IMG_2361
Blog powered by Typepad

« Something just doesn't Sitwell ... | Main | Two thumbs up »

Comments

“It took me quite a while longer to learn something more important -- that it is not only impossible but actually undesirable to "convert" others.”

Unsolicited advice is not only undesirable but I suspect trespassing. A friend of mine from high school has gone through relationships like some people go through napkins. So one day many years ago while he was visiting me from another state I decided it was time after thirty years of keeping my mouth shut to give him some advice.

But first I had sense enough to ask him how he would change his life if he had it to do all over again. Well to my surprise he listed the very three things I was going to give him advice on. I did not need to give one piece of advice to him.

Has he changed on thing about his life and taken any of his own advice? Not one. He has not changed one thing about his life. If I had given that advice I suspect he would have deeply resented it.

Now when to give advice. If another person or country is harming others then I wonder do we keep our thoughts to ourselves and would it do any good to offer advice. I suspect it would not. Our cherished paradigms are for the most part in control of our lives and for the most part we don’t have a clue the power they have over us.

I had to watch the paradigm video over 80 times in my seminars before I began to awaken to the power of paradigms. Most people watch it once and think they got it. I also find that the second reading of a good book is much more beneficial than the first reading.

I have read Emmanuel’s book one over 100 times and it still amazes me the knowledge in that book. The intelligence that came through George Wright I have been reading for about 9 years and still learning from those teachings. I suspect paradigms are very necessary to keep societies stable and maybe why we are so resistant to changing our paradigms.

I also suspect that what looks like chaos to us is perfection in action developing our souls.

My worldview is that we're living in a place with some 6.7 billion worldviews. And every single one of us thinks we're "right".

I agree that we should try not to judge, but I do think that history teaches us that we do need to challenge worldviews at times. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all extreme examples of what can happen when we don't, and of what can happen when one dominant worldview that's no longer working is replaced by another that's even worse.

Those are extreme examples, though. Dawkins and Dennett aren't intent on harming other people - I don't doubt that their intentions are good, and I think they actually do make some good points on occasion.

I still think they're wrong, though!

;-)

In the end, I guess I think there are plenty of good and bad ideas and actions, but not good and bad people. Though I must admit, there are plenty of times it's nearly impossible to tell the difference.

as I frequently say, 'I believe everybody is entitled to my own opinion ;-)'

For people in religions that believe that the word, their word, needs to be spread and heard in order to save their souls or what have you, I suppose it makes sense to behave the way they do.

For a materialist perspective or a more non-religious spiritual one that believes in life after death, but doesn't believe in things like eternal damnation, then needing to convert everyone else to your way of thinking makes much less sense. Especially the latter group, because if we're right, we'll all discover it someday at the end of our earthly life

But there IS something wrong with them and I CAN fix it!

Oh, okay. Actually, I learned a long time ago that my calm conviction on a given subject, absent any pontifications, actually invites people to come on in and look for themselves.

Compassion and tolerance for other beliefs can go a long way.

Its insulting and demeaning to ridicule others who's beliefs are different. Of course when people's worldviews are attacked so viciously it can lead to violence, hate. Mocking and attacking something one doesn't understand or fears is a clear indication of spiritual immaturity and ignorance.

If people could take the time to understand what drives some beliefs both corporately and or individually and show love instead of hate or guilt or fear, the world would be a better place.

Any belief that murders and supports violence is another matter altogether. Death and destruction is not supported at the heart of any pure spirit.

Jesus Christ said if one is angry with one's brother, then you are a murderer. Very profound the root of murder is anger. Its the seed that grows into hate, to violence, then ultimately murder.

I guess attacking someones worldview, religion, emotional state, identity etc can lead to destruction and murder.

How many people commit suicide these days because they have spiritual crises, often their cherished beliefs have come undone.

What anyone preaches on blogs, books, movies, TV etc can lead towards the destruction of human life, in a sense we all are responsible for what comes out of our mouths and how we treat any person who crosses our paths. The best thing we all can do is continue to improve ourselves and give out to others the same way we want to be treated back. My guess is *Respect* is the first key word.

An example of murder, would be yelling at a child/adult or name calling and mocking.

With each bit of abuse you attack the spirit center of that person. They lose parts of themselves (a percentage of confidence, self esteem, self love etc) A little piece of them is murdered.

Papa Dont Preach?

Everyone on this blog is basically a preacher including myself in various degrees, you don't need to be Christian to be lumped with that title.

If you have an opinion/belief and a need to express it and or enforce it, with regular displays, you may not wear the fancy robes and stand behind a pulpit but you still have them symbolically at wherever or to whomever your preaching.

Interesting and difficult subject.
One severe problem is that they are mostly
not *own* thoughts which are attacked and which would change the person believing in it.

According to my observations disturbingly many, many people believe things because:
- someone who is sympathetic to them uttered
them
- someone who uses his authority enforces
an opinion on them.
- the majority believes in it.
- the enemy believes the opposite.
- the opinion is so very convienient. The
nature is so big, we can extract
unlimited resources. Some people surely
earned their money, so it's ok if I steal
a bit from them.

You can find real self-found opinions by their gentle weeping because they are depressed being so alone.

Mostly, if you "discuss" with a person, you don't want to change him, you try to influence the bystanders. If they agree with you, your opponent is pressed to withdraw.

Here are a few apt remarks from Memoirs of a Superfluous Man (1943), by A.J. Nock:

"Direct attempts to overcome and enlighten ignorance are a doubtful venture; ... it is impossible ... to tell anybody anything which in a very real sense he does not already know." (p. 17)

"One of the most offensive things about the society in which I later found myself was its monstrous itch for changing people. It seemed to me a society made up of congenital missionaries, natural-born evangelists and propagandists, bent on re-shaping, re-forming, and standardizing people according to a pattern of their own devising--and what a pattern it was, good heavens! It seemed to me, in short, a society fundamentally and profoundly ill-bred." (p. 26)

"I was much impressed by my learned friend Hendrik Willem van Loon's remark that 'a sense of the inevitable' is the most valuable thing one can get out of one's classical studies. ... One may wish [others] were better and wiser than they are, but the sense of the inevitable gives warning that no force of wishing or striving can make them so; and therefore the less they are meddled with, the better." (p. 214)

"One may wish [others] were better and wiser than they are, but the sense of the inevitable gives warning that no force of wishing or striving can make them so; and therefore the less they are meddled with, the better." (p. 214)"

Perhaps A J Nock was fond of Oscar Wilde?

Lady Bracknell:
I have always been of opinion that a man who desires to get married should know either everything or nothing. Which do you know?

Jack:
(After some hesitation) I know nothing, Lady Bracknell.

Lady Bracknell:
I am pleased to hear it. I do not approve of anything that tampers with natural ignorance.

“Lady Bracknell:
I am pleased to hear it. I do not approve of anything that tampers with natural ignorance.”

What is natural ignorance but innate unawareness? What is innate is manifested or created or maybe an expression; therefore the origin of our innate unawareness is innocence. Following that logic our natural ignorance is innocence.

Without that innate unawareness there is no Jack or Lady Bracknell.

As hard as it is or as easy as it is to understand our natural unawareness is what makes us us. Without that natural unawareness there is no us. Our perceived individuality depends solely on our unawareness.

Infinite awareness is I suspect impossible to define. To define infinite is to limit it. As for an analogy I just read in Findlay’s book we are individualized droplets of water heading towards the sea of full understanding from a stream to a brook to a river to the sea of perfect awareness.

It appears that most of us (all of us?) find several lakes on our way to the sea. It may now become clearer why Jesus stated forgive 70 times 7.

Whew! time for some yin yoga while I am still an individualized droplet of water. Ok naturally ignorant. :-)

I guess from a religious angle many argue from a perspective of belief that they have "the Truth". I don't think it's unusual to seek the truth and when a person is convinced that they have found it the natural urge is to tell others. This it seems to me would be especially so when the "Truth" they have found requires them to spread this Good News eg certain Christians and other groups. I suspect it would be very difficult for people in that position to remain open minded and not to seek to convince others that their way is the right way.Not to try to convince other might be seen as selfish and uncaring and probably in conflict with the Truth they think they have found.

“Not to try to convince other might be seen as selfish and uncaring and probably in conflict with the Truth they think they have found.”

That is an interesting statement. There may be some validity to it. I know as a teacher most of my life when I find out something I seem to have this inner desire to tell the world especially if I think it will help them heal from their suffering.

I wonder if there are not several reasons for our trying to convince others of our “truths”. I feel it is more about overcoming our own personal doubt than some altruistic reason. But we are all in this together maybe there is a natural tendency to share information. Look how the Internet has grown in such a short time.

I feel it is more about overcoming our own personal doubt than some altruistic reason.

If there is an element of doubt, it wouldn't be a truth, would it?

Well said Michael!

When it comes to argueing for the existence of life after death, reincarnation or karma, I'm okay with agreeing to disagree. I don't think people "need" to believe in those things unless they're ready.

When it involves my own health and tax money, as well as others, in matters such as alternative medicine being sidelined by ineffective orthodox treatments, however, then I get more pushy.

sorry about the unnamed comment above. It was me (or I or whatever). As a previous member of one of the many "I have the truth" outlets - I am sure my desire was to tell other people what I believed at the time was the truth. I didn't do it to somehow shore-up my own doubts (at least not consciously:)) . Of course with hindsight I now realise it was a crock however at the time I believed people needed to know and that their lives depended upon it.

"If there is an element of doubt, it wouldn't be a truth, would it?"

That was my point.

Jesus was intelligent when asked what is truth.

"I didn't do it to somehow shore-up my own doubts (at least not consciously:))"


We are not conscious of shoring up our doubts. It is a subconscious act.

There may be many reasons for our comments and one of them I suspect is doubt.

Certainty often hides our doubt but that inner doubt causes us to try and convince others of our beliefs. If we convince others of our “truths” then we get some kind of temporal external confirmation that our truths are thee truths. I suspect doubts are divine.

Inner doubts may drive us to seek truths but not before we try to hide them for long periods of time with the certainty of our truths, which when we look closely our truths are often just the conditioned beliefs of others.

But doubt raises its head again and again so we really try to convince others and often lots of others and if we have the power we even try to force others to think like us.

Our minds can be very deceptive but also very compassionate. We are gods in the making but we miss the mark often. There would be no journey or expression without that missing the mark. Are we often unaware of our unawareness? :-)

"Many folks want to serve God, but only as advisors." Unknown author.


whoops the wrong name has shown up on my comments.


researcher is a name I use on another blog as william is already taken.

sorry for that.

I hear what you say William but I am not sure shoring up doubts is always subconscious _ I suspect many people argue a point of view whilst knowingly harbouring doubts. The reason for doing it was, I think, because I saw it as a commandment - I can't say I really enjoyed doing it though lol

A close friend of mind, a former Jehovah's Witness, would agree with you, Paul.

Michael - now that is a coincidence! :)

“I hear what you say William but I am not sure shoring up doubts is always subconscious _ I suspect many people argue a point of view whilst knowingly harboring doubts.”

You are right Paul. There may be two types/levels of doubts. One is subconscious and could be considered a paradigm. We just don’t see or recognize our doubts but they affect our interactions in the world and the other has a name (two words) but I cannot think of it right now.

I don't know, but I think life is much easier when you quit looking for "concrete" answers, and accept ambiguity. At least, I'm comfortalbe with it.

I don't know, but I think life is much easier when you quit looking for "concrete" answers, and accept ambiguity. At least, I'm comfortable with it.

I forget whether it's hundu or buddhist, but there is a line concerning "that if you believe that you kill me, you don't know _____, and if I believe that I die, I don't know ______. Wish I could remember enough to fill in the blanks, but basically, death is an illusion.

Ambiguity: Findlay makes a good point in his book that if we were moving to another country we would want to know what it is like. What the weather is like how to pack etc. you cannot keep a mind down and in ignorance forever. Many people are interested in learning more about their lives.

A synonym for ambiguity is doubt. Doubt will work on the mind until all doubt is removed. But the universe will not give up its mysteries easily. What would the journey be like without those mysteries?

“I don't know, but I think life is much easier” look at history many people do not choose easy for their lives. Some people climb mountains other do research into life after death, the meaning of their lives, etc.

"Some people climb mountains other do research into life after death, the meaning of their lives, etc."

I'm not sure that you can really find meaning or truth outside of yourself.

Near as I can tell, this existence is much like the existence of the "lives" I have when playing video games. Some games make you start over from the beginning when you "die"; some let you start at the level from where you left off. But, none of them is a "real" existence, and I am not convinced that this one is all that different, outside of an increased complexity that obscures from us the "truth".

As to life after death, or better put - existence after/outside this existence - presumes this existence is "real", of which I am still not convinced, and certainly attach no importance to it for that would somehow be conceding too much value to the materialistic/objectivistic (sic) evidence that percieve through my highly fallible senses and subjective filters.

Preaching generally has a negative connontation as it implies pushing beliefs down the throat of a non willing participant. However, there appears to me to be many situations where it is in the interest of all people to speak up and engage others in dialogue. Personally I feel that particularly we should challenge the "preachers" on their views, whether they are religious consveratives(and thus condemn all those that don't support their religious views) or naturalistic paradigm police (thus accusing all those that claim to have had supernatural experiences of being either frauds or mentally ill). I think we should avoid pushing everyday people into discussions that they are not interested in, yet pursue those who do speak up and perhaps influence the opinions of many.

The main negative associations with preaching come from the traditional Christian preaching which implied that if you did not follow the churchs doctrine you were "evil" and would be condemned to an eternity of torture in Hell. I think there are many areas of debate which are worthy of fighting for.

I agree, Jim.

The tricky part is in challenging positions without denigrating those who hold them.

The comments to this entry are closed.