z"
  "If I were to experience X, I would like to feel Y and do Z"

When we hear someone else make a statement in which their
Ys and Zs don't correspond to our Ys and Zs, we fail to
recognize that *neither is incorrect.*  

Most of us live in a reality of rights/wrongs,  blacks/whites,
goods/bads, attacks/counter-attacks,  [dualities ad infinitum]...

To change it, we just have to change.

/bruce

Locally irrelevant digression follows the formfeed...

�  "I experienced X, and I felt Y, and I did Z"

 Is there any "real" separation/distinction between Y and Z?
   between X, Y and Z?

Anybody wanna start another note?

    

    
    Ongoing excerpts from "Bradshaw On: The Family" by John Bradshaw can be
    found in note 688 of this conference...
    
    Cindy

    I believe its a conscious choice to either feel pain and go with it
    all through life, using it for whatever purpose we need it for or to
    dump the garbage we drag around with us and DECIDE to let hope and joy
    into our lives.  We feel pain until we decide not to anymore.  Its as
    simple as that.  We are free spirits!

    
    We never weather the storm by storming the weather.
    
    You can't put things across by getting cross.
    
    When a man is wrong and won't admit it, he always becomes angry.
    
    Speak when you are angry and you will make the best speech you will
    ever regret.
    
    To take the wind out of an angry man's sails - stay calm.
    
    
                                          RM