Daily Voice Dialogue

Some dangerous ideas

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 05 Nov 2013 03:25:00 +0000

Last night during Sydney's Festival of Dangerous Ideas' screening of a show called Q&A where the audience asks panel members questions (both Germaine Greer and Peter Hitchens were on the panel, so it was never going to be a friendly chat), a viewer's tweet appeared on screen twittering something along the lines of 'I'm male, it's not fair that women get six months holiday after having a baby'. That tweet crystalised for me so much of what was amiss with how the panelists argued with one another and the issues they were arguing about.

Now I get it that people who haven't experienced something can find it difficult to understand what it's like for those who have. But with having children, even if we have not had our own, how can anyone with even a little imagination not see how much work is involved in looking after children, especially a young baby? Six months holiday? Two to four-hourly feeds, as many nappy changes and vomits, connection/play/nurturing time, the mountains of washing, the physical exhaustion and all that with hardly any sleep. Not to mention the recovery time from birth, and also getting done all the things everyone else has to do as well, such as shopping, cooking, cleaning, tax returns, and so on. Cutting your toe nails? Forget it! A haircut? Just wear it back for a few years! A drink or coffee or movie out with friends? Maybe once in a while, and it's usually meeting up with other new mothers with baby (and all the associated gear) in tow. Unless you can or even want to outsource raising your child, the whole thing is bloody hard work!

And the idea that is bandied around in the media, by both commentators and readers, that somehow caring for children is not work is, I believe, the major issue for feminism today (and for the future of our environment). What is the point in having more women on boards if there's no one to care for children who will be the future customers of the corporations their mothers work for? Do women take over the business world and men care for children? If one parent in a relationship has to give up outside work to care for children because there is no flexibility in the workplace regarding hours worked, why put more money into education if once people have children one person out of every two won't be able to use that education? Child care, everyone says, is the answer. But is it? So we will pay another person not very much to care for our own children while that carer pays even less for someone else to care for their children? Where does it stop? Do you have a class of child carers who are not allowed to have children of their own? And how do you know the child carer assigned to your child in the centre you deliver your child to is raising your child in the way you would like, and connecting with them in the way that nourishes them most? What about the perspective of the child? It seems as if we have come to believe that the work involved in raising children is akin to other work you can outsource without much thought, such as cleaning or gardening. Is this really the way we want to go as a society? With all the knowledge we now have about child development, do we really believe that our children are not worth the time and effort we give to a corporation or a brand? Although each panelist on the show had his or her ideas about raising children, ranging from a 1950s fantasy which existed only for a few to allowing kids to care for themselves more thus freeing up time for parents to do 'real' work, the fairly obvious conclusion to me is that the way our society is structured needs to change entirely if we want both male and female children to grow up into men and women who feel they can participate in life fully, taking time to experience both work unrelated to child-raising and also related to child-raising. Because at present the world is set up to support work outside the home, and family and home are secondary, or are seen as support structures for 'real work'.

So I watched in amazement how each of the four panelists, each with very different views, claimed to be fighting for rights for their own interest group (women, gay people, patriarchal Christians, and young people wanting 'new' kinds of relationships), all so that we could have a better world for the people in it, yet none made the connection that a better world would involve raising children in such a way that those children would feel as if they were valued members of the world (and of their family), and would grow up being able to see that there was more than only their own perspective, that there existed other people, with entirely different interests to their own.

All the panelists' opinions were presented with such disrespect towards their fellow panelists' opinions, along with their inability to see even a smidgeon of truth in the other's ideas - even in the other's concerns. None of the panelists appeared to be nasty people or out to hurt another - in fact they all really cared for the world, as they saw it. They all had major vulnerabilities and fears that they expressed publicly but instead of trying to find a common thread or concern - they so blatantly rubbished what each other said.

How are people with that attitude - and the audience members who cheered their favourites on and booed the others - going to 'teach' children, our species' future, how to deal with difference and find ways to see the world from another's perspective, to see that there is always more than one truth, to see that the person who works in the home is just as valuable as the person who works outside the home, that children are as valuable as adults? To me, each panelist had real concerns and good ideas to offer (and also not-so-very-good ideas), but each also was so blind, and so felt it okay to put down what they couldn't understand about each other's viewpoint. In Voice Dialogue terms, there was no aware ego whatsoever.

If you're not familiar with what an aware ego is, see my explanation on my website here, which also includes an explanation of what Voice Dialogue is, a technique to awaken the aware ego process, which allows you to unhook from the dominant part of your psyche, along with its perspective, rules and judgements, and to experience the perspective of another.

#awareego #voicedialogue #qanda #festivalofdangerousideas #germainegreer

Miranda Kerr and Orlando Bloom - the end of their fairytale, the beginning of yours?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 29 Oct 2013 00:47:00 +0000

So Miranda Kerr and Orlando Bloom are a couple no more. The fairytale has come to an end. But is it all that surprising? After all, many marriages end. And are all those gossip columnists who have reportedly been sobbing over their keyboards really that upset about someone else's marriage, two people most would not have even met? What could be going on here?

Of course it's sad that any marriage ends and particularly if the divorcing couple seem so nice and so perfect together. Unavoidably, all marriages - all relationships - are subject to positive and negative bonding patterns, which, if we don't become conscious of, will lead to a fairly predictable end (see my posts If you want to leave your relationship... and Is your relationship too good? for an explanation of bonding patterns).

The difference with celebrity marriages is that they have taken the place of fairytales for us, they have become our mythology. We need to believe in these modern-day myths because they set examples for us, they offer hope. And the people in the fairytales are like gods and goddesses - they even look like such - and we really do care about them, in the way in the past we cared about other gods and goddesses, and in the way many of us still care about whoever to us is our god now.

So if you are one of those people distraught about Miranda and Orlando, what can you take from this? For a start, allow yourself to feel the pain. It's what fairytales require of us as the protagonist loses his or her innocence and learns more about the complexity of the world - and of him- or herself. But you don't have to despair - neverending love is possible, but to obtain it you have to learn about how it works. You have to become aware of your own innocence, of being blind to all the hidden facets of yourself which are revealed to you in the people who come into your life. You have to learn about the hidden facets also of your partner. You have to learn how all these parts of you bond with the parts in another person and how the bonding patterns that form limit and stifle your relationships - if you don't become aware of them and find a way to navigate them. Basically, you have to become your own hero or heroine and embark on your own fairytale journey so you can find the magic kingdom, with all its riches, within yourself. Then you'll be able to partner with another person and have the love and passion grow over time.

See my book The Perfect Relationship for a straightforward, 10-step guide to achieving the relationship of your dreams.

Who in you is making your New Year's resolutions?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 05:16:00 +0000

When we set New Year's resolutions (and goals generally) we think about all the things we would like to achieve or change in our lives. For example, if your body is no longer looking as trim as it was a decade ago, one of your resolutions might be to lose weight and begin an exercise programme. If you are struggling financially, then one of your resolutions might be to expand your wealth/income/investments/financial knowledge. If you work as a salesperson, one of your goals might be to meet higher sales targets than you have in the past. If you are single, one of your goals might be to meet someone to start a relationship with. If you have children, one of your resolutions might be to spend more quality time with them. The reason we want to make changes in our lives is because we want to live our lives better than we have been living them, and also because we believe we should be living our lives in a better or different way.

The word 'should' is one of the keys to why most people find it difficult to achieve the resolutions they set for themselves, and it is why people make the same New Year's resolutions year after year. The word 'should' is a word used by your primary self, which is that part of your whole self which you identify with most of the time, and which has particular rules, values and ideas about what kind of person you should be. (It works closely with your Inner Critic who compares you to others and sets benchmarks for you).

For example, if your primary self is achievement-oriented in the world of business and it wants to be successful in that world, then one of its values would be to have you achieve whatever it is that is required of someone who is successful in your line of business. So your 'shoulds' would involve things like meeting certain sales targets, growing your business/department, increasing your company's share value, and so on; and your New Year's resolutions will be set by this high-achieving business self of yours.

Your primary self might also be concerned with appearing attractive, healthy and well-groomed, and if you have spent the holiday season eating and drinking more than you normally would, with little exercise involved, then you might set a resolution to diet and eat healthily after you realise you no longer fit into your pre-party-season clothing. You may even look back to how you appeared before the party season started and believe that you were not as attractive as you could have been, and so as a New Year's resolution you plan a serious lifestyle change.

Sometimes, however, New Year's resolutions are set by your disowned self, which includes the inner aspects of yourself which you repress and do not allow into your life. So, for example, if you have a work-focused self as your primary self, then one of the goals on your list might be opposite to the kind of goal your work-focused self would make, such as to take time out to do a yoga teacher training course, to rest and go fishing, to go on an extended holiday, maybe even to take a year off and write a novel. At the time of setting such a resolution, you would probably feel excited and enthusiastic, as if you had discovered a new path or a better way to live your life. The excitement and determination to achieve your goal would propel you to research how you might achieve it, you might talk to your friends and family about it, you might daydream about it - but then, after the holiday period ends and you return to work, your work-oriented primary self also returns to control your psyche and says: "Holiday? Time off? You're kidding! You can't afford a holiday (not if you want to send your kids to that private school) and you have no time! You're not going anywhere until you achieve x, y and z." Before you know it, you're celebrating New Year's Eve again and it occurs to you that you need to take a break and so you set some resolutions...

The other thing that can happen is that you also might not achieve the goals your high-achieving primary self sets for you either. You might start out fully motivated to improve your sales targets, but as you set out on that path, distractions get in the way. You find yourself suffering more headaches than usual or just plain tiredness. You sit at your phone, intending to make a certain number of calls but suddenly calling your mother, sister and cousin seem more important and you tell yourself that you'll make up for it the next day. At the end of the year you look back and realise that much hasn't changed. You achieved what was necessary but there aren't that many ticks on your resolutions list. And if you were the person who set the New Year's resolution to start a healthy lifestyle, you might have started it with passion but soon found yourself sitting in front of the television with a bucket of ice-cream and a bag of popcorn.

These scenarios are common. They occur because it is not us that decides what we want for ourselves. One self sets a particular goal, and another self resists it, or even outright sabotages it. We get stuck in the middle and find all sorts of excuses for not doing the things one self has determined we 'should' do, yet we also cannot do the opposite with full commitment. If we do follow the wishes of one self wholeheartedly and ignore the desires of opposite selves, then we can suffer symptoms such as headaches, lethargy, body aches and stiffness, which are our unexpressed selves making themselves heard through our body, or we feel anxiety or guilt or suffer low self esteem because we were not able to achieve 'our' goals.

A solution:

The trick is to set your goals with more consciousness. So rather than accepting without discrimination an idea that you have about what you ought to do, first get in touch with the opposite way of thinking or feeling. Question the rule that feels so certain. Spend time sitting with an idea before acting on it. Allow time for other parts of you to make their way to your conscious awareness and to have their say.

Listen to what other people around you are saying - for if you feel completely certain about something, chances are someone will come into your life who will express a totally opposite viewpoint. Take what this person says or does seriously, particularly if you react to it strongly, for this indicates you are currently identified strongly with a self and its viewpoint, and have no awareness of the opposites functioning within you.

Contrary to what is often advised, which is to act quickly on an idea, I would suggest to not act. We all know or have heard of someone who bought a house on a whim because it felt 100% right at the time but then later discovered that it didn't suit them or was riddled with expensive-to-fix problems. We've all had the experience of shopping and finding an outfit that we felt was so perfect for us, only to bring it home and realise we will never wear it.

You will save far more time, money and energy in the long run if, before you decide to act, you take the time to consider, to ponder what you are drawn to acting on. It may even mean that one of your New Year's resolutions is to not set any resolutions but to explore some options, to allow yourself to be in a state of not-striving-to-reach-any-particular-goal, but instead to listen inside to the different parts of yourself and to see if you can get in touch with a deeper sense of what is right for you. You can do this process both with small issues you are considering making decisions about or larger ones.

By allowing yourself to not act, you might even find that new options become available to you, options that you had not previously considered and which could take your life in a direction that satisfies you far more deeply than the original goal you wanted to achieve would have allowed for.

Awareness exercise:

Write down all the goals you would like to achieve for yourself. Write each one on a separate piece of paper or on a new page on your word processor. Then after each goal write the reactions you have about it. Give yourself time to allow any reactions to come to your awareness. Some might be supportive of your goal and some might be against it.

Then review what you have written and you will have a fuller awareness of how the various parts of you - your various selves - feel and think about each goal. Now make a decision about each goal if you wish to, but remember to hold onto the opposite viewpoints. Don't push them away, but take them on the journey with you, just as you would take a toddler to a supermarket even though she would prefer to go to the park.

If you are not sure about what to do, then wait. Just sit with the issue. Maybe you need more information, maybe you need more time to become aware of what feels best for you. Pay attention to your dreams and see what they reveal. Keep doing what you have been doing in regard to your resolution, and be mindful of the thoughts and feelings that arise within you as you do this. Then explore those thoughts and feelings. Enjoy the process.

In the end, fulfilment in life (or in each new year) is not so much about setting strict resolutions and being able to stick with them, but about discovering more about yourself and what is important to you so that you can move in a direction in your life which will bring you the greatest fulfilment. One year that might involve learning to stick to a goal, but another year it might mean unhooking from a rule that you ought to achieve a particular goal. If you feel you must try to achieve a resolution/goal, then go ahead and do it but at the same time consider why you feel such certainty about it - where do the rules about your resolution come from? Who set them? Have you chosen those rules or has someone else? Will the achievement of that goal work for you and your life? Is it possible? What are the alternatives? If you have setbacks, be gentle on yourself. If you approach the setting of resolutions with greater awareness and self-understanding, you will find that you will feel better about any resolutions you set for yourself - even if you don't achieve them. And in that process you will keep growing and understanding and evolving.

Happy New Year!

For more information about how your selves affect your life, see www.voicedialogue.com

To learn about 45 selves of the human psyche and discover which ones run your life, see Which Self Are You?

Can we fight for the environment without also fighting for the feminine?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:39:00 +0000

The issues of gender relations and climate change (for me climate change includes environmental destruction in general) are debated almost daily in the media, and little progress has been made with either (re gender relations, the lack of progress has been made clear as a pregnancy-test result when you peruse the public's comments after an article appears on the issue). The thing is, these two issues are so closely related but so few of us seem aware of that. Here's an explanation from a blog post I wrote a few years ago, which still applies today:

"It is interesting that with such worldwide and intense concern about the environment, with many public figures stating that climate change is our most pressing issue, the issue of giving equal value to both sexes has lost its status as a significant public concern. Many women are still fighting for paid maternity (and paternity) leave, wage equality (apparently the gap is growing wider again), and there is much comment in the media about how society is sexualising teenage and even pre-teen girls. But there appears to be little or no insight by our leaders, activists and commentators into the connection between these issues.

Environmental abuse stems from disregard for nature and its cycles, and the promotion of unbridled competition and economic expansion. The environment - nature - is something human beings from all cultures regard as the feminine expression of life whereas industry and 'building' are seen as the expression of masculinity. Both women and men have masculine and feminine attributes yet in our modern world masculine qualities are valued more highly than feminine qualities. Thus we have had such inequality between the sexes, because superficially it seems that women are identified more with the feminine attributes of human nature and men more with the masculine. But we have seen in the examples of female leaders and athletes and ordinary women going about their daily lives that women can quite easily express their masculine side, and men can also express their feminine side.

Can we fight for the environment and expect any positive results without also fighting for the feminine?

By ignoring women's issues and continuing the devaluation of feminine qualities, exactly what kind of vision for the health of the environment do we have?"

The only bit I would change today is to substitute in the last paragraph 'ignoring' with 'sidelining' or 'marginalising'. And I will add that there appears to be some progress because there is more dialogue by both men and women in the media, even on the conservative side of politics, about issues of childcare, maternity and paternity leave, marriage equality, rights of both men and women to participate in family life as well as work outside the home, rights of women and men to participate in activities they are interested in and to express themselves how they wish, regardless of their gender, and so on.

But we still don't seem to have made the connection that the health of our environment is directly related to and affected by the health of our psyches - when our individual and collective psyches are not in balance, when we validate only a part of who we are and disown and dismiss any opposites (the 'other'), then we are not able to act in the world, or even to percieve the world, from the point of view of all sides. And so while so many of us, and many of our governments and institutions continue to value masculinity over and above femininity (this applies for women and men), we will continue to act in the world from the position of that value system.

Until we are able to see ourselves and our fellow sisters and brothers as multi-faceted beings, with both masculine and feminine attributes; until we are able to see our families and communities as multi-faceted organisations, with each facet requiring attention, validation and resources provided for it in order for it to be able to participate effectively and thrive, and thus benefitting the whole, we will continue to repress those facets that we, from the limited perspective of whichever facet we have come to identify with, do not find of value.

We need to stop seeing ourselves as self-sufficient and disconnected individuals in competition with each other for resources but as sufficient individuals who are a part of a community, with each one of us contributing to our community in different ways, and differently at different times of our lives. We are all at some stage independent and dependent, workers and carers, teachers and students, parents and infants, rational and emotional, giving and needy, active and passive, strong and weak, hard and soft.

At present our environment, our Mother Earth, is given about as much respect and care as is given to our mothers. We expect the earth to just be there for us, continually giving, with no care or 'payment' or appreciation in return, just as we expect mothers to just be there for children, continually giving, unpaid, unnappreciated.

Many individual famiies realise how vital all the individual member's roles are, but still mothers are seen by society as being parasitic. I've lost count of the number of times I have been asked 'When are you going back to work?' as if as a mother (and a writer) I do no work. Until such a time when a mother or father can be a nurturer and carer for the next generation (or for an older generation) and that role is valued and supported fully by our society, I doubt we will be able to fully care for the earth.

For more on this topic see my book Enlightenment Through Motherhood

"This book is just what the world needs now as our planet continues to move towards political and ecological disaster while the patriarchal systems that still dominate our thinking continue to devalue everything traditionally - and biologically - female. In a most perfect balance of yin and yang, of logic and feeling, of humor and gravity, Astra Niedra reclaims for all human beings – not just women – a precious element of that which is truly sacred in life." Sidra Stone PhD

Australia's 'evil' carbon tax

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 03:09:00 +0000

Australia will soon join a host of other nations and get Prime Minister Julia Gillard's carbon tax implemented - even after all the (hysterical) opposition to it. Now I'm not an advocate of new taxes generally (why not just raise the levels for super high income earners?), but I have been astounded about the degree of outrage about this tax. It is a tax which will be imposed on only the top polluting companies in Australia, around 500 of them. Yet most public discussion seems to have taken place with the presumption that it will be a tax on every individual in the population.

Sure prices of the goods and services of the newly-taxed top-polluting companies will increase as they pass on the cost of the tax, but then why not just buy the products of their competitors who are not as polluting and thus offer cheaper products?

Isn't that the point? To get us to buy from non-polluters or users of cleaner energy so that if the high polluters want to stay in business they will have to begin to use cleaner energy too?

Regarding products such as electricity, which will increase in price, the government is compensating households with tax cuts, in some cases with the cut being greater than any additional cost incurred for the household. Why are people upset about this? Even if we did have to pay more, if the true cost of something is more than we are accustomed to paying, then someone has to pay the real cost. At present, that someone will be our grandchildren and their children. Is that really what we want to leave them and have them remember us by?

Then of course there's transport and fuel and the steel industry etc, but if companies in those industries are high polluters then maybe they need to find new and more efficient ways of doing things? Isn't that also the point of this tax? Will our competitive advantage be so compromised by this tax that it will lead to large-scale unemployment as has been argued or is it that deep down we know that most of the affected industries are reliant on demand from China, and China's growth is slowing and so that demand will decrease soon anyway? When we're feeling vulnerable about something big, it is tempting and easier to blame something not so big.

Sure I'd be upset if I were a high-polluting company executive - but we all have to change our ways sometime. Without the carbon tax, at some point some other market disrupter will appear anyway, even if it's only a new competitor. Over time, whole industries disappear and new ones emerge. We can't keep everything as it is - imagine what the world would still be like if we had been able to do so! Change happens all the time in business (in life!), and isn't that why these huge organisations have so many managers, to direct and guide change? Isn't that what 'change managers' are for?

To begin to take care of our environment is a pretty good reason to make some changes I think.

The Way of Voice Dialogue

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 04:59:00 +0000

I've often been asked the question: "How many Voice Dialogue sessions will I need?"

I can understand the desire for such a definitive answer, whether it be because a person wants to have an issue resolved once and for all, or if someone wants to reach some goal in consciousness, which, once they have attained it, means they will have no need for further work. But the truth is that you can never have enough sessions (consciousness is an ongoing process, just as life is) but also that you may not even need all that many (I realise this is a statement which appears to be contradictory, which is typical of many spiritual and consciousness paths - but bear with me).

Although Voice Dialogue is a therapeutic and personal growth tool, and it is also the quickest and most direct method I am aware of for experiencing an expansion of consciousness, for me it is also much more than that: your entire journey through life can be lived according to 'the way of Voice Dialogue' or, more accurately, 'the way of the Aware Ego'. What this means to me is that as I live my life, I can perceive the people, things and events around me and affecting me as a part of myself, maybe a part I know well or maybe a part I haven't yet met, or a part I would rather not meet. I can see the world as a mirror of myself but one which is in constant relationship with me. The boundary where I begin and the outside world ends is a boundary which is malleable, sometimes distinct, at other times more blurry, and at yet other times it is a boundary I am in charge of.

If I go about my day paying attention to what life brings to me and to my responses to those things life brings, I become increasingly aware of where my comfort zones, judgments and blind spots lie. If I look at everything and everyone as a teacher for me, as a reflection of my inner family, which I am in some sort of relationship with, and if I respond to the outside world with a sense of acknowledgement, curiosity and respect required of the situation, while at the same time being aware of how people and things are affecting me, then, to me, I am living Voice Dialogue. That is, I am in a process of becoming more conscious. My reactions and responses tell me where I'm at, and the outside world tells me what is. I then continue to move on with my life with that information, sometimes not being able to do much with it except carry it with me while continuing to experience my reactions, but at other times enjoying those 'aha' moments when something changes and I feel myself grow and become richer, and am able to act with greater choice and compassion.

I am not advocating narcissism when I say I see the world as a part of me, nor am I trying to feel compassionate towards each person I come across. For I am not referring to 'me' as a primary self, or the ego. Of course if a self - or someone's ego - were to see everything external as belonging to it and related to it exclusively, then narcissism would result. And, likewise, if you feel you have to be compassionate and loving towards everyone, and you suppress opposite feelings, then you are identified with a self who holds those rules. The compassion that arises from embracing the other in yourself does not require effort.

What I mean when I say that the world is a mirror, that everyone is a part of me, is similar to how the ancient Indian texts describe us all as one. We have our individuality but the 'I' we all share and which is part of a greater 'I' becomes, soon after birth, even before, bound to the selves which form and arrive with us, to enable us to relate with the world. So our 'I' becomes identified with a self or group of selves and we lose our connection to other selves, to our essence and to the greater whole. (The video I linked to on my Facebook page - Jeremy Rifkin on "the empathic civilisation" illustrates this process and how we can also evolve - and in fact are evolving - to become more empathic, if we allow ourselves to communicate/relate with one another - the video is not about Voice Dialogue and the aware ego but its content supports the idea of the aware ego process, in the way that it is about reaching out to and embracing 'the other'.)

This 'way' is all about relationship: our relationship with ourselves - our selves; our relationships with our partners, which give us priceless teachings; our relationships with our children who not only mirror us and teach us but also give us unconditional love and are among the most forgiving people we will encounter; our relationships with our parents, friends, colleagues and neighbours; our relationship with the natural world around us; our relationship with the spiritual world; and our relationship with the unconscious, the all-pervading, all-knowing intelligence which, if we are willing to listen to, will guide us.

If we pay attention to the reactions we have to the people who come into our lives and we also pay attention to who in those people might be dominant and defining their personality, in much the same way as we meet the selves in a Voice Dialogue session, we can discover just as much as we can in a formal session - and our aware ego process can continue to evolve. This way requires that we relate with each person we encounter with the attitude of engagement and interest we would use in a Voice Dialogue session, and when we realise that we are stuck in judgment (or awe) about someone, or we can't help but become enmeshed with someone, or we are afraid of someone, or any other response where we lose the ability to relate with some choice and become destabilised, we accept that too and use it as a teaching. And then we can go and have a formal session, or countless sessions if that is what it takes, and if we feel that is right for us at the time.

That is the 'Way of Voice Dialogue' for me.

For more information about Voice Dialogue, please see www.voicedialogue.com

Learning from Captain Jack Sparrow

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 06:54:00 +0000

I watched the first Pirates of the Caribbean film with my kids the other day and found myself wishing I could meet, maybe run off with for a while, or even be Captain Jack Sparrow. He's not even real, just a fictitious character, although Johnny Depp who plays him is gorgeous enough. I even checked to see if there is a Facebook page about Jack Sparrow - there is! - and thought about dying my hair dark and changing the way I dress.

You may think I'm crazy but this fantasy was a lot of fun and I've calmed down a bit over the last few days. I've also discussed it with my husband and he also would love to dress like a pirate at times and roam the world in total freedom.

Now it's not only the fact that Jack Sparrow is a pirate that's the appealing thing - none of the other pirates in the film had any effect on me. It's that Jack is meant to be this tough and mean pirate Captain yet he's so totally in touch with his vulnerability and other more sensitive characteristics, and is unashamedly happy to display them. He also has a delicious sense of humour, is basically a 'good guy', and is just a little crazy. He's the opposite to how we are meant to behave in our sophisticated Western societies. And even though he is meant to be on the wrong side of the law he in fact is more moral and achieves greater good than the guys on the 'right' side.

The lesson in the fascination for me included to lighten up a little, to remember to question the rules our culture and its institutions want us to live by and make sure they are really right for me, and generally to get back in touch with energies that being a responsible parent doesn't allow for.

If others are also feeling the attraction of the eccentric pirate energy of Jack Sparrow, which I suspect they are, given the huge popularity of the movie, maybe there's a lesson in his character for us all?

For more information about how we all identify with only a small part of ourselves and so are attracted to our disowned parts in other people, see my website voicedialogue.com

For how this works in our romantic relationships, see The Greatest Relationship Secret

Does climate change really matter?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 02:32:00 +0000

I've been feeling frustrated about how we, in the sense of we as humanity as a whole, have been endlessly arguing about climate change with no significant action being taken. I am aware of the arguments on both sides and feel the vulnerabilities of both sides, and also realise that for many it is simply of no concern, for various reasons. But no matter which side of the debate about whether humans have contributed to the climate changing you identify with, the fact is that the climate is changing and there is a possibility that human beings can do something to stabilize it.

Even if nothing we do has a major effect on the earth's temperatures changing and the associated consequences, which is also a very real possibility, there will be other major, even life-altering, benefits from using cleaner sources of energy and thereby reducing pollution. Think of all the health problems caused by dirty air which would be eased. Think of the money that would be saved on health spending as a result, which could be put to other uses. Consider the enhanced quality of life for so many people as a result of fewer asthma attacks and other respiratory illnesses. Imagine living in the world's largest cities and being able to see a blue sky.

Then there's the advances in technology and results of increased creativity which would result from human energy going into exploring new energy creation methods. Often when there is a crisis and a need, human beings become motivated to do amazing things.

It really struck me how we have only the one earth to live on when this morning I saw a picture in the newspaper of the sun. It looked as if it could be held in my hand, and I realised that if something happened to it, our one tiny, little sun in the vast expanse of space, it would be the end for us all.

You could use this to argue for not doing anything about our climate as we are even smaller and more insignificant than the sun, but the realisation that our earth is even smaller than our sun made me see how much care it requires in order to stay healthy and liveable. If we keep doing the same things we are doing now, it doesn't take a genius to see that eventually we'll destroy the earth, whether or not the climate continues to change. At present, we have nowhere else to go.

If you destroy your house, you can move to another one; if your town burns down or is flooded, you can move to another one; even if your country is being ruined, it may be possible to flee. But if the earth starts to die, where will we go?

Climate Change a Feminist Concern?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:38:00 +0000

It is interesting that with such worldwide and intense concern about the environment, with many public figures stating that climate change is our most pressing issue, the issue of giving equal value to both sexes has lost its status as a significant public concern. Of course many women are still fighting for paid maternity (and paternity) leave, wage equality (apparently the gap is growing wider again), and there is much comment in the media about how society is sexualising teenage and even pre-teen girls. But there appears to be little or no insight by our leaders, activists and commentators into the connection between these issues.

Environmental abuse stems from disregard for nature and its cycles, and the promotion of unbridled competition and economic expansion. The environment - nature - is something human beings from all cultures regard as the feminine expression of life whereas industry and 'building' are seen as the expression of masculinity. Both women and men have masculine and feminine attributes yet in our modern world masculine qualities are valued more highly than feminine qualities. Thus we have had such inequality between the sexes because superficially it seems that women are identified more with feminine attributes and men more with the masculine. But we have seen in the examples of female leaders and athletes and ordinary women going about their daily lives that women can quite easily express their masculine side, and men can also express their feminine side.

Can we fight for the environment and expect any positive results without also fighting for the feminine?

By ignoring women's issues and continuing the devaluation of feminine qualities, exactly what kind of vision for the health of the environment do we have?

Check out Enlightenment Through Motherhood for more on this.

World Peace

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 02:57:00 +0000

I watched an inspiring film on television the other night titled Soldiers of Peace, narrated by actor Michael Douglas, about individuals in some of the world's hot spots who are making a difference to peace in their region. It was interesting because the techniques which led to improved relations between previously warring parties were similar to those one might use in a therapy situation with an individual seeking inner peace or resolution of conflict in a personal relationship.

For instance, there was a Christian and a Muslim leader in Nigeria who decided they would talk to each other about their differences rather than incite their followers to perform acts of terrorism against others, which both admitted to previously having done. Where they lived, already many people had lost their lives in acts of violence all in the name of religion. But once the two leaders talked, particularly as their conversation turned to personal matters, they realised that each was a human being with similarities to himself, and then - crucially from a consciousness point of view - accepted the other's differences as valid and not requiring changing, they were able to find peace between themselves. The Christian leader summarised where his state of consiousness had got to in his statement that now he lives his beliefs rather than preaches them. One of the men even explained that they created a new space in which to relate to each other from and from that space could accept each other as they were - exactly the process Voice Dialogue develops which the Drs Stone have called the aware ego.

In another example, a woman in Kenya became so fed up with the violence between teenagers of warring tribes that she started a football tournament for them and when they turned up to play, she mixed up the teams so that enemies had to play on the same team. When the first dispute arose, the boys' immediate response was to basically get their weapons out and shoot each other but the woman suggested they sit down and talk instead. She asked them what they would want to say and do to resolve the confrontation, if they didn't feel they had to follow the rules their elders had established about how to deal with disagreements with neighbouring tribespeople. When the teenagers looked into themselves and discussed their feelings with each other, they agreed to play on, rather than fight it out. As a consequence of these regular football games and having the kids themselves solve their disputes with each other in their own way, the entire area where the two tribes live has seen a drastic reduction in violence.

The show dealt with other hot spots and peace creation in those spots without resorting to war, and in all cases the solutions came from the individual people involved and not a hand from above (or from another nation) decreeing what the solution should be or imposing its rules. It also involved those individuals going through a personal transformation of some kind, after which they could see that their perspective was not the only one.

Although this film offered some much-needed hope that positive things are happening in the world, it was interesting that the focus was on the idea that it takes individuals to effect change, yet there was little attempt to explore the inner changes that took place in the individuals involved, which was what led to the external circumstances improving. I don't know if it was the intention of the programme's makers to simply allow audiences to see that the subjects in the film experienced a shift within ourselves, but I think the film's message could have been more powerful if the film maker's had asked the people in more detail about their internal process when they made the quite radical changes in their behaviours and attitude. That would have served as inspiration for others in similar situations to try such a path as it would have made what they did more accessible to others, rather than have who they were portrayed as special and therefore their actions not quite as available to not-so-special people.

And this got me thinking about how when individuals and governments attempt to tackle such huge issues as world peace, they rarely (if ever?) incorporate ideas and expertise from the more personal-work-based modalities, such as the many psychotherapeutic techniques available, as well as other areas of study, such as sociology and biology, into their exploration of how changes in the wider world can be made.

It seems that we humans like to specialise in an area of study and then we look at problems only through the lens of our own or someone else's area of expertise. Thus we get economists trying to find solutions for the economy, environmentalists trying to find solutions for climate change, criminal psychologists trying to find solutions to crime, as if all these problems were closed systems, without also needing to look at the psychological, sociological, spiritual, gender-based etc aspects of why our economies, environment, crime rate are as they are. It seems obvious to me that it would be worthwhile to draw on many areas of expertise in order to deal with our world's problems.

To an extent we do it regarding personal problems: We have a pain in our body and so maybe we look at it from a nutritional point of view first, then we consult a doctor, then a chiropractor or osteopath. Maybe we look at our emotional state, our work situation, or even whether there is an environmental cause for our pain. Maybe the cause is a mix of many inter-related reasons?

But no matter how we examine a problem and search for a solution, at some point we have to look at ourselves and our part in it.

If you want to leave your relationship ...

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 03:04:00 +0000

DON'T - at least not until you have examined whether you are stuck in a negative bonding pattern.

If you feel that your relationship is over, it could be that you are stuck in a bonding pattern. Negative bonding patterns can range from the mildly irritating type, such as when you are identified with being the more tidy person in your relationship and your partner is the more messy person, to the full-blown world-war-type of pattern where you wish you had never met each other and you can't imagine what you ever saw in your partner.

In a negative bonding pattern each person's primary self (the part of yourself that you present to the world and identify with, or your ego, as opposed to those parts of your personality you have disowned and relegated to the 'shadow') is in a state of judgment about the other person's primary self.

The judgment occurs because there is some kind of vulnerability in both people which they are not attending to. This vulnerable feeling is uncomfortable to your primary self, who knows no other way of dealing with those feelings but to push them away, to where you won't feel them, so that you can feel powerful and in charge again. The more identified with the primary self and its power you become, the less you can see from any other perspective.

It is like you are glued fast to one end of a see-saw and you can't move towards the middle, to where you might have access to other viewpoints, including your partner's. At your end of the see-saw the world looks a certain way, and, to your primary self, it is the one and only right way.

Your partner experiences the same righteousness but on the opposite end of the see-saw.

So how do you deal with this seemingly no-win situation?

Firstly, if you can't help but feel you are right and that your partner is to blame, or that your partner started the problem, you'll only make the situation worse if you start explaining to your partner what you think about the bonding pattern you are both in - for you will be speaking from a righteous parental voice or a psychologically-minded know-it-all, and your partner will not respond well to this! You wouldn't either if they started to explain to you your part in the bonding pattern. If you do try it and your partner becomes even more angry at you, then you have proof you are speaking from such a voice. Instead, take some time out and do some work on the bonding pattern by yourself.

You could try some journalling, or simply sitting with the intention of becoming more aware of what might be going on and then dealing with your feelings and thoughts as they arise, or if you are able to, you could do some Voice Dialogue with a therapist or friend to help you unhook from the self you are tied to in the bonding pattern.

With journalling, you could write out on paper the thoughts and feelings which come to you when you feel judgment towards your partner. As you write, you will become more aware of the part/s of you involved in the bonding pattern. You can ask the parts of yourself what they are feeling vulnerable about and write down the answers that come to you. Either let yourself just write it all out if that comes easily, or first try to sense or imagine why it annoys you so much that your partner does whatever it is you are upset about. All sorts of material might come to you, some from your present situation and some from past relationships and even your childhood.

Then, see if you can access a part of you which can take care of your vulnerable feelings; see if you can soothe yourself. Imagine how you would take care of your vulnerability as if you were your own loving parent or very good friend.

Now consider your partner's point of view. What self are they identified with in this situation? Is this a self you have disowned? Have you ever had this self available to you? See if you can bring some of the energy this self has into yourself, or at least begin to see what it might say or feel about you.

Gradually you will gain a more comprehensive picture of what has been going on with the negative pattern dominating your feelings in your relationship. Hopefully you will become aware of new facets of yourself and will find a way to honour them in yourself. You will then begin to see your partner in a different light and they will seemingly magically transform before you. It only takes one of you to start this process in order to diffuse the situation and shift the pattern.

Bonding patterns can take a long time to work out so as long as you are not being harmed in your relationship, it is well worth the effort. At the very least you will gain a deeper understanding of yourself and will be able to relate more consciously and fully in the future if your relationship does not work out, and at best, your relationship will reach ever-deepening levels of love and fulfilment.

So if you feel negative about your partner, take it as an opportunity to grow before you decide to leave the relationship.

For more information on bonding patterns see my books The Greatest Relationship Secret and The Perfect Relationship. For some practical steps you can take immediately to make an instant impact on your relationship and which will help to diffuse a negative bonding pattern see Three Instant Relationship Fixes.

Is your relationship too good?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:53:00 +0000

You probably know of people who have been together for many years and each time you see them it appears as if they are extremely close, so close that they need each other and would fall apart if they separated. It might seem as if they are taking incredibly good care of each other, almost better care than they would of young children, and each with unlimited patience for the other. Maybe you know of a couple such as this who separated eventually and everyone who knew them was shocked because the individuals in the relationship seemed so right for each other and their relationship seemed so strong.

Often in such cases the couple have been in a very strong pattern of relating called a positive bonding pattern. A positive bonding pattern is when both people in the relationship take care of the other's inner child in some way, and the feelings which are generated are positive.

So what is wrong with a positive bonding pattern if it feels so good, if the feelings are positive? There's nothing wrong with them - they are the natural way that human beings give and receive nurturing - except that if you are in a positive bonding pattern for an extended period of time, you miss out on much more than you gain.

For example, if in your relationship your inner Nurturing Mother is bonded to your partner's inner Needy Son, and your partner's inner Good Father is bonded with your inner Daughter, then you will both feel safe and well cared for, as long as you both stayed in the bonding pattern.

So what do you lose out on?

First of all, you lose out on the experiences of life that all the other selves which constitute your psyche can offer you (see Which Self Are You? for an overview of many inner selves). For if you are always in the Nurturing Mother role to your husband's Needy Son and the Pleasing Daughter to his inner Father, you might rarely get to do anything for yourself, such as a course to further your education, travel to somewhere you would really like to visit but your partner isn't interested in, or simply go out to dinner or a movie with a friend, leaving your partner at home on his or her own.

Second, you miss out on being true to all your feelings. For if you reacted honestly to your partner then you might have to react negatively at times. But this would then break the 'contract' of the positive bonding pattern. Your underlying vulnerability that if you did react honestly your partner might not accept you or would be angry with you stops you from doing so and consequently you let things go and allow those feelings to build up inside.

Thirdly, you miss out on passion in your relationship. There is little passion between Nurturing Mothers and their Sons and Pleasing Daughters and their Fathers. In fact, one of the major problems people have in long-term relationships is the loss of sexuality in the relationship - the positive bonding pattern is the reason this happens. A fulfilling adult-to-adult love life requires that you both have access to other energies, much like you probably had when you first met and there were no strong bonding patterns formed yet.

Finally, the stronger the positive bonding pattern, the stronger the negative bonding pattern which might (and usually does eventually) follow. In other words, the more identified you and your partner are with your roles in the positive bonding pattern, the more 'other stuff' you will have buried over time. And this buried stuff, when it finally erupts, becomes the ammunition and fuel for a world war 10 type negative bonding pattern (see my post on negative bonding patterns).

How do you know you are in a positive bonding pattern?

Generally, if you feel taken care of by your partner in some way and you take care of your partner in some way, and this is an ongoing situation, and it always feels really good and solid, yet you feel or know there is something missing or there is something you are suppressing, you are in one.

Another way of telling is when you hold back reactions to 'keep the peace'.

Exercise

What to do if you are in a positive bonding pattern:

* Accept that they are inevitable and enjoy the good feelings which they bring. But when you realise you are in one, try to identify which primary selves you are identified with and then try to reclaim the opposite - your parter will reveal to you what the opposite is. (See The Greatest Relationship Secret for examples of couples in bonding patterns which many will relate to.)

* Learn to recognise and take care of your own vulnerability - what do you feel vulnerable about in your relationship? Develop a conscious relationship with those feelings and do something about caring for them yourself.

* If you have a reaction to your partner, honour it. Express it or at least recognise it in yourself and validate it. Accept that it is okay to not always have good feelings towards your partner or about something they have done, chosen, bought, given you, said. You each have many selves, with many feelings and ideas, and not all of your selves will like everything about your partner - some won't be very impressed at all, some will be indifferent, some will absolutely adore your partner, and others won't even understand nor care for the whole concept of being in a relationship with them.

* Try to nurture your partner with conscious intention - with awareness about what you are doing and also with awareness about your other, maybe contradictory, feelings. Do not push these away but give them a place within yourself. Try to consciously bring in nurturing energy and then extend it to your partner, allowing yourself to give to your parnter from that place; but then let it go when you deem appropriate - maybe when you feel you need some time on your own, or to do something, or to ask your partner for something for yourself.

For a 10 step guide to navigating the bonding patterns in relationships and experiencing your relationship from a place of wholeness, see my book The Perfect Relationship

Bill Henson's controversial nude photographs

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 03:32:00 +0000

Over the past week in Australia there has erupted a huge issue about the nature of artist Bill Henson's nude photographs of adolescents. On the one side we have seen public figures - including our Prime Minister - express disgust at the photos, calling them revolting and inappropriate, and we've had the police seize the offending photos from an art gallery about to exhibit them. And on the other hand, we've had spokespeople from the artistic community defend the photos as artistic, claiming those who can't see that should be better informed and not reveal their ignorance in such damaging ways. The community has become truly polarised on this issue.

If you look at the two perspectives with an attitude of stepping into the shoes of those holding the perspectives you might see where both are coming from. Some of those who reacted negatively about the images work for organisations which fight the abuse of children. Others who have reacted negatively claim they have themselves been abused or are close to someone who has been. Then others have simply said that any nude image of a teenager is inappropriate because of the issue of consent - they ask how a child can give consent to having themselves photographed. If you interviewed any of these people I would guess you might discover that any image which depicted a teenager in the nude might cause a negative reaction - not just Henson's. But then those people should also react to some of the images in magazines, advertising and some music videos, which show young girls portrayed in overtly sexual ways. And what about homeless teenagers, some who have claimed to have worked as strippers in adult clubs and/or as prostitutes - why is there no public outcry and police presence about this?

People will react to things depending on what their vulnerablities are and what kind of primary self they are identified with. So some of the reactions seem fairly predictable. I would guess that many people have experienced a series of responses - with their initial one being the most crude to their final take on the subject being quite different once they have considered the subject in more depth.

And then there are those people will react negatively in public but secretly enjoy the kind of behaviour/images they criticise, maybe feeling compelled to look at them in private. There are issues here of disowned selves, or opposite primary selves which express themselves when they can - when there is no external judgment possible. And then, more generally, many people feel discomfort with nudity and the human body itself.

People who work in the arts have defended the artistic nature of Henson's images, but their responses have also come from the primary self they are identified with and that self has expressed judgment towards those who can't see from their perspective and whose lives don't involve art - why would you be aware of Bill Henson, of whose ignorance artists have judged non-artists, if you are not involved with art? In the same way, an artist might not be aware of a prominent physicist if their life does not involve physics.

It would be more valuable for everyone to try to undertand where the opposing viewpoint to their own is coming from and then to try and enter into a dialogue with each other to gain greater understanding of how different people respond to different things, and why. If we looked at our own responses and tried to understand where they have come from, we would also gain much.

My personal view is that Bill Hensons' images have in fact performed a valuable service: they have done some of the things art can do which is to promote debate and to bring to our attention aspects of life which we are blind to. Teenage sexuality is very real and Henson has portrayed it as being beautiful, innocent and vulnerable - very useful for parents and other carers to realise so that we can help to prevent the exploitation and abuse of it.

So all those people who have become fired up about Henson's photographs can now use that energy and do something to fight the real abusers out there - and judging by today's news headlines of the massive arrests of people using child pornography, there is much work to be done.

Please visit my website www.voicedialogue.com

Heath Ledger and The Joker

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:55:00 +0000

My husband and I have just been discussing how difficult it must be for actors when they play roles significantly different to their usual self to re-establish that usual self after filming has been completed. It was Australian actor Heath Ledger's death by accidental overdose of a number of prescription drugs, inlcuding some for anxiety and some for insomnia, that started us on this topic. Neither of know Heath Ledger personally and we do not presume to know what was really going on in his life but when we look at his situation as external observers a few ideas spring to mind. The main thing that struck us was that Heath's recent role as the demonic Joker in the latest Batman film required him to play a character who is such an extreme opposite to how Heath Ledger appeared to be in person. So this post is an examination of what some actors might experience when moving in and out of character, and I've used Heath Ledger with his Joker character as the example.

If in everyday life a person lived out such opposites as ‘Heath’ and ‘The Joker’, and if they had no understanding of how the human personality is composed of many inner selves, with the primary selves forming a person’s identity and the disowned selves existing in the unconscious, desperately wanting acknowledgment, they would suffer extreme anxiety (see Which Self Are You? for an explanation of how your personality forms).

So I can imagine it would be similar for actors when they express such opposite selves. Even actors who play fairly mild roles have said it can be difficult to return to their usual self at the end of the day, that their 'character' does not want to leave them. If that is so, it might have been challenging to let go of a character as extreme as The Joker. Heath Ledger himself described his Joker character as a “psychopathic, mass murdering, schizophrenic clown with zero empathy”. And to prepare for the role he lived alone in a hotel room for a month, formulating the character's posture, voice and psychology - that in itself would cause most people to develop severe anxiety.

There are many techniques available to actors to prepare for their roles but those techniques involve to some extent drawing on the energies, physicality, emotions and thoughts of their own inner selves to bring characters to life. So Ledger would have accessed his own inner demonic energies to play The Joker. And considering that in everyday life, by all accounts, Heath had as a primary self such a Nice Guy self, you could theorise that his inner Joker would therefore have been pretty demonic indeed - for it’s a law of the psyche according to the theory underlying Voice Dialogue that the more extreme the identification with a particular self, the more extreme the disowning of the opposite self; and the more extremely disowned the opposite self is, the nastier or more distorted it becomes.

In Voice Dialogue work, a person would not express an extremely disowned self without spending plenty of time unhooking from their primary self first so that they had a really strong aware ego in relation to their primary self (an aware ego is a process in consciousness where you are unhooked from the total identification of your primary self and can therefore access other parts of your psyche). You have to remember that if you have a primary self who is very nice, that self is terrified of not-niceness. Only the aware ego can handle such an opposite. And the beauty with Voice Dialogue is that the more aware ego you have in relation to a nice primary self, and the more you understand why that self has disowned its opposites, and the more you come to understand and embrace the selves that are different to the nice self, the extremity of the not-nice self dissipates naturally because it senses it is finally being understood and appreciated for who it is. It loses the malevolent edge it would have had when it was locked away in solitary confinement. And you, with your aware ego, would be able to handle this self now because you are no longer so fully identified with its opposite. For the selves - including your everyday primary self - do not have the ability to effectively (without judgment and an agenda) handle their own opposites – that is why they repressed them in the first place and is why the aware ego is necessary if you want to integrate them.

If an actor did not have an understanding of this process and no training in unhooking from their own primary self in order to consciously draw on other facets of their personality, it would be unsettling to go straight to such an extreme character as The Joker, and to try to return to their usual personality afterwards.

If it were me playing such a demonic character, I know that after the filming had finished, I would still have access to the Joker character within me. If I simply flipped back to my primary self I would feel uneasy about the Joker’s psychopathic thoughts and feelings still in my mind – and they would be there. For once such a self has been released, and has been given such respect in the movie and in all the publicity, it would not want to go underground again. It would make its presence felt and it would be a struggle to get a hold on it and to lock it away again – which is what you would have to do with no aware ego process. It would be difficult to sleep because the protective primary self would not be able to relax enough and let the guard down. And, added to that, our disowned selves like to come out to play in the dream world. The only way I would be able to handle such an extreme energy, would be to do so with an aware ego in relation to it and my primary self, which would involve honouring the essence of both energies.

I do not envy actors who take on such extreme roles because to deal with that kind of extreme energy, so much work would need to be done with the primary self first – and the actors probably aren’t given such time in the film world with its deadlines and budgets. Heath Ledger must have had training in some process of re-establishing his ‘usual’ psychic equilibrium, but without an aware ego process it would have been incredibly difficult.

Please note, my analysis of Heath Ledger is all theory, based on my knowledge of the Voice Dialogue model of consciousness. But I would be interested to hear from other actors if this theory rings true for them.

For more on Voice Dialogue see www.voicedialogue.com

Putting the light from enlightenment in its place

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:06:00 +0000

Many individuals and organisations promote such noble endeavours as enlightenment, transcending the ego, following your bliss, always thinking positively, and so on. But many of those organisations and individuals eventually end up causing distress for their followers. I've just read about the experiences of some ex-followers of a well-known enlightenment system and their experiences were certainly not positive. They were the same kinds of experiences had by cult members from various cults which have been exposed in the past.

I can understand the desire for pursuing goals such as enlightenment because it feels far preferable to go for the light and turn away from the dark. But the problem in doing so is that by ignoring, or locking away, or disowning 'the dark', you in fact give it more power. In the Voice Dialogue system of consciousness growth, you become aware that there is always an opposite to any state or belief or perspective. If I am identified with being active, with doing, then if I unhook from that identification I will find an opposite energy within me wanting to be acknowledged, such as a being energy or a lazy self. If I am usually serious and responsible then there will be an irresponsible and light-hearted part of me wanting to have expression. If I am always caring for others, then I will have disowned that part of me who wants to be taken care of. This is not only a theory but has been proven in countless hours of Voice Dialgoue work with thousands of facilitators and many more clients, all over the world.

The experiences those people have had are of being able to unhook from the dominant part of your personality to find a space in consciousness which is able to stand between opposite parts, or selves, and to embrace both. It is a place where you can accept the contradictory truths of both sides. It is a place which gives you true freedom and choice because you are not identified with the perspective of one aspect of the psyche and so are not compelled to go along with the views of that one aspect.

What this work reveals also is that whenever a person is identified with only a part of who they are, then everything that part judges becomes disowned. And when an aspect of the psyche is disowned, which means it is not acknowledged and respected, then over time it distorts and becomes negative.
For example, if you are in a relationship and your partner does something which makes you angry, if you push aside your natural response, and smile at them and try to see it all as positive, not only will you infuriate your partner as they will see you as behaving as 'holier than thou' but your anger will fester over time. Especially if you keep adding to that repressed anger as you go on behaving in the same way. At some point, maybe even after a relatively trivial event, you might release all that pent-up anger and could cause some serious harm. If it is kept at bay for a long time, it will be there under the surface affecting how you relate with others and it usually affects your own body as various symptoms, ranging from the relatively benign such as a rigidity in posture to the more serious.

Now there is nothing wrong with being pleasant and trying to maintain peace. And in many situations such an attitude is beneficial - in fact necessary. However, if you always bury your natural responses and can't express them, then your pleasantness is no longer a conscious choice but a compulsion. No one can escape having some negative thoughts and feelings and those need to be dealt with. This is not a bad thing - it is a human thing. It is completely normal and totally healthy to feel negative at times. In fact, it would be dangerous and helps no-one if we didn't allow ourselves to feel negative emotions and to think negative thoughts, especially when you consider the kinds of things that go on in our world and which need a reaction.
If you think positively all the time, you will be repressing - or pushing underneath your conscious mind - all negativity. And the more you repress negativity, the more negative it becomes.

A situation where people are often encouraged only to think positively is if you have been diagnosed with a health condition. If you refuse to feel any negative emotions about it or to think through all the possible negative consequences of it, you might deny yourself medical attention and that could lead to your condition worsening. And if you haven't thought through all the negative possibilities, you will be knocked off your feet if something does eventuate and you won't be prepared to deal with it. Planning for possible future outcomes, especially if you have responsibilities such as children, involves considering those possible outcomes and then preparing yourself for them. That way your life becomes less stressful and less traumatic, and so do the lives of those close to you. With health conditions, you might actually exacerbate your condition by not paying attention to any negative thoughts and feelings that arise within you. By letting them come to the surface, trying to gain an awareness and understanding about them, and then either unhooking from them so that you are not dominated by them or even letting them go could lead to a more positive outcome than if you ignored them.

Another example is if you work in a large organisation and there is a problem with another staff member sabotaging relationships or procedures. By thinking only positively and hoping for the best, you will be blindsided by what might eventuate. You essentially place yourself at the mercy of the person involved by not addressing their behaviour. Unless you look at the negative behaviour and deal with it, it will continue to occur and will probably become worse. This involves you focusing on the negative and working out a solution - you can then work out a positive solution but for it to work you will have to imagine all the negative things that could occur and be prepared for them. Such a situation will probably involve you using the very qualities you dislike in the person, such as manipulative behaviour, yet you are using those qualities for a positive outcome, and by the process of you getting in touch with that manipulative aspect in yourself, it ensures you will not become a victim to it in the other person.
There are so many negative consequences of focusing only on the light that instead of making the world a better place, this makes it worse.
I particularly want to discuss the popular spiritual endeavour of enlightenment. There is so much to say on this topic but I will keep it brief for the moment. I understand what people want when they pursue enlightenment: a state of being at one with god, god being the ultimate creator of the universe or the all-pervading 'stuff' it is made of, totally merged with this Self with a capital 's', in a state of pure bliss. All individual 'ego' subsumed into the greater Self or transcended as personal identity merges with god-identity. There are other words and descriptions I could use but that's the gist of it.

Such experiences are possible and many people have had them for varying lengths of time. But they are just experiences. They are amazing, transcendental, transpersonal experiences but they are not enlightenment. They are spiritual experiences. So-called enlightened people even themselves claim that to be enlightened you are beyond duality, beyond the mind, beyond judgment, beyond language, beyond everything. But not one of those enlightened people was beyond those things. They all have prejudices, biases, negative emotions, judgments - which anyone who has studied them or followed their systems will know. I have met one so-called enlightened being with millions of followers who wouldn't touch me because I was a woman and he claimed I might cause the arousal of desire in him. So what is he actually beyond?

But I am not upset with him - now that I no longer am intersted in his particular path; I feel sorry for him. For I don't believe enlightenment is about denying our humanity and blaming others for triggering feelings in ourselves. Enlightenment is not about identifying with spiritual experiences and rejecting earthly experiences. Sure, go and have the most intense and amazing spiritual experiences but at some point you will have to pee. You can't escape your body or life here on earth if you are a human being.

People who are totally identified with the spiritual seeking part of themselves have disowned those parts who are not at all interested in spirituality. We all have them. When we deny them our attention and respect, they fester just as any disowned part does, and they cause havoc in our lives and in the lives of others.

I have my own ideas and experiences about enlightenment and I'll share some of those at a later post.

For more information about primary and disowned selves see www.voicedialogue.com