This event is sponsored by the Singles2Couples group and is the second in a series. All are welcome to these experiential presentations commencing January 10, 2007and occurring every other Wednesday thru March 21, 2007.
THE NEW RELATIONSHIP:
Five Agreements to Make Love Come True.
A Series of Talks by Toltec Master, Allan Hardman
Wednesday, January 24, 2007 ~ 7 pm to 9 pm
This week: "YOU ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING OTHER PEOPLE’S EMOTIONAL REACTIONS TO YOUR REALITY”
ALLAN HARDMAN will present his work on the Five Agreements for The New Relationship and his suggestions for breaking the old dreams of romance and relationships of all kinds. Once we have awareness of the old agreements, and are ready to discard those that do not serve us, we can go about the work of replacing them with new ways of relating and respecting each other. These new agreements are applicable in romantic relationships, of course, but also have value in your relationships with parents and children, friends and neighbors, bosses and employees, and ultimately and most important, with yourself.
New Agreements 1-5:
• "Your nature is Love. You are the source of Love in your life."
• "You are not responsible for causing other people's emotional reactions to your reality."
• "Being the source of love, you are complete within yourself."
• "The Truth is more important than the outcome of the Relationship."
• "True happiness is the result of love coming out of you."
Allan Hardman is an expert on relationships, parenting, addictions, emotional healing, and spiritual growth. He is a Toltec Mentor in the Eagle Knight lineage of the Nagual Miguel Ruiz, author of The Four Agreements with whom he served an intensive ten year apprenticeship. Allan brings extensive experience in spiritual counseling and emotional healing to his teaching of the Toltec Path. From his home base in Sonoma County, California, Allan supports local and long distance apprentice programs and leads “Journeys of the Spirit” to sacred sites in Mexico and Peru. He is the co-author of The Heart of Healing and Healing the Heart of the World with Deepak Chopra, Caroline Myss, Dr. Andrew Weil, Prince Charles, and others. He has recently completed The Everything Toltec Wisdom Book, for summer 2007 publication.
Don’t miss this opportunity for an interactive evening with a Master. The public is invited, so tell and/or bring a friend!
Event & Contact Information:
Current Dates:
Wednesday, January 24, 2007 ~ 7 pm to 9 pm
Additional Dates in the Series of Talks:
Wednesday, February 7, 2007 ~ 7 pm to 9 pm
Wednesday, February 21, 2007 ~ 7 pm to 9 pmi
Wednesday, March 7, 2007 ~ 7 pm to 9 pm
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 ~ 7 pm to 9 pm
Cost:
Suggested donation $10, (no one turned away for lack of funds more gladly accepted)
Directions:
Health, Movement & Learning Center,
238 Roberts Ave., Santa Rosa, CA 95401
- Take the Dutton Exit on Hwy 12 and go North
(meaning make a left if you come from Sebastopol or a right if you come from 101)
- Turn right on West 3rd Street
- Go 0.2 miles
- Turn right on Roberts Ave.
- Drive all the way to the end (lots of parking available)
For More Information:
https://www.singles2couples.org/Prof...lan_Hardman.asp
https://www.singles2couples.org/cal....tom_of_calendar
Or call Allan’s Joydancer office at 707.528.1271
Contact Information for Allan Hardman:
707.528.1271 [email protected]
www.joydancer.com
Sonomamark
01-19-2007, 06:35 PM
Okay, so this is promoting a Self Help Event, and I probably shouldn't, but I really can't resist.
So, thought problem: if I belt you in the mouth, steal your car, and kill your pet, it's your fault if you're upset?
Just asking.
You see, I happen to believe that personal responsibility includes factoring in the likely impact of my behavior on others. That doesn't mean being a slave to it...but it also means not being a sociopath who blithely declares that it's someone else's problem that they're bothered when I've done something by which any reasonable person would be upset.
And that truth lies somewhere between the blanket ascription of responsibility for feelings to "the Other", and the blanket ascription of that responsibility to the self, because it's a gray, fuzzy, fractal world, not a black-and-white one. Human interactions aren't so pat as to be honestly negotiable with absolutist platitudes such as "You are not responsible for causing other people's emotional reactions", which sounds to me, frankly, like a get-out-of-responsibility-for-recognizing-when-you're-being-a-jerk card.
Just my perspective. Maybe I'm being a jerk...I'm open to the possibility, at least, and if someone else gets upset about it, I'm open to the possibility that it's my fault.
Mark Green
Secular Humanist Master
Dixon
01-19-2007, 10:00 PM
I couldn't have said that better myself.
Dixon Wragg
Secular Humanist Saint
Okay, so this is promoting a Self Help Event, and I probably shouldn't, but I really can't resist.
So, thought problem: if I belt you in the mouth, steal your car, and kill your pet, it's your fault if you're upset?
Just asking.
You see, I happen to believe that personal responsibility includes factoring in the likely impact of my behavior on others. That doesn't mean being a slave to it...but it also means not being a sociopath who blithely declares that it's someone else's problem that they're bothered when I've done something by which any reasonable person would be upset.
And that truth lies somewhere between the blanket ascription of responsibility for feelings to "the Other", and the blanket ascription of that responsibility to the self, because it's a gray, fuzzy, fractal world, not a black-and-white one. Human interactions aren't so pat as to be honestly negotiable with absolutist platitudes such as "You are not responsible for causing other people's emotional reactions", which sounds to me, frankly, like a get-out-of-responsibility-for-recognizing-when-you're-being-a-jerk card.
Just my perspective. Maybe I'm being a jerk...I'm open to the possibility, at least, and if someone else gets upset about it, I'm open to the possibility that it's my fault.
Mark Green
Secular Humanist Master
donallan
01-19-2007, 10:38 PM
Okay, so this is promoting a Self Help Event, and I probably shouldn't, but I really can't resist.
So, thought problem: if I belt you in the mouth, steal your car, and kill your pet, it's your fault if you're upset?
••••••••
Hello Mark. . .
Thanks for your comments and great questions. I see that the posting from my office had no information about the actual content of my talk on the 24th, so let me see if I can respond to your comments here.
My observation shows me that each of us responds emotionally based on how we interpret events. You steal my car, and wreck it, so we would expect that I would have an angry emotional reaction. But what if I was cheating on my wife and had an accident somewhere I did not belong, then you wreck my car and the evidence of my misdeeds is erased. Then I would be happy-- although I might feign anger to suit the situation!
You see, the wrecking of the car does not directly create the emotional reaction. It is the way one is dreaming it, the story one tells themselves about the event, that gives rise to the corresponding emotional reaction. This is true of all events-- being belted in the mouth, a war in Iraq, the assault on the Twin Towers, one's beloved paying too much attention to another person, stubbing a toe, or the killing of a pet. We have to interpret the event, we must tell ourselves a story about it, before the corresponding emotion arises.
All emotions are potential in the human system. Which one arises and is expressed in reaction to an event depends on the story, not the event. If events could cause emotions, all events would cause the same emotions. Many people danced in the streets and celebrated after the Twin Towers came down. Why? How could they be so callous? Easy. They told themselves (and each other) a different story than those of us who were shocked, outraged, and afraid.
Make sense?
Our parents taught us that we caused them to be angry, hurt, proud, disgusted, happy. We agreed: "I can cause their emotional reactions, and I had better create the right 'good' ones, or I will be rejected or punished." I am suggesting a new agreement: "We are not responsible for causing anyone else's emotional reactions. THEY do it themselves, using us as a catalyst."
I agree that this does not give us license to be jerks-- although there is no stopping those that want to be. But it does free us to be ourselves, and to quit selling out our truth to avoid other people's so-called "negative" reactions. We cannot actually create any emotional reaction in others. Our parents lied to us (not their fault, someone lied to them) when they said we made them angry, etc. The truth was, they made themselves angry, and used us to do it.
Even if we accept this new possibility that I am describing, I call on us to respect the emotions of others. Their emotional reactions are their truth, based on how they have dreamed the situation or us. We can respect that, without feeling responsible for creating their reaction or guilty for doing so.
To end guilt and the fear of doing the "wrong" thing, allows us to show up as ourselves, in pure and open love, and trust that other people will react or not react according to their conditioning, programming, expectations, etc-- knowing it has nothing to do with us.
The corollary agreement is that "We are responsible for creating our emotional reactions to other people's reality." (The good news and the bad news).
This is a vital shift in old agreements that allows us to be free to be the beautiful Divine beings that we are. Otherwise, we are always going to be afraid of the reactions of others, and manipulating our own reality to try to manipulate theirs. Love cannot exist in the presence of that fear.
That fear and manipulation is the basis of many (most? all?) romantic relationships.
You can read all of my FIVE AGREEMENTS FOR THE NEW RELATIONSHIP in "Allan's Notebook" on my Joydancer.com website HERE (https://www.joydancer.com/notebook/5_agreements.html) .
I invite you (all) to join me Wednesday evening the 24th (and every other Wednesday until March 21) at the singles2couples meeting as described in the earlier post, and we can explore the possibilities even further (couples and singles are invited). Mostly we are looking at my Five Agreements in respect to romantic relationship, but ultimately, of course, the most important relationship is the one we have with ourselves.
Details and directions to the event are in the original Wacco post, and on the singles2couples website HERE. (https://www.singles2couples.org/cal.asp)
Offered in love and respect,
Allan Hardman
528-1271
Sonomamark
01-19-2007, 11:18 PM
Allan, I know you're trying to sell a product here, but I have to say that your very lengthy and, AFAIK, earnest response strikes me as oversimplified, ideological and simply untrue.
If someone stole your car and wrecked it, you wouldn't be happy about it, whether or not it covered the tracks of some unethical behavior for you or not. You might be happy about the track-covering and infuriated about the wreck--because we are able to feel multiple feelings about things. It's not one or the other.
While I grant that we have some level of choice in how we frame and respond to the events in our lives, I would suggest to you that you have taken this obvious and useful kernel of truth and inflated it into an absolute truism which is, in fact, false.
We do not have complete choice about how we feel in all circumstances, much as we might want the security and sense of control that such choice would theoretically provide. We are physical beings in bodies. If someone holds a loaded gun to your head, chops your hand off, or shoots your child, or you find yourself without water for three days, you are going to have very definite feelings, and you're not going to have any choice about them.
Life isn't just a "dream", and while our internal framing and narrative can be a very powerful influence on our sense of empowerment and capacity, even on our ability to survive and heal from illness, to airily inflate this fact into some absolutism--which you do, when you cling to your insistence that "we cannot actually create any emotional reaction in others" is simply deceptive. That's a false statement: a kernel of truth exaggerated into falsehood. To then promote this ideology--for a fee--is, I would suggest, unethical.
It's a gray world. It's not black, not white. Do we have some control over our feelings and processing of experience? Yes. Do we have TOTAL control over these? No. We are not simply creatures of intellect and mind, we are physical animals, the brains and nervous systems of which are not completely under our control. The human challenge is to work within these constraints, and all the other constraints which confront us as limited and temporary creatures in particular circumstances.
If it's really important to you to have something authoritative to say about the nature of reality--and I get the sense that it is, or you wouldn't feel the need to call yourself a "Master"--perhaps you can put down the framework you are promoting long enough to look at it and ask: "Is this true? Or is this just something I and the people around me have stopped questioning, and we're all now in groupthink?"
Because from here, you don't sound very grounded in the reality of the human condition. I don't mean this to be insulting, but really--how can broadbrush declarative generalizations such as you make here possibly be helpful, when they don't accurately reflect the world?
Anyway, my two cents. I encourage you to think about them, and wish you good luck.
MG
broadbandersnatch
01-20-2007, 10:12 PM
Mark,
I think you have someimportant and provocative things to say here. I will not get directly into this dialogue, but I would like to mention a parallel that I see here in the "new consciousness" community that is relevant to this discussion. I am referring to the new age concept that can be capsulized in the following statement: " We create our own reality". This simplified view of the complex mysterious universe we live in has always struck me as having a grain of truth, yet it seems somwhat naive in its reductive nature. This concept has been applied to curing disease to the point where I have seen evidence of a sort of New Age fascism when people make statements that if a person isn't successful in healing an illness, they must be holding onto some unresolved emotion or have some "attachment" to the condition that keeps it from resolving. This idea is taken to task in great detail in Ken Wilbur's achingly beautiful book, "Grace and Grit". My own feeling is, while we certainly have a profound influence on our reality by the things we think, say and do, the universe is far too complex and unfathomable to be reduced to a machine that we learn to manipulate to our advantage with a few handy New Age platitudes. What I ma trying to say here is, when you take an idea that has a real grain of TRUTH in it and than turn it into an immutable dogma, it can be potentially dangerous.
Allan, I know you're trying to sell a product here, but I have to say that your very lengthy and, AFAIK, earnest response strikes me as oversimplified, ideological and simply untrue.
If someone stole your car and wrecked it, you wouldn't be happy about it, whether or not it covered the tracks of some unethical behavior for you or not. You might be happy about the track-covering and infuriated about the wreck--because we are able to feel multiple feelings about things. It's not one or the other.
While I grant that we have some level of choice in how we frame and respond to the events in our lives, I would suggest to you that you have taken this obvious and useful kernel of truth and inflated it into an absolute truism which is, in fact, false.
We do not have complete choice about how we feel in all circumstances, much as we might want the security and sense of control that such choice would theoretically provide. We are physical beings in bodies. If someone holds a loaded gun to your head, chops your hand off, or shoots your child, or you find yourself without water for three days, you are going to have very definite feelings, and you're not going to have any choice about them.
Life isn't just a "dream", and while our internal framing and narrative can be a very powerful influence on our sense of empowerment and capacity, even on our ability to survive and heal from illness, to airily inflate this fact into some absolutism--which you do, when you cling to your insistence that "we cannot actually create any emotional reaction in others" is simply deceptive. That's a false statement: a kernel of truth exaggerated into falsehood. To then promote this ideology--for a fee--is, I would suggest, unethical.
It's a gray world. It's not black, not white. Do we have some control over our feelings and processing of experience? Yes. Do we have TOTAL control over these? No. We are not simply creatures of intellect and mind, we are physical animals, the brains and nervous systems of which are not completely under our control. The human challenge is to work within these constraints, and all the other constraints which confront us as limited and temporary creatures in particular circumstances.
If it's really important to you to have something authoritative to say about the nature of reality--and I get the sense that it is, or you wouldn't feel the need to call yourself a "Master"--perhaps you can put down the framework you are promoting long enough to look at it and ask: "Is this true? Or is this just something I and the people around me have stopped questioning, and we're all now in groupthink?"
Because from here, you don't sound very grounded in the reality of the human condition. I don't mean this to be insulting, but really--how can broadbrush declarative generalizations such as you make here possibly be helpful, when they don't accurately reflect the world?
Anyway, my two cents. I encourage you to think about them, and wish you good luck.
MG
donallan
01-20-2007, 10:28 PM
Allan, I know you're trying to sell a product here, but I have to say that your very lengthy and, AFAIK, earnest response strikes me as oversimplified, ideological and simply untrue.
If someone stole your car and wrecked it, you wouldn't be happy about it, whether or not it covered the tracks of some unethical behavior for you or not. You might be happy about the track-covering and infuriated about the wreck--because we are able to feel multiple feelings about things. It's not one or the other.
While I grant that we have some level of choice in how we frame and respond to the events in our lives, I would suggest to you that you have taken this obvious and useful kernel of truth and inflated it into an absolute truism which is, in fact, false.
. . .
Anyway, my two cents. I encourage you to think about them, and wish you good luck.
••••••••
Hello Mark. . .
Gee, I thought I was so convincing in my presentation of my ideas that you would respond with ecstatic gratitude. Darn! Well, I guess experience is the best teacher. I have lived what I wrote about, and thus know it to be true for me. I have shared it with many apprentices and students, and watched them be liberated from their emotional suffering when they grasp the power of what I am talking about.
If you would like to experiment with this, watch your emotional reactions to things, events, people, whatever, and see if you ever react without there being a story in your mind first. Someone wrecks your car. What story do you tell yourself? Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Are you a victim? It is a fascinating exploration. Of course, I am writing for anyone who is reading this. Try it.
Event >> Story >> Emotional reaction.
Without the story, how can an event cause a reaction? There is no emotional content in the universe. If a tree falls in the wind, the other trees do not have an emotional reaction. If it falls on a human's car, he will react. But his reaction will depend on the story he tells himself. Good thing? New car from the insurance? Happy. Bad thing? No insurance? Unhappy. The tree does not create the human's reaction. The human mind ADDS the emotional content by telling stories about the event. We humans create our own emotional universe with the stories we tell about it, and they are mostly unconscious, habitual, and often negative.
I stress this because it means we can change the world we live in, not by making everyone else change for us, but by consciously changing the stories we tell ourselves about the world. We can make ourselves happy. That is very empowering for me. I am happy. I tell myself only love stories.
For me, of course, this is not "oversimplified, ideological and simply untrue." It is the reality I live in. I have no attachment to selling these ideas, except for my need to pay the expenses of my life. I share, I invite listeners to take what works for them, and leave the rest behind.
And I do that here in this moment. Mark, thanks for stimulating this conversation. I always like to hear feedback, and invite it from anyone reading this.
I trust we can disagree in absolute acceptance of each other. After all, it's only stories!
Yours,
Allan Hardman
www.joydancer.com (https://www.joydancer.com) [email protected]
PS: What is AFAIK?
alphagrl
01-21-2007, 12:06 AM
Ah, these are the kinds of conversations that just make me LOVE the WACCO!
aj
artwizard
01-21-2007, 12:53 AM
Hi Allan,
I can appreciate what you are wanting to bring forward about separating our reactions to events from the events themselves. But simply reframing the story or interpreting the events differently is a problematic way of looking at reactivity. While it can be helpful to integrate experiences differently by reframing them with different interpretations, this will not necessarily allow us to change our reactivity. Changing our relationship to reactivity is a long process that requires developing the capacities of empathy, compassion, and reflexivity.
If you study affect theory you will find that there is a biological component to our reactions. And this biological component consists of neurotransmiter and hormonal releases that are "hardwired" based not only on personal development but also on cultural and archetypal influences. The difference between affect and emotion is time, where affect happens almost instantaeously, emotion takes more time and in the process a story is often created so that the memory of the event that triggered the affect can make sense. While the emotion and stories of an event are often interpeted differently, our affectual responses are often much more similar.
Our affectual natures are where we actually do experience interconnectivity with other beings. This is where there needs to be responsibility. It seems apparent that our actions can cause physical harm. If I hit someone in the mouth and their mouth starts to bleed, then my action caused the bleeding, not the story that the other makes about why I hit them. It stands to reason that if we can cause physical harm to another, then we can also cause them emotional and psychological harm as well.
If you are looking to give people freedom to be themselves then I believe that an emphasis on responsibility and accountability would become more important (As in do what you need to do to be yourself but be willing to clean up after yourself). If you are only concerned about your own freedom and not anyone elses, then of course do what ever you want. After all if we are not being responsible (response able) are we not reacting ourselves and cutting off the need for a response to the stories others create. Granted there are times when we may need to cut a process short with someone because their reactions to us might be causing us harm, either physical harm or the projection of blame, etc.
It seems to me accountability allows us to acknowledge the harm we may do to others either real or imagined in the spirit of discovery. If we acknowledge harm done to others it invites others to not hang onto their stories and allows the event or experience to continue to unfold, although there is no garuntees they will do this. It may also invite a clarity of the event from the others perspective. Being able to imagine what an experience is like from the others point of view is the basis of empathy and the cornerstone of compassion.
We don't need to sell out our truth in order to be responsible and accountable to others. In fact it might require more courage and a deeper facing of our fears to let others question our truth. And should our truth change in the process wouldn't it be better to gain that clarity than to hang onto any self righteous attachments we might have to a misconceived truth?
Thanks
Tony
ThePhiant
01-21-2007, 09:25 AM
some of our emotions are chemically triggered as a means of survival, the fight or flight principal.
some of our emotions are culturally motivated, like cannibalism, incest or other taboos
some of our emotions are stories we make up to make our life more like our dreams, like love or being in love
we can all feell these emotions but what we do with these emotions that is up to us.
the stories we tell ourselves about them being good or bad, that is the part we are in contol of, it is the only part we can change.
it is the part we are attached to
if you travel to different countries you may find out that your beliefs are quite offensive, does that mean they are no longer the truth?
Vet-To-Pet
01-21-2007, 10:20 AM
I have to say that this entire way of viewing "things" (our actions, others' actions, our reactions to others' actions, etc...?) is not making much sense to me. I agree that we can't be constantly "censuring" our statements/actions in order to avoid distressing others, but in MY life, I "just try to do the next right thing", which means that MY 'side of the street' (my conscience) is clean, and I'm sure that my motives are honest & true. How someone else reacts IS a concern to me, if I suspect they will be hurt, angry, confused, or other negative responses, but I'm still going to act/say what I feel is best, keeping in mind that I want to be a "good" person. I could possibly be screwed up in MY way of viewing this world/life, but at least I can fall asleep at night knowing that I didn't intentionally try to be unkind (or worse). If I AM screwed up in my way of viewing a harmonious world/life, and if this endangers others on a regualr basis, then MAYbe I should be in therapy...? This is making my head hurt.:hmmm: Bottom line: Do unto others....Try to see things from other peoples' point of view....Have compassion....Don't screw around on your wife or steal other peoples' cars & wreck them!!:2cents:
Peace, Smiles & hugs~
Vet-To-Pet (Paula)
Dixon
01-21-2007, 12:00 PM
My $.01 worth--
I have appreciated the cogent comments on this subject from all of you.
I wish to echo the concern several of you have expressed, to wit: While it's often true that we are not responsible for someone else's feelings, and also that our feelings are largely predicated on the "stories" we tell ourselves (as has been addressed in various schools of cognitive psychotherapy), there are plenty of exceptions to both of those assertions. So, anyone taking the absolutist position that we NEVER have ANY responsibility for others' feelings, or that all of our "stories" are merely stories with no basis in reality, is bound to be mistaken. Virtually any absolutist position that doesn't allow for exceptions will be wrong, because there are exceptions to nearly everything.
We can err by taking responsibility for others' feelings when we really weren't responsible for creating them, but we also equally err when we refuse to take responsibility in situations wherein we were at least partly the cause of the other's feelings. If I rob or rape you, your anger will be appropriate, and my action will have been the main, if not sole, cause of your anger. If I violate you and then dismiss your feelings about it, that's evidence of sociopathy on my part.
Re: the assertion that all of our ideas or philosophies are "just stories"--I've heard this from others in our community (Hi, Jim! Hi, Hari!). If it means that all of our representations of reality are entirely illusory with no basis in reality, and/or that all claims are equally invalid, I must insist it's baloney. For one thing, if you take that positon consistently, it implies that that position itself is illusory (i.e., just another "story" like everything else). Thus, when we explicate its implications, the position that all our positions are only stories is self-invalidating; it cancels itself out, because, after all, it's only a story! If someone wants us to believe that every position is just a story EXCEPT for their position that every position is just a story, what response can we give other than to laugh at their grandiosity?
The position that any position we take is merely a "story" and that all stories are equally illusory/invalid is essentially a restatement of the radical "skepticism" (actually not really skepticism, but rather negative dogmatism) of ancient Greek philosopher Pyrrho. This position has been rejected by virtually all thinkers for centuries now because, if it were actually followed consistently, the believer would be utterly paralyzed, unable to say or do anything, since anything we say or do would imply the reality of some underlying "story". According to legend, Pyrrho died when he was walking blindfolded and refused to believe his students' warning that he was walking toward a cliff because it was just a "story".
Also, note that if everything we tell ourselves is unreal, only a story, then Allan, my friend Jim and others have nothing real to sell their customers, only another story. Caveat emptor!
It would be nice if life were so simple that we could navigate through it by using simplistic absolutistic notions such as reducing everything to mere stories or illusions, thus saving ourselves the trouble of puzzling our way through uncertainties, grey areas and judgment calls, and never having to do the hard work of assessing the relative validity of different "stories". However, life refuses to be quite that simple.
Certainly there will always be plenty of people lining up to buy the latest absolutistic oversimplification. But, as a former Christian fundamentalist, I must insist that absolutistic formulas cause more trouble than they're worth.
Blessings on all!
Dixon
scamperwillow
01-21-2007, 01:09 PM
Hey Barry,
I don't understand why this discussion is in Events and Classes - just curious.
Marty
[Moved! - Barry]
Barry
01-21-2007, 02:22 PM
Ah, these are the kinds of conversations that just make me LOVE the WACCO! Me too!
PS: What is AFAIK?It's an acronym for "As Far As I Know". Here's a good reference for online Acronyms (https://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Lagoon/9819/acronyms.html).
While this topic is messy (and interesting!), a very worthwhile nugget that is available here, IMHO (keep your decoder rings (https://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Lagoon/9819/acronyms.html) handy!), is being responsible for your own reality and story. It gets messier when you try to bring this POV to whether you are responsible for some one else's reality.
My take on reality is that our True Nature is just naked awareness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen). Everything above that is just story. That's really all that "is". And there's a whole bunch of very real seeming, nearly universally accepted story that is layered upon that. The Landmark Forum/EST talks about it as "What Happened and The Story about What Happened".
This is evidenced by the vast array of responses that we witness people having from the same stimuli, including here on WaccoBB.net.
We all have out gut reactions to things. And while they can cause deeply seated emotions by our "affectual natures" (Great post, Tony et al (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006012005278)!), even these are reactions that arise from deeply ingrained stories.
We all live out of these stories (well, at least everybody aside from our own Jim D. :wink:). But since they are just stories, and you are the author of the stories (even if you have plagiarized it from someone else), the opportunity exists to hold them less tightly as truth, and they are even can be re-written! You also don't need to buy into other people's stories, even if you have a staring role in it, although it is helpful to have compassion for them. I think this what Don Allan was driving at.
Juggledude
01-22-2007, 08:37 AM
Geeze, go away for a couple days and look what I miss! I'm sorry to be entering this discussion late, but feel the urge to respond to a couple of points, please bear with me.
Sonomamark, while I appreciate your points, and tend to accept Dixon's more equinamious take on the validity of the divergent views, I found your second reply to be so full of logical fallacies as to make it slightly offensive (an emotional response to a story I'm telling myself).
you state:
...AFAIK, earnest response strikes me as oversimplified, ideological and simply untrue...
...I would suggest to you that you have taken this obvious and useful kernel of truth and inflated it into an absolute truism which is, in fact, false....
...That's a false statement: a kernel of truth exaggerated into falsehood....
MG
Though you start out by prefacing your opinion with AFAIK and the polite term "suggest", your tone and presentation of this opinion, especially later in the text, suggests you are applying the classic logical fallacy of Argument from Ignorance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) to this situation. I believe Alan, Dixon and the rest of us can accept your personal viewpoint, and understand that your truth differs from the stated experience, and would respectfully request that you return the same favor.
...If someone stole your car and wrecked it, you wouldn't be happy about it, whether or not it covered the tracks of some unethical behavior for you or not....
Your authority to dictate Allan or anyone else's emotional responses is both presumptuous and preposterous.
...We do not have complete choice about how we feel in all circumstances, much as we might want the security and sense of control that such choice would theoretically provide. We are physical beings in bodies. If someone holds a loaded gun to your head, chops your hand off, or shoots your child, or you find yourself without water for three days, you are going to have very definite feelings, and you're not going to have any choice about them...
While I agree that most do not have conscious choice about our reactions, your supposition that these reactions are somehow hard wired does not make sense to me. If I was suicidal, I could imagine a scenario where I would feel happy to have someone hold a loaded gun to my head. If my child was suffering horribly from an incurable disease and euthanasia was the only option, I can imagine a scenario where I would be happy to have them shot. As Allan is saying, it is the story we tell ourselves, consciously or unconsciously, which creates our emotional reaction, not some innate property of the act itself. Your inclusion of purely physical examples muddles the water, I don't doubt that most humans would experience thirst upon deprivation or pain upon amputation (though even here I can imagine a scenario where the universally suggested physical reaction would not apply, leprosy for example?), these are physical reactions, and the topic under discussion is emotional reactions.
.
To then promote this ideology--for a fee--is, I would suggest, unethical....
...If it's really important to you to have something authoritative to say about the nature of reality--and I get the sense that it is, or you wouldn't feel the need to call yourself a "Master"--perhaps you can put down the framework you are promoting long enough to look at it and ask: "Is this true? Or is this just something I and the people around me have stopped questioning, and we're all now in groupthink?"...
...Because from here, you don't sound very grounded in the reality of the human condition. I don't mean this to be insulting, but really--how can broadbrush declarative generalizations such as you make here possibly be helpful, when they don't accurately reflect the world?
MG
In the thinly veiled insults you are offering, I sense you flirting with an Ad hominem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy/Ad_Hominem#See_also) fallacy. Just because your viewpoint differs, does not make Allan's viewpoint or sharing of his viewpoint unethical, ungrounded, or indicative of any personal need of his.
Ah, these are the kinds of conversations that just make me LOVE the WACCO!
aj
Me Too! :):
Royce
Juggledude
01-22-2007, 09:05 AM
Hi Allan,
If you study affect theory you will find that there is a biological component to our reactions. And this biological component consists of neurotransmiter and hormonal releases that are "hardwired" based not only on personal development but also on cultural and archetypal influences. The difference between affect and emotion is time, where affect happens almost instantaeously, emotion takes more time and in the process a story is often created so that the memory of the event that triggered the affect can make sense. While the emotion and stories of an event are often interpeted differently, our affectual responses are often much more similar.
Tony,
I appreciate your distinction between affect and emotion, and am curious to know more on this subject. You state that the biological component is "hardwired", but then say that it's hardwired based on cultural and archetypal influences. There appears to be some contradiction inherent there. It might also be said that a person's emotional response is "hardwired" due to chronic abuse, extreme conditioning, etc. The mere distinction of time to differentiate affect from emotion seems to be analogous to speaking of the depth of one's 'story'.
Our affectual natures are where we actually do experience interconnectivity with other beings. This is where there needs to be responsibility. It seems apparent that our actions can cause physical harm. If I hit someone in the mouth and their mouth starts to bleed, then my action caused the bleeding, not the story that the other makes about why I hit them. It stands to reason that if we can cause physical harm to another, then we can also cause them emotional and psychological harm as well.
It stands to reason only if you accept the pervasive culturally and archetypaly imposed bias we have previously discussed. I agree completely that this bias exists, and it would seem prudent to hold awareness of it when determining one's actions, yet it seems treacherous to grant this bias some separate and immutable quality.
If you are looking to give people freedom to be themselves then I believe that an emphasis on responsibility and accountability would become more important (As in do what you need to do to be yourself but be willing to clean up after yourself). If you are only concerned about your own freedom and not anyone else's, then of course do what ever you want. After all if we are not being responsible (response able) are we not reacting ourselves and cutting off the need for a response to the stories others create. Granted there are times when we may need to cut a process short with someone because their reactions to us might be causing us harm, either physical harm or the projection of blame, etc.
It seems to me accountability allows us to acknowledge the harm we may do to others either real or imagined in the spirit of discovery. If we acknowledge harm done to others it invites others to not hang onto their stories and allows the event or experience to continue to unfold, although there is no guarantees they will do this. It may also invite a clarity of the event from the others perspective. Being able to imagine what an experience is like from the others point of view is the basis of empathy and the cornerstone of compassion.
We don't need to sell out our truth in order to be responsible and accountable to others. In fact it might require more courage and a deeper facing of our fears to let others question our truth. And should our truth change in the process wouldn't it be better to gain that clarity than to hang onto any self righteous attachments we might have to a misconceived truth?
Thanks
Tony
The concept of accountability is exactly what I get from Allan's post, albeit from the other direction, the yin to your yang, the other cut of a double edged sword. Accountability of an individual can be encouraged by not assuming responsibility for their emotional reaction. Accountability of self can be gained through the ownership of one's own reactions. In a perfect world, where everyone operated by these principles, we'd have a big accountability party. In the real gray and muddled world, where cultural and archetypal influences hold a great deal of sway, where cause and effect are imperfectly understood, where the delineation between action and reaction blur, Accountability for the effect of one's actions upon others becomes a useful social convention, realizing that in recognition of the prevalent reality, we choose to accept the manifestations of these concepts, while still holding awareness of the underlying (personal) truths.
Royce
Juggledude
01-22-2007, 09:17 AM
some of our emotions are chemically triggered as a means of survival, the fight or flight principal.
some of our emotions are culturally motivated, like cannibalism, incest or other taboos
some of our emotions are stories we make up to make our life more like our dreams, like love or being in love
we can all feell these emotions but what we do with these emotions that is up to us.
the stories we tell ourselves about them being good or bad, that is the part we are in contol of, it is the only part we can change.
it is the part we are attached to
if you travel to different countries you may find out that your beliefs are quite offensive, does that mean they are no longer the truth?
Phiant,
Very consise, thank you for the elegant synopsis. I take from your post the concept of judgement. Judging any of our reactions, catagorizing them into "good" or "bad" emotions, experiences, conventions, is within our grasp, as is clearly indicated by your cultural example. An attitude of nonjudgemental acceptance is something I strive to maintain, with varied success. Accepting what is seems so much more useful to me that catagorizing and reacting to where I've put it.
Royce
Juggledude
01-22-2007, 09:29 AM
My $.01 worth--
I have appreciated the cogent comments on this subject from all of you.
I wish to echo the concern several of you have expressed, to wit: While it's often true that we are not responsible for someone else's feelings, and also that our feelings are largely predicated on the "stories" we tell ourselves (as has been addressed in various schools of cognitive psychotherapy), there are plenty of exceptions to both of those assertions. So, anyone taking the absolutist position that we NEVER have ANY responsibility for others' feelings, or that all of our "stories" are merely stories with no basis in reality, is bound to be mistaken. Virtually any absolutist position that doesn't allow for exceptions will be wrong, because there are exceptions to nearly everything.
We can err by taking responsibility for others' feelings when we really weren't responsible for creating them, but we also equally err when we refuse to take responsibility in situations wherein we were at least partly the cause of the other's feelings. If I rob or rape you, your anger will be appropriate, and my action will have been the main, if not sole, cause of your anger. If I violate you and then dismiss your feelings about it, that's evidence of sociopathy on my part.
Re: the assertion that all of our ideas or philosophies are "just stories"--I've heard this from others in our community (Hi, Jim! Hi, Hari!). If it means that all of our representations of reality are entirely illusory with no basis in reality, and/or that all claims are equally invalid, I must insist it's baloney. For one thing, if you take that positon consistently, it implies that that position itself is illusory (i.e., just another "story" like everything else). Thus, when we explicate its implications, the position that all our positions are only stories is self-invalidating; it cancels itself out, because, after all, it's only a story! If someone wants us to believe that every position is just a story EXCEPT for their position that every position is just a story, what response can we give other than to laugh at their grandiosity?
The position that any position we take is merely a "story" and that all stories are equally illusory/invalid is essentially a restatement of the radical "skepticism" (actually not really skepticism, but rather negative dogmatism) of ancient Greek philosopher Pyrrho. This position has been rejected by virtually all thinkers for centuries now because, if it were actually followed consistently, the believer would be utterly paralyzed, unable to say or do anything, since anything we say or do would imply the reality of some underlying "story". According to legend, Pyrrho died when he was walking blindfolded and refused to believe his students' warning that he was walking toward a cliff because it was just a "story".
Also, note that if everything we tell ourselves is unreal, only a story, then Allan, my friend Jim and others have nothing real to sell their customers, only another story. Caveat emptor!
It would be nice if life were so simple that we could navigate through it by using simplistic absolutistic notions such as reducing everything to mere stories or illusions, thus saving ourselves the trouble of puzzling our way through uncertainties, grey areas and judgment calls, and never having to do the hard work of assessing the relative validity of different "stories". However, life refuses to be quite that simple.
Certainly there will always be plenty of people lining up to buy the latest absolutistic oversimplification. But, as a former Christian fundamentalist, I must insist that absolutistic formulas cause more trouble than they're worth.
Blessings on all!
Dixon
Dixon,
thanks for your well spoken input! I enjoy reading your words. I'm really with you for the first half of your post, allowing a middle path between the extreme positions espoused before. You seem to have made a leap off the track, however, when you left behind the subject of purely emotional reactions, and started applying the same logic to "ideas,"philosophies" and "positions". Though you've crafted a fun logical pathway through these concepts, I don't think anyone ever proposed the ideas you seem to be arguing against.
Oh, and congratulations on overcoming your Christian fundamentalist indoctrination!
Royce
Dixon
01-22-2007, 10:50 AM
...I am referring to the new age concept... "We create our own reality". This simplified view of the complex mysterious universe we live in has always struck me as having a grain of truth, yet it seems somwhat naive in its reductive nature. This concept has been applied to curing disease to the point where I have seen evidence of a sort of New Age fascism when people make statements that if a person isn't successful in healing an illness, they must be holding onto some unresolved emotion or have some "attachment" to the condition that keeps it from resolving.Once again Brian has nailed an important point. Despite its kernel of truth, this exaggerated "We create our own reality" dogma has a very dark side. Apropos of that, here's a quote from a review of the "What the Bleep..." movie I wrote some time ago:
(An) issue that bothers me is the implication that, since we can all mentally create our world, those whose worlds involve institutionalized poverty, repression and even worse brutalities have created that reality themselves. This is a subtext that we have often seen in "spiritual" belief systems popular among privileged New Age yuppie-types, who are attracted to the implication that their own prosperity is predicated on their presumed spiritual superiority, and that the people we’re exploiting really are asking for it, so we needn’t worry about them. This is a variation on a theme that’s been around for millennia, and it’s REALLY FUCKING UGLY. Cheers;
Dixon
Dixon
01-22-2007, 11:24 AM
Hi, Royce!
You seem to have made a leap off the track, however, when you left behind the subject of purely emotional reactions, and started applying the same logic to "ideas,"philosophies" and "positions". I didn't jump off any track; I was discussing philosophical positions all along. You may have been confused by the fact that some of those philosophical positions were positions ABOUT emotional reactions.
...I don't think anyone ever proposed the ideas you seem to be arguing against."On the contrary, the aforementioned Pyrrho did, and I often hear those positions (such as the idea that every claim about reality is just a "story", with no more validity than any other "story") in the local New Age community. If I'm not mistaken, this claim is also a feature of much "post-modernist", "deconstructionist" theory. Of course, no one really believes it, as we all constantly act as if some things are true and others false (and we couldn't survive if we didn't), but some folks apparently BELIEVE THAT THEY BELIEVE it.
Oh, and congratulations on overcoming your Christian fundamentalist indoctrination!Thanks, Royce. It wasn't easy. Fundamentalist beliefs are inculcated in such a way as to make one feel guilty for questioning (doubting) them, thus keeping people stuck in the belief system. Also, fundamentalism (of any stripe) keeps people stuck by insulating itself from rational critique through being anti-intellectual and appealing to emotion, "faith", fallacious reasoning, and authority figures, much like our Sonoma County New Age community.
Peace;
Dixon
Juggledude
01-22-2007, 11:25 AM
Brian has raised an interesting parallel topic here, one which I'd like to propose gets it's own thread,
Mr. Barry Moderator Empowered HTML coder man, would you be willing to oblige in the spawning of an offshoot ?
any objections?
"We Create our Own Reality" or "Quantum Physics meets Narcissistic Naivety"
I'm fond of the concept, personally, and would love to hash it out with some critical thinkers.
Royce
Barry
01-22-2007, 12:17 PM
Brian has raised an interesting parallel topic here, one which I'd like to propose gets it's own thread,
Mr. Barry Moderator Empowered HTML coder man, would you be willing to oblige in the spawning of an offshoot ?
any objections?
"We Create our Own Reality" or "Quantum Physics meets Narcissistic Naivety"
I'm fond of the concept, personally, and would love to hash it out with some critical thinkers.You are welcome to start another thread if you like, Royce (No HTML needed!), but your proposed topic seems quite germane to this discussion. I do like the "Quantum Physics meets Narcissistic Naivety" title though. I'd be happy to swap it but I'm afraid it would cause too much confusion.
alansky
01-22-2007, 05:18 PM
While I grant that we have some level of choice in how we frame and respond to the events in our lives, I would suggest to you that you have taken this obvious and useful kernel of truth and inflated it into an absolute truism which is, in fact, false.
I find sonomamark's observation central to this discussion. What is true under certain circumstances may indeed be false when "inflated" into an absolute truth, and usually is. From where I stand, death is the only certainty and working remedies for the tremendous suffering in the world are few and far between.
There are thousands of situations when donallan's spin on "reality" is exactly right. People dream up all sorts of imaginary dramas and then react to them as though they were real. This is called neurotic behavior. But there are an equal number of situations, if not ten thousand times more, when the application of such simplistic reduction methods strikes me as stunningly insensitive and an insult to the very spirit of compassion.
There is, for certain, a way in which it can be said that everything that happens in the world is just a dream. But when you wake up, the dream and the dreamer both disappear. You can't say, "Your dream is not real, but you are real and must take responsibility for creating the dream." That's nonsense! Whoever says that should keep quiet for everyone's benefit.
Peace,
Alan
paultous
01-22-2007, 10:59 PM
If I engage in partner battering, am I responsible only for the broken bones? Or, let's look at it from this angle: there is the egret in the Laguna and there is my experience of profound wonder. Can we say that there is a relationship between Egret-Laguna and my profound wonder? Perhaps the egret is not 'causing' the wonder, but it is certainly an occasion for the elicitation of wonder. So I think it would be better to say we are all related and that we are all inter-responsible for and to each other. ... Surely John Coltrane is not responsible for what I feel when I hear Some of My Favorite Things, but somehow there is a relationship between the capacity of the hairs on the back of my neck to stand up and the way the music, played only as Coltrane could play it, plays itself out. ... Or, for instance, this: if I oppress you and you hate me, would I not be disengenious if I said I am not responsible for your hatred? On the other hand, when you take responsibility for your emotional reaction (hatred), I may have to expect something new from you. I may have to expect that you may just force me to stop my oppressive behavior. At the very least, when you cease to deny what you feel, I may have to cease denying what I do to you.
ed rimbaugh
artwizard
01-23-2007, 01:36 AM
Tony,
I appreciate your distinction between affect and emotion, and am curious to know more on this subject. You state that the biological component is "hardwired", but then say that it's hardwired based on cultural and archetypal influences. There appears to be some contradiction inherent there. It might also be said that a person's emotional response is "hardwired" due to chronic abuse, extreme conditioning, etc. The mere distinction of time to differentiate affect from emotion seems to be analogous to speaking of the depth of one's 'story'.
The concept of accountability is exactly what I get from Allan's post, albeit from the other direction, the yin to your yang, the other cut of a double edged sword. Accountability of an individual can be encouraged by not assuming responsibility for their emotional reaction. Accountability of self can be gained through the ownership of one's own reactions. In a perfect world, where everyone operated by these principles, we'd have a big accountability party. In the real gray and muddled world, where cultural and archetypal influences hold a great deal of sway, where cause and effect are imperfectly understood, where the delineation between action and reaction blur, Accountability for the effect of one's actions upon others becomes a useful social convention, realizing that in recognition of the prevalent reality, we choose to accept the manifestations of these concepts, while still holding awareness of the underlying (personal) truths.
Royce
Hi Royce,
Thanks for the well sated post. You can find out more about affect theory via Sylvan Tomkins work or through Donald Nathanson's book "Shame and Pride". What I meant by using the word "hardwired" was what others might call conditioning but with a twist. And I don't mean to propose that emotion is only "hardwired". If I remember right there are two general neural pathways used in responses to stimuli. These two pathways are sometimes refered to as Primary and Secondary Emotions. (see "Descartes Error" by Antonio Damasio) Primary Emotions take the fastest route through the brain starting at the sensory source moving through the amygdala and then through the hypothalamus which triggers the release of neurotransmitters and hormones. Secondary Emotion takes this route as well but also uses a feedback loop through the neocortex where story can be processed. Of course I have stated this simplistically and there is a lot more going on. Affect travels the Primary Route.
Conditioning would indicate a story would always be present except the studies in affect theory have noticed that infants produce a startle response to loud noises and other stimuli prior to their acquiring language, in other words prior to the ability to create a conscious story to their sensory stimulation. And there is a significant predicibility of response to varying stimulation among infants. We even share some of the same responses with other animals.
I think you are right in saying the distinction of time differentiates affect from emotion and seems to be analogous to speaking of the depth of one's 'story'. But this is not just ones story but almost everybodies story and the depth of the story can be as deep as being the human story - thus archetypal. That is not an easy story to drop. So if this is what you are meaning by the depth of the story then we are talking about the same thing and then I would agree that there is always some story going on albeit perhaps some of those stories we are not going to be able to reframe because of the depth of the story. I am not seeing any contradiction to what I stated previously, but if you still do perhaps you could clarify.
One thing that I want to emphasize from my previous post is that with the understanding of affect theory one can have a deeper grasp of our interconnectivity. With affect theory interconnectivity is not just a metaphysical term but a physical reality. And yes on the other side of the coin is our separateness. Responsibility and accountability for both is appropriate. I'll take accountability here for my previous post and admit that I am biased towards responsibility to others. And I certainly agree that being responsible to oneself is also necessary. We do create our own realities, but we are also participants in creating a collective reality both need to be attended to, both are interconnected.
Thanks for the conversation
Tony
alansky
01-23-2007, 04:34 PM
"You are not responsible for causing other people's emotional reactions to your reality." [emphasis mine]
I can't resist calling attention to the obvious irony of enlisting this slogan in the service of a workshop about togetherness! Not exactly an invitation to see beyond the illusion of separation, if you ask me.
How about a follow-up workshop entitled "I've got mine. What's your problem?"
don
01-24-2007, 04:17 PM
As we all might agree, most things in this world are not clearly black and white or 100% perfect, but often still have great value. So here we have Allan posting an announcement to an event with a thought-provoking statement, which has generated some eloquent discussion by and some target practice by others. I suggest that ~ while discussing the merits ~ we not throw the baby out with the bathwater and suggest that we all might find some value in this statement and Allan's (and other people's) teachings if we not look at it as 100% "right" or no value. This statement also says to me that we are the one's responsible for our own reactions and behavior, giving US the ownership and control of ourselves and not being powerless by giving it up to those outside of us.
Did anybody here actually go to this event and experience it for themselves? I did and really enjoyed the event, Allan and the other participants, and I will be attending tonight and anticipate attending the rest of the series.
As far as the comment about Allan just selling something, payment for the event was totally low-key. An unattended basket for the offering was in the back of the room and one brief announcement was made, and it was clearly stated then and in the post that no one was turned away for lack of funds. The feeling I got is that this is Allan's work and he actively sharing it with the community, and at the same time he, like us, (I assume) needs to earn a living, but I did not get the feeling that this was just about money.
To me these teaching are just like most everything in life; you can take from it what feeds you and leave the rest.
Wishing you all the best
don
Sonomamark
01-24-2007, 11:14 PM
Hello, all. This conversation has gotten interesting!
Tony,
You state that the biological component is "hardwired", but then say that it's hardwired based on cultural and archetypal influences. There appears to be some contradiction inherent there. It might also be said that a person's emotional response is "hardwired" due to chronic abuse, extreme conditioning, etc.
Exactly! Our brains aren't developed when we're born--they develop and "wire themselves" over many years of development and don't complete until the early 20s, actually, though the more developed they are, the less radically they can be changed short of some kind of brain injury. Beyond that, they're subject to our genetics, and we will have emotional propensities that we inherit from our antecedents that are as unavoidable as the physical characteristics we got from them. Once adulthood is reached, you're working with whatever neurological framework you've got--it isn't going to change. Learning can occur--that's not the same thing. But the basic emotional structure, root survival strategies, etc., are there, and they're staying.
The "nature v. nurture" argument has now been quite settled in terms of human brain development: it's both. Our genes literally function differently based on the context within which we are raised. If we are raised in a context of fear, privation, abuse, etc., that has PERMANENT AND IRREVERSIBLE effects on the very nature of our personalities. That's not to say that such people can't come to be happy in the long run--but they will never be the same people they would have been if they had been raised in a safe, loving environment. That's the hardwiring: it is what it is. Culture can have an impact: if you're surrounded by a fearful, violent and/or angry culture, that will have an impact.
This is why it is just wrong, in my view, to make airy general claims such as "You are not responsible for causing other people's emotional reactions." A child beater isn't? HITLER wasn't? A torturer isn't? C'mon: this is not a point that anyone that isn't surrounded by gobs of security and privilege would even dare to advance. It's all very nice to imagine that we are little infinitely malleable and powerful islands that have total self-determination, but reality won't play along.
I don't think anyone here disagrees that we can delude ourselves, and play tail-chasing games with ourselves to try to avoid causing emotions in others. But to go as far as the slogan we're discussing just isn't reality-based. I'd go farther: if you think about it, it's the operating principle of a sociopath.
Mark
Sonomamark
01-24-2007, 11:28 PM
Oh, no. Somebody pushed the Big Red Button.
Not only that, somebody else mentioned "What the Bleep".
Cut and paste from a post to another list:
Not to be a wet blanket, but the "science" in WTBleep, with the exception of the Candace Pert/neuroreceptors bit, is nonsense. Complete, utter nonsense. To put it in context: proportionally, about as many physicists agree with the "science" in WTBleep as climatologists deny that there is global warming.
As a science (and particularly a cosmological physics) geek, I dream of the day when the spiritual seeking/New Age/Pagan/whatevaya wannacallit crowd abandons the idea that quantum mechanics in some way provides scientific underpinning for what they choose to believe.
It doesn't, folks. Believe what you like, but please don't try to use "quantum physics" as a way of making it sound like you've got science in your corner when it comes to the kind of stuff that's in What the Bleep. There are many, many reasons why this is so, but I'll just stick to the most important one:
Quantum MECHANICS (that's what it's really called) only applies to phenomena at scales below the Planck length (that's around 10 to the minus 23rd power meters), and nothing you have any control over or will ever experience--not a synapse firing, not a thought, not a feeling, not a perception, not an event--is anywhere near that small. Quantum mechanics is interesting because of what it may tell us about the very small, and about the formation of the Universe. But that whole Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle/Schrodinger's Cat /Perceiver-affects-the-experiment thing that alternative believers are so fond of citing? It doesn't apply to you. It doesn't apply to anything you've ever experienced.
The error that gets made is in confusing the way the subjective nature of perception can trap us in projections (as Laing and many others articulated)--which all happens inside the mind--with an actual, PHYSICAL change in the Universe, which happens in physical reality, not just in the mind.
Now, if you believe that the Universe is all just in the mind, this may not be a meaningful sentence to you. But if you believe that, you don't really need science's backing anyway, because science vigorously objects to your basic paradigm and accepts axiomatically that there is, indeed, a Universe, and would be, whether or not there were any minds in it.
Now, I know some people believe that by thinking something hard enough, or focusing on it long enough, or praying, or doing other such concentration exercises, you can cause physical change in the Universe, even at remote distance. I don't believe that, but I'm not addressing that question right now. I'm just saying that there is nothing in quantum mechanics that relates to that question, one way or the other. It is not physically possible for quantum mechanics to have anything to do with it, because it would happen at a scale to which quantum mechanics is completely irrelevant. A thought is the perceptive interpretation of an electrochemical event in the neural net of the brain. It happens at a scale far above the Planck scale. It's subject to the physics of relativity, not quantum mechanics.
Okay, now I feel better.
Mark
Sonomamark
01-24-2007, 11:35 PM
I completely agree with this.
MG
Mark,
I think you have someimportant and provocative things to say here. I will not get directly into this dialogue, but I would like to mention a parallel that I see here in the "new consciousness" community that is relevant to this discussion. I am referring to the new age concept that can be capsulized in the following statement: " We create our own reality". This simplified view of the complex mysterious universe we live in has always struck me as having a grain of truth, yet it seems somwhat naive in its reductive nature. This concept has been applied to curing disease to the point where I have seen evidence of a sort of New Age fascism when people make statements that if a person isn't successful in healing an illness, they must be holding onto some unresolved emotion or have some "attachment" to the condition that keeps it from resolving. This idea is taken to task in great detail in Ken Wilbur's achingly beautiful book, "Grace and Grit". My own feeling is, while we certainly have a profound influence on our reality by the things we think, say and do, the universe is far too complex and unfathomable to be reduced to a machine that we learn to manipulate to our advantage with a few handy New Age platitudes. What I ma trying to say here is, when you take an idea that has a real grain of TRUTH in it and than turn it into an immutable dogma, it can be potentially dangerous.
alansky
01-25-2007, 09:42 AM
The error that gets made is in confusing the way the subjective nature of perception can trap us in projections (as Laing and many others articulated)--which all happens inside the mind--with an actual, PHYSICAL change in the Universe, which happens in physical reality, not just in the mind.
Now, if you believe that the Universe is all just in the mind, this may not be a meaningful sentence to you. But if you believe that, you don't really need science's backing anyway, because science vigorously objects to your basic paradigm and accepts axiomatically that there is, indeed, a Universe, and would be, whether or not there were any minds in it.
Actually, that's not really the case, is it? Isn't it true that the modern view of quantum mechanics is that nothing (not even the smallest particle) can actually be said to exist without the participation of an observer? Isn't it true that awareness itself is part of the equation?
I totally agree that "What the Bleep" is mostly new-age sugar candy, but it appears that the nature of the material universe itself—leaving aside all this woo-woo "create your own reality" stuff—is not carved in stone, as it were. Take stone itself: the sub-atomic particles that make up the atoms of the stone are 99.9% empty space, are they not? If so, then it follows that the stone itself is composed of mostly empty space.
So one can quite legitimately ask the question, "What is the nature of the material universe?" From where I stand, the answer is not so clear from either the scientific or the metaphysical side. My brain is tired now!
Sonomamark
01-26-2007, 11:51 AM
Actually, no: Quantum mechanics have exhibited the characteristic that when attempts at measurement take place, they inherently limit the kinds of measurements which can be done and affect the outcome of the measurement in question. The simplest example is that if you wish to measure the velocity of a particle, you can do that, but will be unable to measure its vector. This is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It's more about the limits of perception than perception controlling reality, but QM is a through-the-looking-glass level of reality in which the way things work are radically different from our relativistic scale.
Nothing I have ever read in relation to QM suggests that something does not exist unless perceived. Space/time itself has entity, even when empty of mass. And on the face of it, that's a silly proposition--is Mount Everest a hollow shell because no one has ever perceived the subatomic particles composing the molecules within it? Did the world not exist until life evolved on its non-existent surface to perceive it? It doesn't take much reflection to see that this is all pretty silly.
Yes, stone is mostly empty space, but the particles within it are bound together by forces so powerful that they result in cohesion and hardness. These particles include the elusive Higgs boson, which is believed to conduct the attribute of mass. If you like, you can consider "solid" matter to be more accurately described as infinitesimal particles held together by powerful force fields.
Cosmological physicists are the people who, with better methodology and more complete review of information than any others, actually DO ask the question, "what is the nature of the material Universe?" All evidence available to us is that there is a material Universe--not a dream--and we are in it, products of it, and subject to its laws. Humans get all uppity about having brains--we're one-trick ponies, and that's our trick--and make the mistake of thinking that mind is a big deal, since it's the only thing we're good at. But it's a big Universe out there, and we're a small and temporary part of it. It's fun to use our minds to understand it as best we can, and we're pretty good at that. But we're also good at imagination--that's how we forecast possible future outcomes of action alternatives, and negotiate our survival. It's important to differentiate imagination--which is fancy, and doesn't have to be rooted in reality--from assessment of what's really here, and what we really are.
MG
Actually, that's not really the case, is it? Isn't it true that the modern view of quantum mechanics is that nothing (not even the smallest particle) can actually be said to exist without the participation of an observer? Isn't it true that awareness itself is part of the equation?
I totally agree that "What the Bleep" is mostly new-age sugar candy, but it appears that the nature of the material universe itself—leaving aside all this woo-woo "create your own reality" stuff—is not carved in stone, as it were. Take stone itself: the sub-atomic particles that make up the atoms of the stone are 99.9% empty space, are they not? If so, then it follows that the stone itself is composed of mostly empty space.
So one can quite legitimately ask the question, "What is the nature of the material universe?" From where I stand, the answer is not so clear from either the scientific or the metaphysical side. My brain is tired now!
Lorrie
01-26-2007, 12:18 PM
Cool! This is so cool!
*~~~~~Lorrie
Actually, no: Quantum mechanics have exhibited the characteristic that when attempts at measurement take place, they inherently limit the kinds of measurements which can be done and affect the outcome of the measurement in question. {snip}
Sonomamark
01-26-2007, 01:45 PM
Well, yes, it is--but bear in mind that this is ONLY true at the Planck scale: meaning, for phenomena which are 10 to the minus 23rd power in size or smaller. That's far smaller than a hydrogen atom. Everything we experience is larger than that, and is therefore subject to the principles of relativity, not quantum mechanics.
MG
Cool! This is so cool!
*~~~~~Lorrie
donallan
05-28-2007, 04:39 PM
Hello Beloved Waccovians. . .
I am delighted to have created such a stir with the posting from my office about my talk on Agreement #2 in my Five Agreements for The New Relationship back in January (see this thread). I responded a couple of times in an attempt to clarify my teaching, then dropped back and let some very smart people argue among themselves. I confess I have not read all the ensuing sharing.
You may have noticed from an event posting last week, that I am repeating the series I did at the singles2couples meetings, and this week (Wed, May 30) I am returning to s2c for the experiential version of "You are not responsible for other people's emotional reactions to your reality."
The old agreement from our childhood says: "You create other people's emotional reactions to you, and so you had better behave properly, so their emotional reactions are positive. Otherwise you will be rejected and/or punished. Their feelings are more important than yours; so you must deny yours and take care of them."
When we keep this old agreement we must, by its very nature, deny our own feeling truth. I would suggest that this is not healthy in the evolution of our individual authenticity, nor does it create healthy relationships-- romantic or others.
Many people read my new agreement and get stuck on the "not responsible for other people's emotional reactions" part-- asking "what kind of a world would we live in if no one cared about anyone else's feelings??" I would like to focus your attention on a word that I usually leave out: ". . .not responsible for creating other people's emotional reactions. . ."
What I am offering is the logical reality that what you say or do cannot create an emotional reaction in someone else. It is a logical and metaphysical impossibility. I believe there is definitely a universe here, however, everyone "dreams" it differently. We filter and distort our perception of the universe through the memories, traumas, domestication, fears, dreams, loves, beliefs, and agreements stored in our minds from the past. None of us see or live in the same universe, because each of us has different filters and distorting perceptions.
THEREFORE, what you say or do will be filtered and distorted by the person perceiving it, AND THEIR EMOTIONAL REACTION WILL BE BASED ON THEIR DISTORTIONS, NOT ON WHAT YOU SAY OR DO. You cannot directly cause their reaction-- they must process it first, and then react according to their specific and personal distortions.
A simple way to look at this is to recognize that we are always telling stories about the universe we are perceiving. It is those stories that create our emotional reactions. An event happens, we tell a story about it, and the emotional reaction follows, and is consistent with, the STORY!
Event >> Story >> Emotional Reaction
Without the story, there is no emotional reaction. And everyone is going to tell a unique and personal story about every event. . .witness photos of people dancing in the street celebrating when the Twin Towers collapsed. Therefore, you are not responsible for creating other people's emotional reactions to you your reality.
Do you see the power in that?? If you change your agreement, you are no longer obligated to deny your reality to protect other people's emotions. You are free to be yourself. And you honor them to take care of their own emotions. It is the only way you can actually BE in relationship. The minute you deny your own emotional truth in order to protect someone else or your relationship with them, you have already lost the relationship.
The corollary to #2 here is: "You are responsible for your emotional reactions to other people's reality." Because, you see, you are the one telling the stories about what someone says or does and the story (which is your distortion of the universe) is causing your emotional reaction-- not them. This also goes for wars, presidents, races and classes of people, people that cut you off on the freeway, sexually attractive people, beauty and ugliness--every reaction or opinion you have comes from stories you tell yourself about this beautiful, perfect, and mysterious universe.
Do you want to always be happy? Make sure you are always telling yourself happy stories.
If you want to read more about how the mind dreams a distorted reality, look for "The Perfect Dream" in Allan's Notebook on my website. If you want to read my Five Agreements for The New Relationship, the link is in the Notebook, also. CD's of all Five Agreements are for sale in my Joydancer Online Store.
Best of all, join me for the Experiential Five Agreement series, at singles2couples this Wednesday. See the events board for details.
Thanks for reading, and much love and respect to you all. I look forward to hearing from you once again.