The Tao book speaks of the courage needed to stand for what you believe in, so you can overcome barriers and create your own life, and we have that drive to create our own lives. Animals have the drive to compete for mates, even though they know it can mean they will get hurt.

I have that drive, but I fear people will not like what I want from my life. Yes, so courage is a big issue isn’t it?  We admire those courageous enough to go after their desires, and our desires are often wisdom.

I read somewhere; “The opposite of courage is not cowardice, it is conformity.” That is perfect, and it’s true. Conformity is being unplugged. Even the coward is seeing what’s there, and has something they want, and can even have it turn around. A Greek philosopher once said that bravery was no virtue.  Many a brave warrior dies at the hands of a coward, because the coward is more invested in living. A brave person is often being a conformist, and will likely even entertain ideas of dying in battle as being a proper way to end his life. Is this actually courage?

It is fatalism. Yes, and it is not courage. Courage is being centered in the face of the chaos.  Being present in the fire.  Fully aware in uncertainty, and taking responsibility. Response ability. The conformist is not response able are they?

A General in the Pacific, during WWII, told a cameraman to film the battle. The cameraman replied he had no film. The General said “Point it anyway, there are no cowards in front of the camera.” Comes back to awareness, and that General is right. Courage is being your own camera man. Saying “This is happening to me, and I am here, and I am responsible for my actions.”  This is actually how we teach children, or how they learn naturally even if we don’t bother to teach.

It takes great courage to remain present in bad times. Isn’t courage simply putting the ability to do things in spite of our fears? True, and we can only put that ability to do first, when we preserve at least some clarity of awareness. Can you be courageous if you can only do what you are told?

Awareness or being? Though it’s not often considered, they are synonymous. It is the eye of Odin.

I can be aware of the present, or I can be in the present? Can you be in the present moment, but not aware of it? Awareness is the natural extension of being. Awareness is not thinking though. Those are not the same, and courage is not thinking either. It’s choosing. There is a very old saying; Conscience makes cowards of us all. Conscience is concern for doing the right thing. Courage is not concern for doing the right thing. It’s response ability.

Do or be damned? Yes, and in war it’s a literal truth.

Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.

Travis Saunders
Dragon Intuitive
~science,mysticism,spirituality~

Related Insights:

1. Greater Awareness » Courage is not a well understood factor of life, but we do experience it anyway.  It’s a pretty important part of life, so it might profit us to understand it.   Courage is often seen in negative definition only, and that tends to distort it. This is ...
2. Courage to Act » Courage is a very simple thing, and yet we don’t really tackle it much. What is courage really? Is it some special strength of character that some have and others don’t? It seems we never think we have it ourselves, but we like to put it on others of ...
3. Wisdom of Courage » The wisdom of courage is just accepting the instability of life. That what you know is already there. Accepting your own limitations, even if you don’t understand them, and living your life anyway. Because really, that life you are living, do you rea ...

Courage is often seen in negative definition only, and that tends to distort it. This is courage as it relates to fear, but every person we call courageous has said it’s not really about any relationship to fear.  The book on the Tarot card of courage first mentions that taking further risks requires greater awareness. We have a drive to greater awareness of things, and it isn’t triggered by fear alone is it? It seems to be part of life itself. We recognize that we need to be aware, and we want to be aware of things we desire, as much as things we are afraid of.  Courage is that drive to engage life even in the face of knowing our limitations and fears. This seem reasonable?

The courageous solider is between desire and fear. They are courageous because they keep the power of choice. This heroic solider in the face of danger remembers their mission, and that there are lives to save, and they are still very afraid.

He knows that if he does not do his/her part that his friends may die. Yes, confronting the consequences.

Can feeling that fear be an indicator that we need to walk toward it and have courage? Well… Be aware of it, and not be focused on ego. Ego can be a very sabotaging force, and a fear of making mistakes is ego. It isn’t wisdom. The soldier knows that in doing what it takes, they are still very much at risk of getting shot, and they choose in the face of that risk. The choice can be stay with their group, or it can be go where they need to, or “take point” because that is what their group needs.

There can also be courage in both action or ’seeming’ inaction?  There can indeed. The soldier who is ordered to take point can complain it’s not fair, and say “Why me?”, but if they have the warriors wisdom, they know they aren’t being picked on.  They are on the ground of battle no matter where they go, or what they do.

Now to get out of the military metaphor: Are you ever not on the ground of life? Are you being picked on when you seem to have to do something alone? We are all here and life takes courage. It’s been said the coward dies a thousand deaths, the courageous person only one, and yet we are praised if we seem to avoid making mistakes aren’t we? We‘re told we are wise?

Courage doesn’t involve ignoring what you can see. It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t think, and that’s the line between courage and foolishness actually, your awareness. But courage is also taking action in the face of our limited awareness. Accepting that you can’t be error free and know everything, and acting anyway. Seeing all you could see, you do something, and accept that you could be wrong.

You often hear an interview of somebody who did something brave, and they usually say things like “I saw what was happening, and I just acted.” Exactly. Awareness then action, and often quivering fear after, but that doesn’t make them a coward. Fear is actually quite natural. It’s an instinct. We do have a drive to self preservation, and this isn’t wrong.

I read a story about a guy in WWII, his unit was attacked and they broke and ran. He received a medal for staying where he was and shooting back at the enemy. When asked why he did it, he said he was to afraid to stand up and run. That’s a good story. His awareness was better. His instincts stronger. Those who broke and ran weren’t aware that they would be shot anyway. He was focused on what was really there, and saw it very clearly. Fear is ok. Courage is seeing, and courage is what Buddhists call “right action”.

Fear can make you look brave? I’m not talking about bravery. I’m talking about the instinct that keeps the mind clear and driven. Bravery can be an intoxication in one’s own ego.

It also depends on what you fear. A long time ago they let officers beat their men, so that the men would be more afraid of the officers than they were of the enemy. Actually, it matters more why you fear than what, because fear often makes one snap, and this is why they changed that policy. Soldiers started killing officers. Loa Tzu said “He who treats me well is my leader, he who treats me badly is my enemy” I have seen no exception to this.

Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.

Travis Saunders
Dragon Intuitive
~science,mysticism,spirituality~

Related Insights:

1. Engage the World » We have not one drive, but two. A will to self preservation and fear, but also a will to power. Courage. A motivation to engage the world. Some soldiers do actually want to see the battle won, and we in our civilian life are not taught to really back ...
2. Courage to Act » Courage is a very simple thing, and yet we don’t really tackle it much. What is courage really? Is it some special strength of character that some have and others don’t? It seems we never think we have it ourselves, but we like to put it on others of ...
3. Foundation of Awareness » Personality types actually reveal more than they would seem to. What makes our personality real? Is it really nothing more than conditioning and arbitrarily selected views? We don’t have uniform instincts across the human spectrum do we? I mean, when ...

I’ve tried to control it, and then became miserable. The idea that you own your life is misery making. Your life isn’t a passive object for you to own.  It’s an active force like the weather, the wind, and the waves. You are a part of it, and the strength you desire doesn’t come from forcing you, or anyone around you, to do anything. Trust strength is permitted, not created. 

What do we ever really create? What can you even imagine that has no basis in reality already? We are a part of this big scary world that we fear has power over us. The world is your body. You are more in the world than perhaps you currently understand. What do you want? And I mean the question.

Maybe that’s the problem, we don’t know. I don’t know. Yes, it is the problem. You want the world like you want something to eat.

My wants are endless. Your wants are endless, yes, and not controlled by you. Does that make them evil?

But the underlying want or need? This is another confusing issue people make, that need not be made. There is no confusion, it is actually need. The call to engage life. That underlying need is real, and to be embraced. Otherwise it’s just a death wish. Are you more spiritual if you say you don’t want anything? If so, how so? Because, that really confuses me.

Our ‘good’ wants are the ones we need? Affirming of life? The clear wants. When desire become unclear, that is when we engage in self destructive behaviour; addictions, self flagellation, even the hateful rejection of the self and the world. You can’t accept one, and reject the other. In Taoism, they speak about giving up wants, but they don’t speak of ignoring wants. Eastern thinking is tricky for westerners like that.

When I was dying, I had no wants or needs. True, you were dying and you gained them again when you were saved.

Didn’t have them, or didn’t hold them? Didn’t hold them. The force of desire was still there, but the relationship changed briefly. Do you believe death was bliss, and to be desired over life?

I think that’s how we have to live.  Have our wants, but don’t hold them. Know them. It is courageous to know your wants. Yes. Hold hunger, and you will eat when you don’t need to. Know hunger, and you will eat till you don’t need to.

I can share my own experience with death since it’s come up. As you shift into death, yes, you don’t want or need anything. As your mind clears, things shift quite a lot. You engage a powerful seeing, and honestly it can make the dynamic of desire seem like bliss. You can miss that context, that warm immersion that isn’t present in death. You see exactly how you relate in death, and how you did in life, and what it all means. People don’t really want to know these things now do they? These “spiritual types” who ennoble being desire free, who are they helping? What are they teaching you about life?

Nothing nature can’t teach me. Exactly. Including human nature, inner nature. Jesus showed desire in the market he trashed, and he showed desire in caring about his followers errors. He wanted better for them.

Make a mistake for me.

Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.

Travis Saunders
Dragon Intuitive
~science,mysticism,spirituality~

Related Insights:

1. Natures Wisdom » We often dilute the bodies wisdom and thus natures wisdom, by deluding ourselves that thought is superior to instinct. That wisdom is something we achieve. That we can gain it by being educated, “smart”. All mysticism and wisdom tradition ...
2. Why Deny Passion? » Thinking gets you where you are and often gets you stuck and keeps you there. Do your passions arise from thinking? Can you be angry and out of control and be aware that you are angry and out of control? If you are truly aware, then are you out of co ...
3. Courage to Act » Courage is a very simple thing, and yet we don’t really tackle it much. What is courage really? Is it some special strength of character that some have and others don’t? It seems we never think we have it ourselves, but we like to put it on others of ...

It seems we never think we have it ourselves, but we like to put it on others often to their embarrassment. I think we are all capable of courage, but it depends on the trigger. We are all capable of courage, but actually no. Waiting for the trigger can be a problem. We suffer many defeats waiting for that trigger that we never need experience. Any choice you may make could be wrong. This is a simple fact, and the majority of people just won’t make a decision, or take that action, because it might be wrong. But do we avoid misfortune that way? Has anyone avoided loss or failure by refusing to choose and act?

I’m thinking of those people, and they complain of misfortune a lot, and use it to justify more inaction actually. Yes, and they have reason to complain. They do have a lot of misfortune, but blame the world and thus just keep having it.

I don’t blame the world. I blame myself. But courage is moving beyond even blame of yourself. With courage, who to blame just doesn’t matter.

We all have a drive to engage life. People like animals go stir crazy if their choice of actions is limited. This is a fact, so much so, that marijuana is legal in Alaska, because people were dying from impaired judgment brought on by cabin fever. The marijuana makes them lethargic, so they won’t wander out into the cold and freeze to death. But we have an instinct that doesn’t care if we are wrong. The doubt is not instinctive.  It’s an inherent part of how we are taught to think. Is it in our best interest?

Doubting instinct doesn’t serve a purpose, but we aren’t required to ignore our thinking. Courage doesn’t require we not think. If faced with a choice by all means consider all your options.  Consider the consequences of any action, and since you were likely motivated to do something there anyway, choose one. But choose one. It may be wrong, but does that really matter? Are you having a life if you wait to choose? If you wait to choose will you by some circumstance stop waiting? What will give you permission to stop waiting?

Those people who we call courageous…it’s true that often they do things that really wasn’t that smart. Yet we admire them still. They say there is a fine line between bravery and foolishness, but here is the dirty secret. We are all of us foolish. The wise person is, if anything, an experienced fool. They know more about what’s foolish, and how to choose the better error.

The cowards just keep it a secret. That’s the real cowardice, and you will always be choosing between errors. Always. We have inherently limited minds, and our computing muscles just can’t do everything, or be error free. They are reliant on organs that have limits, are they not? So are we meant to not function because our brains and sense organs are imperfect?

We function despite. Actually the perfect case may be a bit scary. It would be scary. Perfection limits options, and totally stops growth. Courage is not being immune to fear, or even ignoring fear you are feeling. Courage is an awareness of acceptance of the fact of fear, and the realization that you need to act anyway. The worlds famous war heroes even say this, they don’t say they were courageous.

This reminds me of how people will avoid finding out the truth in relationships, or won’t tell the other the truth. Of course those facts can change your life, and many stay with lies to avoid change.  Often what they are avoiding is either just a fact, or it’s a fact of their own insecurity.  If you know “this” about me, you won’t love me anymore. That fear devalues the love they are trying to keep. They’re saying love isn’t stronger then the fear.

Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.

Travis Saunders
Dragon Intuitive
~science,mysticism,spirituality~

Related Insights:

1. Greater Awareness » Courage is not a well understood factor of life, but we do experience it anyway.  It’s a pretty important part of life, so it might profit us to understand it.   Courage is often seen in negative definition only, and that tends to distort it. This is ...
2. Wisdom of Courage » The wisdom of courage is just accepting the instability of life. That what you know is already there. Accepting your own limitations, even if you don’t understand them, and living your life anyway. Because really, that life you are living, do you rea ...
3. Engage the World » We have not one drive, but two. A will to self preservation and fear, but also a will to power. Courage. A motivation to engage the world. Some soldiers do actually want to see the battle won, and we in our civilian life are not taught to really back ...

In dialogue with others? Oh yes, the Stoic wasn’t a hermit, neither was the Cynic though people wished they were. The difference between the Stoic and the Cynic were pronounced.

Would it be accurate to say that being a hermit would be counterproductive to either trains of thought? A hermit wouldn’t have contact with others, and thereby would have no opportunity to challenge and be challenged. Yes, that is correct, and is part of why they met in what amounted to a public square. They were people watching.

No meditation at all in the Stoic practice? Actually, a lot of meditation to help clarify thinking, and process a discussion/argument. They tended to meditate on observations and precepts they believed were demonstrations of truth. Ever see the movie Dune or read the book? Their meditative practice was similar to that of the Mentats.

I think Stoicism is still around in some form? It still is in a denatured and decentralized form. But if someone sought formally to embrace it, it could legitimately be the basis of a revival and not totally off base. But most who would revive Stoicism would reject Stoic spirituality. It would make their truth and reality too mystical. They prefer a dead soulless matter view, and that is not how Stoics saw things, not the originals.

Tainted by the ’scientific revolution’? Yes, so Stoicism has been corrupted, but it isn’t totally lost to us. Deists tend to be sort of like classic Stoics, but many deists are also to some degree agnostic which is not a Stoic view.

How did Stoicism get tainted by the scientific revolution? I would think they have the same end goal? In Stoicism, God is in the machine, and the universe is alive. In the scientific revolution the universe is a machine, and dead except for what we call life, which may also be little different from the dead. Stoics focused on the whole, and they would call an obsessive focus on heuristic thinking a baseless distraction. Basically a waste of time.

We lost it with our fixation on lateral thinking. That’s true. Perhaps interesting trivia, the Roman Empire was capable of canning food like we do, but they would not can food for the same reason. It was seen as a waste of time. The Romans and Greeks had a solid pragmatic streak. In the case of canning, they could make clay jars cheaply and easily, and seal them just as easily. Whereas metal would be more work and complex to seal. They knew how to do it, but it was just seen as too much of a bother. So many of our supposed advances are really more of a value judgment than anything. The medieval Moors preformed very successful c-sections, and their survival rate for females was by comparison very high.

You mean we allow or reject based on values? Yes, and the US President Bush actually had to have one of his policies repealed by Obama. Obama actually had to order that the Presidential office adhere to scientific fact. Stem cells and other matters. Much of the ecological issue too, and the issues behind bio-engineering.

It’s interesting to examine what we ‘can’t do’, and see that it may be because of values then any actual limitation.

Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.

Travis Saunders
Dragon Intuitive
~science,mysticism,spirituality~

Related Insights:

1. Stoic Fate » There is a missing element that modern Stoics don’t usually embrace. The Hegemon, or logos, is still alive and aware in the world. The world is itself possessed of intelligence in the original Stoic view.  They saw life as a constant dialogue, a ...
2. Stoic Morality » In Stoic philosophy the way of a reasonable life is foremost, and they value universal reason over human reason. They say that poor moral conduct is an error of ignorance, but they don’t define morality in a religious sense. They do have a sort of du ...
3. Alive and Active » Stoicism is a school of philosophy from ancient Greece, and is not fully understood in modern thinking today.  In the age of the Greek philosophical schools, they weren’t just a belief system. They were a way of life, and philosophers were very serio ...

They knew the actions of the logos as “fate”, but they were contrary to modern fatalist thinking. They didn’t see any event as coming true because it was always true, which is the fatalist view. To a fatalist you got up this morning because we were always going to get up this morning, and if you don’t tomorrow it’s because it was always true that you wouldn’t on the following day. In the Stoic view of fate that’s not how it works. Something becomes true through the action of the logos, and new events can arise from that process of dialogue with the world.

Stoics saw it was fate, but mutable.  Basically you always get the answer to the questions you put forth by taking action. So if you do something reckless, to the Stoics you are asking “Will I get hurt?”. In their observation it’s “Most often yes”.  To a Stoic, if something happens to you, you really did ask for it even if you didn’t understand.

They say that if you can understand these questions, if you understand the process of the dialogue with the hegemon/logos/god, you can avoid all misfortune, but you cannot avoid misfortune if you defer to desire. If you don’t seize the situation with reason, and see the reason in any event, they basically say you are choosing your poison. Unlike the Cynics, they didn’t believe that ownership or enjoyment of anything was totally wrong, but they believed that you needed to remain detached even in the face of pleasure. To a Stoic, art is good, but if it moves you to emotion you aren’t getting it. Marriage is good, but if you become emotional over your partner you aren’t getting it.  I personally am not Stoic, though I do share some of their views. I do share some even with the Cynics.

They do seem to eliminate a big part of reality by denying emotion? Ah, they don’t deny emotion, but they see it as subsistent. It’s real, but it’s something to master.

I would imagine the true Stoic view is that by not listening to emotion as much, the Stoic is actually able to more carefully focus on reality. That “reality” is separate from the emotional reaction to it. Yes, that’s correct and it is their view, and by keeping to that they can avoid misfortune and move closer to the source of truth. The originating spirit of the universe. So Stoics are sort of deist, just not anthropomorphic.

Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.

Travis Saunders
Dragon Intuitive
~science,mysticism,spirituality~

Related Insights:

1. Stoic Morality » In Stoic philosophy the way of a reasonable life is foremost, and they value universal reason over human reason. They say that poor moral conduct is an error of ignorance, but they don’t define morality in a religious sense. They do have a sort of du ...
2. Stoic Practice » Stoicism did have ’enlightened’ Stoics.  The goal of a Stoic was to become a Sage. A Sage was someone who sees reality clearly, and is troubled by nothing.  He is thus empowered to impart this knowledge to others, as well as always being ...
3. Alive and Active » Stoicism is a school of philosophy from ancient Greece, and is not fully understood in modern thinking today.  In the age of the Greek philosophical schools, they weren’t just a belief system. They were a way of life, and philosophers were very serio ...

Stoicism is sort of interesting in how it differs from other Greek schools. We get the word school from the Greek word schola. The Stoics were known as that because they met at a public “porch”, maybe like the term “armchair” philosopher today.  But their meeting was very far from casual, and this is maybe how we get our modern understanding of the word “stoic”.

Would it have rituals in the way that a Masons meeting would? No, strictly not. They were not actually atheistic though. They saw the world as a unified whole, and its material manifestation as a reflection of a greater preceding truth. In a sense, a “God” that they saw as fire.

Big bang? Yes, and in their view all other forms took shape from that by a process they call pneuma, expansion, and contraction.

Ah, spirit? Yes. Now unlike a lot of Greek thinkers, the world isn’t “post-creation”, and in their view everything is alive and active because the creative action of the logos is still going on. The logos is synonminous with what could be called the Hegemon, the commanding principle or intelligence. Now they said that the reason for all suffering is a mistaken view of the truth represented by that first spirit, and that the ideal life and true freedom/liberation is to become aware of as much truth as possible. So they didn’t necessarily apply Occam’s razor, but were in a sense very minimalist thinkers. They believed that things like ambition, and lust, and the like, were distractions.

Where did that term “Occam’s razor” come from? It is a principle that states “do not assume the presence of more than is absolutely necessary to explain any observation”. Occam is a name, and razor because it’s an exclusionary principle.

The simplest answer tends to be the best one? Yes. Same basic principle, and a firm tenant of Stoicism.

So in Stoicism they focused on understanding the creative force. God being the spirit that moves through all reality giving animation. By understanding the pneuma, they could understand the intention or truth behind any form. I don’t recall their word for the pneuma of objects, but they applied the same term to plants. But the pneuma in animals was called psyche or soul. Soul was the force that could empower one to be an actor where other things were acted upon. To the Stoics, attachment was mistaken, because it was assigning a power to act upon to objects. Like saying your food makes you eat it, they just saw it as illogical. So they did believe that you need to minimize any of that sort of behaviour. Basically a moderation in all things sort of view.

They sound just like Vulcan’s from Star Trek. Attachment of any kind is very unvulcan? Yes, they basically were, but it was believed that with that clarity of perception no misfortune could come to you, and only in this way could you be happy.

The ideas of Stoicism permeate society quite a bit? Yes, but in no official sense. What we have of the original principles of Stoicism is second hand, and sort of distorted, but was appropriated in a lot of other philosophical views.

Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.

Travis Saunders
Dragon Intuitive
~science,mysticism,spirituality~

Related Insights:

1. Faith in Science » There is a term they use in particle physics, but it has been popularized in parapsychology.  Psi, or the psi factor. It was a value used to explain that although any two particles are detectable as separate bodies, the force makes them act as a sing ...
2. Stoic Practice » Stoicism did have ’enlightened’ Stoics.  The goal of a Stoic was to become a Sage. A Sage was someone who sees reality clearly, and is troubled by nothing.  He is thus empowered to impart this knowledge to others, as well as always being ...
3. Path in Hinduism » Hinduism is actually a blanket term for multiple spiritual paths. A common disposition among those who pursue most of the schools is that they don’t have a salvationist view. Most of them are more concerned with understanding as individuals than as a ...