Forgive the Good and Bad - Part 2

Over the last several days, I realized that promising to continue this brief chat about forgiveness was not such a great idea. I cannot explain what I feel about forgiveness with any kind of cogency without first bringing in the heavy weaponry of Kant’s Moral Imperative, Joseph Campbell’s ideas on the many myths of humanity and the modern notion of universal morality of Derek Parfit. But, promise is a promise...

The perception of right and wrong is, inarguably, relative. Historically, it seems that definitions of what is wrong and what is right are first developed by a small group consensus. They are further implanted into a larger group, tribe or a population with the help of some duress, punishment, and positive or negative reinforcement. In a very short time, they become values by which that population lives.

Even so, not all members of the group recognize the absolutes of those values. Some begin to act on their own perceptions of what is and what is not OK to do and attract the wrath of the majority. Next, follow the laws and the prescribed punishments for their infraction.

Just by looking at the Google News headlines, it is obvious that whatever you and I may consider right, someone in the world will consider wrong. While most of us will agree that beheading journalists with a knife is morally abhorrent, the radical Islamists consider it a high accomplishment.

What in the world does this have to do with forgiveness? I’ll get to that in a minute. But, first, I want to exclude certain items from requiring forgiveness. That would be unintentional actions like stepping on someone’s foot, spilling the coffee or breaking a nice vase. We only apologize for those to reinstate the fact that we didn’t do it on purpose.

Then, the forgiveness is only needed for purposefully hurtful acts that were carried out for a reason. But, since all rights and wrongs are relative, forgiveness is but a statement of disagreement with the other person’s ideas of right and wrong; or good and bad. Does it follow then, that forgiveness is nothing more than a simple judgment of Good and Evil as prescribed by whatever belief system we may find ourselves in?

And, does it further follow that, if we are able to release ourselves from the confines of those rigid belief systems, we would find that we have to forgive less and less? What would it be like to never have to forgive anyone for anything? What would it feel like to be unafraid of being “wronged”?

That would really be getting it “right”, won’t it?

Forgive the Good and Bad - Part 1

Just watched a movie that had a story in it. That narrative got me thinking about forgiveness, what it is and where it comes from.

The story goes something like this. Two Coonhounds grew up together. They came out of the same litter, lived in the same household for twelve years and were inseparable best pals; as tight as any two dogs can get. After a Thanksgiving dinner, one of the guests throws down a turkey leg and it falls squarely between the two dogs. A bitter fight ensues. Tooth and nail. It’s like they never saw each other before. Finally, one dog prevails and things fall quiet. A half-hour later, both dogs were sleeping comfortably, curled up together on their cedar bed, one’s dog’s head resting on the other’s leg.

The short tale made me remember an episode from my own life. A much smarter man than I once told me that forgiveness is nothing more than relieving oneself of the necessity of taking revenge. It hit me like a mile-long freight train and I just sat there, unable to say anything. I contemplated a response for a few minutes. “But, but… I think it’s more like stopping to feel angry at the other person. Like, no longer hating him for doing something…” He didn’t hesitate, “What is anger and hate but the fear of being wronged?”

If there were no humans on the planet, there would be no need for forgiveness. Animals don’t seem to feel anger. They feel aggression and they act on it. But, afterwards, there is no hatred or anger, no scheming for revenge, no hidden resentment. In nature all things are good, right and just. But, in the eyes of man some things are right and others are wrong.

As I ruminate on this now, I feel that without getting into the concept of right and wrong, the notion of forgiveness makes little sense. Would there be a need to forgive someone if there were no right and wrong, or good and bad? And, what path lead us to hold those polar opposites in such high esteem?

I looked at many sources and there seems to be a point where they all converge on the reason for the delineation between Good and Evil. Ben Fountain deftly puts it: “The Force of Good always refers to something beyond ourselves - we negate ourselves to serve this higher thing. But Evil is pure, evil serves only the self of ego, you are limited only by your imagination.” We hold the concept of Good as a higher place to go to. The Evil is where we dwell, the Good is where we aspire to rise.

(To be continued...)

Terms that Defy Defining - Part 2: Compassion

“Compassion” is another word that has been greatly endeared by the folks “out there.” It is used in all sorts of context, by the “left” and by the “right”, even to anthropomorphize inanimate objects. The New Age hails it as one of the highest currencies to have in one’s personal possession. It is used metaphorically and allegorically in the popular literature and on the web.

I asked a few men and women to define “compassion.” Some reasonably complete answers followed, most of which centered on feeling sorry for someone and, commonly, trying to immediately lessen that person’s pain.

That seemed close to the popular culture interpretation. To confirm, I looked it up in the dictionary and discovered that the word “compassion” has its root in the Latin “compati”, which means “to suffer with.” Reading further, I found that in modern American English it describes a “sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.”

When I read this definition, I felt uneasy. Ever since I was a child, I learned that pitying a man is a form of belittlement or disparagement. It is saying that the person is powerless. It is implying that he has no part in the creative process of his own life as it happens. I learned that pity has little to do with clarity. But, it has a lot to do with a fear of how you may feel if the same thing were to happen to you.

As for concern, it is virtually meaningless today. Organizations are “concerned” about the environment. The government is “concerned” about the wellbeing of its country. People are “concerned” about being overweight. How much action comes from “being concerned”?

For the sake of what I write, I use the term “compassion” to describe something different. It is feeling all that there is to be felt and doing exactly what is needed. No less and, definitely, no more. More is not better.

Of course, we need the ability to feel and to see clearly in order to practice compassion. It would be quite a task to apply this kind of compassion from inside of a “box of myths.” It may be possible, but I have never tried.

In my view, compassion has to be imbued with awareness and understanding: awareness of what is and understanding of the potential outcomes of the taken action. “Shooting from the hip” of raw pity is a poor tactic to accomplish what is truly needed.

I spent a significant amount of time training to handle various emergencies. In virtually all situations of that kind, the first thing I’d do is to slow down and count to ten. That count allows me to feel what is happening, regulate my emotionality and to see a clear course of action. The action itself comes next.

Compassion works similarly. Slow down. Feel. Stop projecting your past fears onto the future. See the path you need to take. Do what needs to be done.

Terms that Defy Defining - Part 1: Love

As I keep stacking more words onto my blog pages, I notice that I use words that may have different meanings to different people. Such as “love” and “compassion.” Love for oneself, love for the world, compassion for those next to you.

Admittedly, these terms are in vogue now. So much so, that some “talking heads” elevated them to a “fad” status. You can’t walk by a newsstand or scroll down a portal page without tripping on a “love” of one kind or another, or a “compassion” for these or those. But, I haven’t seen a single footnote with a definition of either.

What I’d like to do here is attempt to define these terms for the purposes of what I write. Just so we have “common terms of discussion.” Or, “speak the same language” or “are on the same page.” Whatever cliché pleases you the most.

If you’re looking for the world’s authority on love and compassion, I urge you to navigate to a different web page, for the simple reason that I am not. This caveat taken care of, read with caution.

I remember my first girlfriend, at a fragile age of fourteen. I was in love, then I loved her, then I loved her quietly after the Atlantic separated us a year later. The feeling went from a burning excitement of her proximity, to a level blue flame of a maturing relationship to yellowish embers that could have only been seen in the dark of a night’s dream. I used the word “love” to describe all of those feelings. Was it, really?

Fast-forward to 1982 and the book by M. Scott Peck. I read “The Road Less Travelled” two years before it made it to the best-seller list. Even though at first Peck said that love was too great and too deep a concept to grapple with, he relented a bit further down the same page and offered a definition. I remember reading there that love is a genuine caring or concern for another’s personal growth. It is where you extend yourself in order to help another person grow. If I apply this definition to my first girlfriend, I didn’t love her at all. I did not extend myself in any conscious way to help her grow as a person. What was it that I felt for her?

A friend of mine was visiting recently and asked me what I thought it meant to love yourself. Whoa! This is getting complicated. How do you extend yourself to help yourself grow? I didn’t know what to say…

Perhaps, Dr. Peck’s definition isn't going to work for me all that well. Undaunted, I kept searching and searching. Webster’s, Oxford Dictionary of the English Language, Pablo Neruda, Dalai Lama, Rinpoche Trungpa, Thich Nhat Hanh and, even, the Bible. Pointless. Everyone has his own take on love. No one seems to want to converge on a single definition. Instead, they keep making the concept more and more grand, deeper and deeper, unwinding the ball of yarn out into the great spiral of the Universe. What to do?

I like to make things simple. Mainly, because I feel that it's easier to build a castle with a thousand simple blocks than to carve it out of one block of granite. So, how do I make love simple? I can’t. It's just too big to simplify. All I can do is explain what I feel.

When I say “love” in this blog, I mean a certain, identifiable feeling inside that makes us care. And, care deeply. Regardless of the fact that we may be intellectually aware of how unimportant the object of our caring is in Universal or, even, global terms. “Love” here is some form of regard for ourselves and others that allows us to do the best we can without holding back. Even if the castle that we build will blow away with the morning breeze.

Whatever you do, don’t let me stop you from choosing and using your own definition of love. If you come up short, don’t worry. No one REALLY knows what love is, anyway. Go with what you feel rather than what you think.

Making a Statement or Taking a Stand?

What does it take to read a passage out of the Bible? Out loud. Or, a quote from Bernard Shaw or Martin Luther King? Or a paragraph from Mein Kampf? A basic ability to read and speak, no more. It doesn't require any understanding, insight or reason.

What does it take to dress up in Goth, get a tattoo, pierce a tongue and eyebrows and die the hair neon green? A basic navigational skill to find a tattoo artist or a head shop and some "jingle" in the pocket.

I hear and see it several times a day. People making statements with others' words or with the borrowed looks. Is it bad? I don't think so. I think that they are exercising their basic right of expression and it is something I would fight for myself.

What I want to look at is the notion of making a statement versus taking a stand. And, I don't find it easy to write this page. So much goes into taking a stand.

What is a "stand"? For me, fundamentally, it is when I am completely in the “now” and am fully occupying my space. What that means is that I leave no empty holes for other people’s energy to enter and to take me over. It is when I know what I want in that precise moment and move confidently through it.

Making a statement is not the same as taking a stand. Anyone can get a bumper sticker or a baseball cap and make some statement with that. Anyone can quote some political figure du jour. But taking a stand is different. It is choosing yourself over all others. It is expressing your love for yourself above all else. It is respecting yourself and trusting yourself. It is saying, “My spirit is not for sale at any price!”

Most people never take a stand. They simply act according to their rigid belief systems. Those systems were forced into them during their upbringing by their society, culture, or “tribe.” (We may recall here that if people confine themselves within the belief system and follow its rules, the "tribe" will extend its protection over them. So, the belief systems are not entirely useless.)

These people are unable to imagine that there is another way to be, act, think or see the world. The cannot conceive of the idea that what they think is “the truth” is nothing but a “myth.” They work really hard at trying to convince others that their view is the only right view. The think that they "know."

If we are to take a stand for ourselves, we must have a clear vision of what is happening around us. We must open our eyes. We must move our fear into our "back pocket" and see the things we don’t want to see. Ignoring “what is” may work for a while, but it is a poor strategy for growth.

We must understand that something inside us makes us want to shut our eyes and pretend that things are not as they are. We must understand that something inside us wants to bargain or rationalize away the clarity and engage in make-believe. We must see the strong programming that runs inside and decide for ourselves whether we want to allow it to keep running.

Once we decide to open our eyes, it will be both frightening and inspiring. The scary part is the fact that we'll see so many things that we didn’t know existed. We will see things for what they really are. The "box of myths" will be sent to the closet to gather dust. But, without myths in the way, the trees no longer block the view of the forest and navigating through through life is easy. It will be kind of like eating salad without any dressing. The flavors will not be hidden by oil and vinegar. We can taste individual ingredients and eat only the ones we want.

So, back to taking a stand. Learn to see what is. Decide what you like in the moment. Allow others to do the same. Maintain your space. And, finally, speaking of quotes, remember this one. "If you find yourself arguing with an idiot, who is the bigger idiot?"

Unconventional in a Conventional World Part 4: Control

For the most part, conventional people live within a structure that has been imposed on them. It is very rare that a person will consciously choose to live within a rigid belief system unless that system has already been installed in him/her at some previous time.

Because they live in an imposed world, they are rarely differentiated and rarely have a sense of themselves. They are rarely aware of their own energy. But, everyone needs energy. So, even if you don’t know how to release or generate your own energy, you still need to get it somewhere, right? The easiest way is to get it from other people.

That is the essence of control from the energetic perspective. If you control another person, you take his energy. The more energy you take, the more powerful you feel. Most of this happens unconsciously, done by a “program” that was installed early in life. Almost all people seek control of others, and it takes conscious, disciplined training to do otherwise.

As you work on your differentiation, you will need to start to recognize when people are attempting to control you. I will describe four basic control tactics that will likely cover 80% of the cases. Two of them are aggressive and two of them are passive.

The most aggressive tactic is the “intimidation.” It works on the basis of creating a fear for safety, either emotional or physical. Because the words are just as powerful as the fists, most intimidation happens without any physical contact or harm. Once the person is afraid, he gives up his energy to the intimidator.

The next tactic is the “interrogation.” This is a tactic of asking a question in order to criticize the answer. Criticizing makes the person feel small, insignificant, stupid, or unworthy. Once a person feels that way, his energy goes to the interrogator.

The third tactic is “withdrawal.” This is where a person distances himself and waits for the other to make the first move. The person who reaches into the “withdrawal” gives up his energy. This is a passive tactic, but is very effective and is very commonly used.

The fourth method is the “victim.” The person will play the victim role and appeal to the mercy of another, or will use the “guilt trip” in order to gain the energy. ("Guilt trip" is when you make the other person feel guilty for what they have done or are doing.)

In order to recognize when others want to control you, you need to see how you try to control others. What do you think your tactic is?

Unconventional in a Conventional World Part 3: Differentiation

So, if you’ve figured out how to have discipline in your life and how to look forward to your practice, you’re ready for this. What do you practice to gain the ability to function in the world of closed-mindedness? Differentiation is a fundamental currency to have in your personal “wallet.”

What is “differentiation”? Again, it is not easy to fully explain on one page, because there is so much to it. But, on a simplistic level, it is where you can fully know that you are your own individual self who is different from any other person. It is where you feel wholly as yourself, not requiring anyone else or anyone else's opinion of you to feel complete.

There are four basic elements of differentiation.

First one is the ability to maintain the sense of separateness in close proximity to another. This means that even as you are fully connected to another person, you feel that you are separate and different. Non-differentiated people cannot maintain the sense of themselves and get lost in others. Two non-differentiated people may both lose the sense of themselves and become some “third” blended entity with unclear borders. If one person is more differentiated than the other, the less differentiated person may become lost while the more differentiated person will have the controlling advantage.

The second element is the non-reactivity to other people’s reactivity. If it’s a case of another person’s reaction to you, it is sort of like playing a bad game of ping-pong. You serve, the person on the other side returns it, and you let the ball drop. If it’s a case of another person’s reaction to someone or something else, you would simply observe his reaction without reacting to it yourself. Again, if you get caught in the reaction-to-reaction endless loop, you will lose yourself and be drained of your energy.

Third comes the ability to self-regulate your emotionality so that you can use your mental processes of judgment and reason. To clarify, “emotionality” isn’t the same as “emotions.” Simplistically, emotions are what you feel. In a more complex way, emotion is a feeling state that is created without conscious effort; it happens without your control. Emotionality is how you experience your emotions, which, in turn, determines your behavior in response to those emotions.

Unregulated emotionality kills judgment and reason. It is impossible to see clearly when the emotionality is "running the show." Emotionality will use fear and imagination to create pictures of the future in a person’s mind. At that moment, the sense of self disappears.

To self-regulate your emotionality you have to observe and feel your emotions and then make conscious decisions about how you want to experience them by using your mental awareness. This allows you to see “what is” and to maintain your sense of separateness.

The fourth and last thing is the ability to tolerate pain in order to achieve growth. It doesn’t require much explanation. However, there is an interesting twist to pain. Our minds don’t allow exact recollection of past pain. What we do recall is only a general mental description of that pain, primarily that is was something to avoid in the future. Regardless of any positive outcomes of past pain, we tend to want to avoid more pain. The lesson here is to remind yourself to accept that growth requires pain.

Well-differentiated people can participate in any system, no matter how rigid, without being captured by it. They maintain their individual emotional, mental and spiritual freedoms and are never controlled by the external pressures.

Well-differentiated people can tolerate and enjoy both intimacy and aloneness. Intimacy isn’t possible without the ability to self-disclose. Differentiation makes that possible. Loneliness anxiety results from a fundamental breach between what one is and what one pretends to be. Differentiation allows a person to know and feel exactly what he/she is and makes pretending unnecessary. (In this case, when I say "pretending" it means "unconscious pretending." Pretending consciously would be called "acting" or "camouflaging.")

Have fun with this one!

Unconventional in a Conventional World Part 2: Discipline

How to do it? It’s taken me many years of asking this question to gain some understanding of what it takes to be full of color in a world that demands us to be black-and-white. I must say, however, that, even after a lifetime of looking at this, I still continue to get new bits and pieces of information on how to do it better. Keep in mind that what I write here is still a work-in-progress and is subject to revision.

I think I want to start with discipline. It is an element that’s required for any kind of “practice.” Whether it's athletics, college studies or baking bread, you need to practice it to gain a deeper understanding. As the old saying goes, “You don’t really know what it is unless you get at least to the middle of it.”

As long as we’re talking about conventionality, the conventional people view discipline as a form of self-suppression. It’s where you have to resist and fight your desires in order to get something else done. For example, an overweight person must resist and fight his desire for food in order to lose weight. Or, when a video game junkie makes himself study while he resists his desire for playing games.

Discipline by self-suppression may bring results in the short term, but it never works in the long run. (Of course, as John Keynes said, in the long run, we’re all dead) It doesn’t work for one simple reason. Self-suppression attempts to combat the desires and to keep them as deeply buried and unexpressed as possible. Of course, something that is suppressed must come out sooner or later. Desires tend to come out fairly quickly and you can imagine what then happens to the discipline. Poof…

Personally, I recommend self-discipline that is based on something entirely different than suppressing desires. The first step to this approach is to first identify your higher and lower desires. Again, using an overweight person as an example, his higher desire may be to be fit but his lower desire may be to eat a donut.

Once you are aware of what your higher desires are, you allow them to rule over the lower desires. Not through resistance, but through your loving action grounded in understanding and compassion. Of course, I am talking about love for yourself and compassion being simply when you feel all that there is to be felt and do what needs to be done, no less and no more.

It takes some introspection and asking yourself some difficult questions. Such as, “What do I really want?” And, “How does what I am about to do help me get what I want?” At first, it may not be easy to get a clear reply from yourself, but if you keep asking questions, the answers will always come.

And, with the answers comes the ease of discipline. You will stop looking at practicing as a “necessary evil” and will begin to see your practice as a way of love and compassion towards yourself.

Unconventional in a Conventional World

For the last year or so, I have been asking people this question: "If you split the world into two parts, one being "Conventional" and the other - "Unconventional", in which part would you belong?"

Of the responses I have gotten, 99% were, "Ummm, unconventional... Of course." It seems that being unconventional is hip and cool and most people prefer to be different, unique and "unconventional." Why, then, does the society seek conformity? If unconventional people comprise the society, why does society thrive on convention, uniformity and homogeneity?

I think the truth is that we are all, on some levels, conventional. Perhaps, some folks more than others. As we grow up with myths that are pounded into us day in and day out during our upbringing, we begin to identify with them. We become integral parts of the myths and assist in propagating them. That's the convention. The big "convention" is nothing more that a conglomerate of myths that covers up "what is."

So, if a person wants be unconventional, the first step is to begin to see the myths for what they are.

It's not so easy as it sounds. I will write a few entries here that will hopefully assist one on this path.