EmotionalTroubleshooter

1 Comment

Don’t Hide Your Light Under a Bushel

In this age of political correctness, racial profiling, special investigations, public assassinations and homogenized intellect- uality, is it any wonder that we have such difficulty talking intelligently with anyone without having to identify which side of the trending news or social gossip we align ourselves with? It seems that we must we pledge allegiance to a particular party, team, special interest group or underdog minority before anyone will consent to have a honest conversation with us. Now that we are just beginning to realize our privacy has essentially been obliterated, do we really believe that the Thought Police are listening? Does the Ministry of Peace have spies in our neighborhood groups? Is Winston Smith no longer the only one who must admit that two plus two now equals five? There seems to be a trending unconscious paranoia and public obsession with maintaining safety in anonymity while appearing to be in alliance with the socially perceived “winning” side. Why?

We seem to have become overly concerned with how others see us. The perception of our public image has become a very powerful focus. This has been strongly driven home by our witnessing the media unearthing every little thing that anyone of any notoriety has ever done. Everyone and everything is being investigated for some form of corruption. As a result we have become blame and prosecution crazy. Why and how has this become the dominating American focus of our time? I believe that this stems back to a “systemic” halted growth in our process of maturity and emotional development. How has this happened?

As we grow as children, we are trained to regard our parents as the authority for what we can and can’t do in our daily lives. For the things we want to do but are forbidden by them, we tend to do them anyway and then remain on the lookout for our being discovered by them. This trains us to pay more attention to what our parents perceive and believe is important than what we believe is right or appropriate for ourselves. As we get older and as our parents are either unable or unwilling to relinquish control over our lives and all along preventing us from maturing past them, we cut loose from them by transferring this feeling of authority to the outside world. Now the police, government, our bosses, our psychologists, our contemporary thinkers, our religious leaders take the place of our parents dictating what we can or can’t do in our daily activities. Over recent years, the media, with all its pundits, experts, priests, pastors, officials, social “elders” and investors seems to have been substituted for this parental authority.

This has augmented a tremendous undercurrent of paranoia in the average person. Most everyone seems to be petrified of being exposed for some social or legal infraction causing them to say and reveal little about themselves and what they’ve done or not that might seem to compromise their social standing. This has radically changed how we deal with the public. How does this progress?

These days it is commonly accepted that to converse with a stranger we must wade through conventional greetings that don’t really connect to the other person but only get their attention. This encourages us to believe that our safety with them can be assured and a comfortable format for interchange can be established. Saying “How are you doing?” doesn’t really want to know how they are doing but “tests the water” for our interpersonal comfort with them. Conventionally and with no connection other than this superfluous formality, it’s easy then just to move on if the comfort level doesn’t feel safe or comfortable. But these days this protective superficiality has extended well past initiating a connection deeply into the continuation of our conversations with them to test where the other person’s values rest. We now feel that we must ascertain who and what they align themselves with and what kind of authority or investigative media they might conform to. Even our educational system seems to have also been radically affected in that virtually no balance between progressive or conservative speakers has been allowed in college settings. Diversity of culture has become a sweeping demand effectively censoring individual opinion if it differs with the prevailing tendency toward deference in favor of socially acceptable views. Minority and special interest groups have made us feel that to express an opinion differing from their interests qualifies us as being racist and warrants admonishment or prosecution of some sort.

In our contemporary landscape social bonding has been evolving into a required alignment with others who express social dissatisfaction with any entity that expresses views that threaten their emotional security or exposes individual preferences to social scrutiny. Bonding with others through pain or dissidence is and has been an unhealthy way to approach the world. It does not allow free expression under the threat of banishment in the face of keeping up our public image.

On the surface the pendulum of free expression has reached an extreme in the suppression of allowing individual preferences to even reach the light of day under the threat of exposure, negative labeling, banishment or even persecution and prosecution.

Have we taken the requirement to align with diversity too far? Are we really threatened or offended by any opinion that even hints at diminishing or limiting any minority group’s advantage? How much handicap parking must we endure? How many languages must our official documents be translated into? How much lower must we reduce educational and skilled job requirements so we’re not seen as racist or discriminating? How much Affirmative Action must be allowed to penetrate our standards? How much must we restrict the expression or exposure of our accomplishments so those who are either challenged too lazy to work don’t feel less about themselves?

Are you offended? Yes? Well then, good! Now, get over it! You may now drink from the water trough of accountability that my offensively perceived questions have led you to. It will encourage you to dilute the indignation you’ve garnered against those who have not changed their behavior and not allowed you to project your own guilt, frailties and prejudices on them. This awareness makes it possible for you to not only recognize but to deal with your issues yourself instead of projecting them on others thereby becoming part of your shadow. Contrarily, are you not offended? Great! You are obviously not projecting anything on anyone and feel comfortable being accountable for whatever you are experiencing with me or anyone else.

As a contemporary culture we have taken the requirement for deference to the socially decreed underdog and self-censoring much too far. It’s time to allow exceptional effort and accomplishment to have full expression and exposure. It’s time to allow ourselves to express our pride and preferences to our peers and the public about who we are, what we’ve done and can do and what we like and don’t like without social emotional extortion threatening us with banishment, labeling, ostracization and persecution simply for being different from the prevailing group. Our current socially demanded and excessive expectation of modesty has become a lethal poison to our creativity. Becoming our brother’s keeper and provider has become a sanctioned monkey on our back. The concept of being of service to those “less fortunate” and in need has metastasized way out of proportion relative to the balanced importance it should have in our daily lives. It’s time to bring back the acceptance of some selfishness. It’s time to not feel blackballed or neglectful of others when we simply think for ourselves, especially, when it runs contrary to the paranoia contained in contemporary popular opinion. The age of political correctness has reached and passed its peak. We must catalyze its decline if we are to regain our self-respect and humanity…for ourselves.

For most of us, mainly in our current social context and deeply imprinted within our conscience is the belief that to be a good person we must do the right thing. It is also assumed that society knows what that right thing is and is watching our performance at any given moment to see if we are measuring up. When we do the right thing, there arises a feeling of satisfaction within us in relation to how our society and peer group sees us. We feel supported and secure in that we are accepted and have a sense of belonging to our clan. Yet, there also arises within us an undercurrent that gives us a gnawing and indescribable feeling that something is missing. It is as if something has been ignored or omitted relative to our own preferences and wishes. If we take the time, we then we sit back and feel inside ourselves. In that moment we realize that we’ve sacrificed a part of our own needs and preferences to the benefit of others. We might even feel a little cheated. But, we tell ourselves, we’ve done the right thing.

There is nothing wrong with ministering to the needs and wants of others. If we’re going to interrelate within our culture, it’s important that we also have sensitivity to its needs and preferences. But, by the same token, we must also be sensitive and responsive to our own needs and preferences even in spite of feeling pressed into sacrificing those needs in favor of doing the right thing for others. We must also do the right thing for ourselves, even in the face of being labeled selfish by those who expect our service. Both objectives must be present in equal measure within us if we are to feel balanced and peaceful in our daily pursuits within our culture. However, our current cultural perspective has been changing such that its emphasis has been leaning more and more toward service to others taking precedence over our own personal welfare. This meaning of doing the right thing must be shifted back to a balanced perspective between public needs and personal needs. However, in light of the direction of our changing educational system, this is not likely to occur any time soon. With this in mind, let’s look at where the evolving meaning of do the right thing has been progressing toward.

We’ve all heard this expression time and again. But for each of us, it registers differently depending on how and by whom we were brought up. But what do we really mean when we say the right thing? To define this will seem crystal clear for some of us but nebulous at best for others.

Rather than getting involved in a whole plethora of definitions, suffice it to say that the majority of us perceive the word right as meaning what is considered to be proper, moral and socially acceptable. That being said, there are many perspectives to be taken depending on our culture, religion, beliefs and past experience. This will make our expectations for ourselves and those we hold dear extremely diversified. However, any of our reasonings will fall into one of two categories; what we’ve been taught and what we personally feel internally.

In our modern-day world our concentration on life through the internet has encouraged us to be much more interactive as opposed to if we were left to our own devices without it. That is, we’re being groomed into putting much more stock in what the world outside of us believes and espouses to be true and proper rather than what our own heart may dictate. And although we’d also like to think that our children have been raised by us to think for themselves, the reality of the message they’ve received is if I am acknowledged at all, I must do as I’m told and what I feel or think comes second to world beliefs. The parental perspective of this message, usually held unconsciously, is do as I say not as I do.

Our culturally promoted world view, whether we are conscious of it or not, has evolved into the belief, or maybe just an accepted assumption, that a good person is to be altruistic or sacrificial to others by nature. A bad person is someone who is assumed to be selfish, self-absorbed and not considered to be a contributing part of his clan. In other words, altruism is defined as "having regard for the interest and well-being of others (1853)” and selfishness is defined as “self-seeking, self-ended and self-ful (1620s).” Unfortunately, our current society has been morphing into seeing any perspective in terms of only black or white. For many, the blending of the two is virtually impossible. We’re left with being judged as either good or bad.

Giving back to our society has become the gold standard for what is expected of us when we deal with the outside world. What we do in private, for all intents and purposes, is ignored by our culture unless it directly affects someone in public. Then, it receives judgments and consequences. This “manifesto” has been drilled into our psyches by the prevailing religious organizations who have their own control oriented agendas under the guise of the morality peddled throughout the centuries. The belief that God, Jesus, Buddha, Mohamed or Krishna are to be followed flawlessly as the only way to insure a rewarding afterlife and that there are special people and books who “know” the secrets held by these people. The expected public belief is to accept that there is an absolute universal perspective that dictates the behavior and perspectives that we all must abide by…with the exception of those who supposedly “know” the truth and administer rewards and punishments, of course. Bottom line, we’re trained into believing that the authority for how we run our lives is dictated by others who “know” how the world should be. Still, they were brought up as we were; following and doing what they we told. However, at some point they became aware of the manipulative dynamic in force, jumped on the bandwagon and assumed a position among the “knowledgeably elite.”

So, what is the right thing to do socially? It is whatever the elite dictates that allows them to maintain control over the masses (us). This funnels favor, opportunity, advantage and finance in their direction at our expense. So, what is the right thing to do personally? This depends on where we take our authority from. For each person it will be different. Do we subscribe to the absolute universal perspective peddled by the elite which almost always channels benefit in their direction or do we follow what our inner self or heart tells us is the best response for maintaining self-respect and domain over our own life circumstances? The former insures our safety and belonging in the clan. The latter often leaves us banished and without support as punishment for not ministering to the needs of everyone else before ourselves. To choose the former is easy but squelches our own preferences and creativity while promising safety and security through believing that others will support us if we fail. The latter activates our preferences and catalyzes our creativity but provides no social safety net if we fail. Oddly enough, these same scenarios resonate with socialism and capitalism, respectively. Think about it. The more we allow group principles to take precedence over whatever our own heart tells us, the more we move into becoming a socialist culture. One only has to look at other socialist cultures to understand the direction and circumstances that this migrating belief system will present us with.

To the extreme, doing the right thing has socially almost become synonymous with being politically correct. This has been cleverly developed into a weapon for coercion by many special interest groups also climbing on the bandwagon and looking for advantage through engendering guilt and emotional blackmail with our deprecating labeling and “excommunication” as its price for non-acquiescence.

So, what to do? We must each make a choice. Are belonging and social support the most important commodities in our lives? If so, we must align with what our culture demands of us as the right thing to do. We may gain belonging and support but there’s a price. We must forego our own personal preferences and individual creativity in favor of the needs and preferences of others.

Are being self-directing and individually creative the most important commodities in our lives? If so, we must align with what our heart tells us is the right thing to do. We will gain our independence and ability to express our creativity as we please but there is also a price. There will be no belonging, support or social safety net available to us if we fail.

One last point. Of the two choices, the latter requires more courage.  Who do you know who has been successful and has done everything they were supposed to do or were told to do? Odds are…no one. People like Thomas Edison, Mahatma Gandhi, Eleanor Roosevelt, Nicolai Tesla, Queen Elizabeth I, Albert Einstein, Joan of Arc, Jesus, Marie Curie, John Lennon, Janis Joplin and Nelson Mandela, to name just a few, have all followed their own path listening to their own heart and inner calling. Do you want to be successful? All we have to do is listen to that small voice inside us, muster up our courage and do the right thing.

What Has Happened to the News?

A commentary

When I was growing up, Walter Cronkite, Tom Brokaw and all the stable anchors in news used to tell us all about issues and events throughout the world. It was all comprised of facts, figures and information about the events and issues. There were virtually no partialities, no political agendas or special interest groups involved in what was reported. The important thing that I find so glaring as compared to today’s news stations is that, then, there was a horde of reporters sent throughout the world gathering facts, figures and tangible information almost as if they were under oath to be factual and speak the truth about everything they saw and heard. Attendant with each thirty-minute broadcast was also only about seven to eight minutes of commercial advertisements. Things have changed. Today’s news appears to be VERY different in many ways.

The dictionary defines news as the announcing of current events and their attendant information and details.  Although we say that we have become an information driven society, we receive reports with a few morsels of information which are then followed by a deluge of opinions and perspectives that take center stage in almost every report. When a news report or “breaking news” is announced, the content is usually one of three stories which has been beaten to death from every possible angle and perspective. Panels, pundits and experts that most of us have never even heard of expound opinions and personal thoughts based on their own political affiliations and financial agendas. And even then, once the discussion has started, it often devolves into a shouting match between opposing pundits on the panel. What has happened to the “reporting?” Where did all the facts go?  Is it really any surprise that “fake news” has been metastasizing across the media like a forest fire in California?

We have become deluged by our media with a tsunami of personal opinions, thoughts, perspectives and political agendas based on each station’s political and financial supporters. How can we know what’s really going on? Is the truth that we must listen to all the differing stations and partisanships and make our own decisions based on our intuition? The only problem with that is that our culture has short circuited the use of doing this with promoting political correctness and an expected approval of only culturally specific affirmative action. But when you point this out, you’re called a racist, a homophobe, a radical or some other blanket term used to invalidate any thinking that might contradict the prevailing underdog’s group objectives connected to the issue. To not speak out leaves your position in society superseded by those in culturally preferred minority groups and leaving you feeling taken advantage of. To speak out or object makes you a target by putting you on the defensive. In accepting this, our altruism has become perverted. What to do? How can we maintain our rights without getting trampled by every underdog group looking to be one up on us?  Our values are being funneled into a narrow view of the world supporting the expanded entitlement of the most current and loudest protesting underdog organizations. And if we don’t visibly support their demands, we are looked upon as non-compassionate or racist.

For a culture espousing the necessity of scientific research to back every fact concerning our existence, we have certainly undermined our world image and perspectives with a barrage of one sided intangible and unprovable beliefs and idealist assertions geared toward manipulating popular opinion by corporate administrations and partisan leaderships over our social actions and perspectives. The “news” presents the perspectives and the minority groups enforce them.

Little known to most people, almost all of the major news entities are owned by one corporation which, incidentally, is politically aligned with the “left” or a liberal ideology.  This then promotes a “subliminal” barrage of information geared toward herding the American public into aligning with a perspective that perpetuates a radically pre-planned myopic view of the world; sort of a mass mind control. If we are all channeled into focusing on what each group or public figure does socially that contradicts the politically accepted and fabricated view of what is considered “right” and proper in the world, we miss the larger scheme of what is really occurring in current events. In short, the media has succeeded in conjuring a tremendous distraction from becoming aware of current events in the world through encouraging the investment of our attention into petty social minutia. In allowing this to occur, we become the perpetrators of our own brainwashing program. We’ve allowed ourselves to become the victims of a large “find the pea under the cup” scam watching the pea under the cup and ignoring the manipulator and his agenda.

So, where does this leave us in understanding what’s really going on in the world? Where? Out to sea without a paddle. With virtually no solid references toward evidence or factual data, we are left with using only the opinions and perspectives of those chosen by the media to rely on for our knowledge and understanding of world events. This leaves us totally out of touch with the reality of things. Through the media, those in power have a totally attentive, obedient, responsive and eminently moldable population. Now we are ripe for herding and fleecing. Only those of us who think for ourselves can see the reality of things. But we are rapidly shrinking in number as our children’s education in history, mathematics, and literature is becoming homogenized into an Orwellian story line emulating the news and social protocols of 1984. But by progressively shrinking in number, are we becoming helpless in effecting any change back toward life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Let’s hope not.

Tremendous attention and outrage has been applied to the act of bullying. Unfortunately, almost all of the energy has been directed toward reacting to the act with punishment for the perpetrator and sympathy and counseling for the victim. Its contemporary handling has been focused primarily on the prevention of the action, yet, almost no attention has been given to the causes that would encourage one to do so,to what the victim broadcasts to attract his perpetrator or what kind of education or training would contribute to its prevention for the perpetrator and the victim.

Nothing happens at random. Because we live and grow in the physical world, we deal with our experience from an action/reaction perspective. For most of us, these understandings and perceptions are understandable and seem even reasonable. But, closing the barn door after the horses have escaped does little to prevent their escape in the first place. In the same light, punishing the perpetrator and counseling the victim from a victim perspective does little to prevent future occurrences. Their predisposition toward bullying or being bullied emanate from a deeply ingrained behavior learned in childhood. For us to be effective in our handling of this type of event something more must be come into play than to simply to punish or console. I’d like to offer some options for understanding but I must warn you ahead of time. Those who have been bullied, have children who have been bullied or have done the bullying themselves may take great offense at what I’m about to say. Please put aside your indignation and allow this to unfold in your understanding before you fold your arms and shut the door on what I’m about to say. It takes two to Tango. It also takes two to bully and to be bullied. Both the perpetrator and victim are implicated in what occurs, whether we or they are aware of it or not.

Let’s first start off by examining the old adage “birds of a feather flock together.” The more modern version of this is “like attracts like.” We can certainly see that people who like or do the same things will have an attraction for each other and are often found in the same groupings of people. Artists attract artists. Business people attract business people and so on. But can we also understand that people who are, say, very frugal with their money will also be drawn to people who throw money away? Yes! Why? Because both character types have a learned problematic attitude toward the handling of their money. In this light we can also say that people who are overly compassionate also attract people who are not and users always seem to find people who are easily used. It’s just a fact of life that we also attract our opposites. Why? Because an imbalance in issues draws us together more than which side or polarity of the imbalance we take our perspective from. Included in this perspective is the understanding that extroverts and introverts are opposites and are also attracted to each other in the same way. Both have an opposing tendency in how and how much they will tend to allow or seek contact with the “outside” world. Opposites attract as nature’s way of attempting to rebalance an issue that has become polarized. However, people who are a little more evolved and finely balanced than we will, most likely, not be perceived by us as being extroverted or introverted. For them, attention will be given to the degree to which they do or don’t project according to the appropriateness of the response required, not that they are opposites. We won’t see the polarity because their action will be in line and appropriate for what is needed.

For those of us who might not be quite as evolved, and that’s most of us, people who either advance into or retreat from contact will be perceived by us as being either extroverted or introverted. Let’s take this one step further. Bullies will appear to us as being more extroverted and those who are victims will appear to be more introverted. The issue creating the “difference” between them, outward projection or inward retreat, can be as strongly polarized for us as we compare male to female; active and receptive again reinforcing the fact that opposites attract. Our awareness is triggered by the perception of extremes. To us, the issue appears secondary.

So, now that we can see that like attracts like as much as opposites attract as a function of the issues not because of the sides or extremes we take in or perspective. The sides we take are simply symptoms of an issue that is unbalanced. Let’s move on and fill in some other factors in the dynamic picture that’s forming.

In examining how we handle contact with others we must look at character. We can initially assume that our tendencies toward exhibiting certain types of character may be either innate or hereditary. To some degree, I will agree with this. We most certainly seem to bring some forms of character and tendencies into life with us. But this may not be the only reason for our exhibited behaviors. Our tendency to either project toward or retreat from contact with others can also be trained or encouraged in us by those in our early environment such as parents or siblings. If we project a behavior that displeases someone in our early environment, their negatively perceived reaction may encourage us to refrain from using that same behavior, not only in the family, but in other circumstances outside the family. If we feel is frightened or intimidated by someone in our early environment, this will also intensify our reluctance to express ourselves the same way within and outside the family nucleus. Someone who is not innately introverted may then be shown that introversion may be the best behavior to exhibit within and outside the family to assure their emotional and physical safety. Parents who are extremely authoritarian or exhibit fits of anger when they are not pleased may very easily discourage their children into introversion thereby preventing them from exhibiting their innate behavior for fear that they will elicit unpleasant reactions. The child’s innate emotional strength has a lot to do with their responses. We must also understand that a strong spirited child may act out against discouragement of unwanted behaviors by the parents and not be subdued.

Contrarily, a child who may be innately introverted may feel encouraged by their parents to be more extroverted simply because their parental encouragement may give them enough confidence and courage to step outside their comfort zone, and perhaps even past ethical boundaries, to try new things. This will also be true with abusive parents when the child is taught or modeled that abusive behavior is appropriate to get what they want.

In both cases, hereditarily and environmentally, we’re working with nature verses nurture; also known as genetics verses environment. We all respond to both but in many varying degrees depending on their mix. What is environmentally trained depends on the mix between how we as parents respond to the behaviors we perceive in our children, our own level of emotional maturity and the emotional strength and resiliency of our child. We have the power to create balanced adults, narcissistic monsters (spoiled children feeling entitled) or people pleasers (fear induced submissives) depending on our behavior and what we encourage or discourage in our children’s behavior. Bullying is often a consequence of a pairing between apparent narcissists and people pleasers as opposites. Both the parent and child may be either. A submissive will create a narcissistic monster and a parent behaving narcissistically will create a submissive.

Children learn by example. They not only react but also emulate what they observe as “effective” behavior. The “effectiveness” will usually be paired with a purpose or intention, whether they are conscious of it or not. If a child sees that kind and tender behavior elicits a loving reaction, they will emulate that behavior to receive that response from others. If they see that an angry or abusive behavior elicits submission to their preferences, they will emulate that too. Whatever behaviors appear to work in getting the desired response from others will be emulated. A child’s emotional patterns are usually set by age three. An important factor in the development of their character is to realize that the young child as yet has no understanding as to whether their behavior might be nurturing or hurtful. At that age appropriateness never even enters the picture. All they know is that what they see projected by an adult or sibling achieves a result they may want.

There is one additional factor I’d like to talk about which may seem totally unrelated but bear with me. I will tie them all up shortly. This is the fact that animals can sense fear in other animals. When they become afraid they emit pheromones and are simultaneously catalyzed into a “fight or flight” response. This pheromone can be sensed by other animals and has a primary influence on whether one animal will choose to attack another. As part animal, humans have the same tendencies to sense and to emit these pheromones relating to fear. But now it is almost always an unconscious “recognition.” But there is an additional factor that humans have that animals are believed to not have. That is the potential to be able to think about possible future outcomes. In additional to instinct, fear can be generated by our minds by the perceived possibility of what can happen. When we as humans feel the fear, we also emit the pheromone. If we now connect this with a child who is about to be bullied, we can see that his release of pheromones and his fear response concerning what could happen can be sensed by a bully whether the bully is conscious of it or not. It is my belief that a bully will only bully those whom he thinks and senses that he can bully. The important factor to understand is that the bully may operate not only from a perspective of entitlement but also from fear. If a bully feels somehow threatened, they will bully or attack someone who appears or feels to be unable or unwilling to defend themselves. This will go a long way to alleviate any feeling of powerlessness or inadequacy on their part.

There are two types of bullies. Those who feel entitled to their safety and preferences and those who feel the potential loss of them.The first group is raised by parents who cater to the child’s every whim and create a feeling of entitlement within their expectations of the outer world. These children almost always exhibit an absence of compassion or consideration for others. These are the narcissistic bullies.

The second group is usually the recipient of authoritarian or abusive parenting. The modeling of their parents has taught them that the only way they can maintain their safety and preferences is to act aggressively toward those who trigger their feelings of powerlessness and inadequacy. As a consequence of the feelings of worthlessness encouraged by their parents or siblings, they will also tend to seek out, mostly unconsciously, those who emit fear pheromones and feel defenseless and those whom they feel that they can bully and believe won’t fight back. Bullying them into submission enables them to cloak and submerge their own feelings of inadequacy and feel the power they believe they lack. However, the feeling is gained only temporarily. The feeling of power quickly evaporates. What is truly ironic is that due to their unwary projection of their own sense of powerlessness and worthlessness they will constantly attract those who will answer their imbalanced perception of themselves with reminders of their own inadequate feelings. (natural entropy – nature’s tendency to neutralize polarities through their attraction to each other or opposites attract).

Both fear induced bullies and the “victims” of bullies need, essentially, the same kind of counseling; encouragement for worthiness and adequacy. However, the trained narcissists will require a different kind of counseling than bullies who operate from a fear induced aggression. The narcissist feels little or no fear relative to others. They’ve been trained into believing that they are entitled to whatever it is that they prefer in spite of what is brought to their attention by others. Counseling for them would consist, first, of awakening some sort of understanding and acceptance that others have and are allowed their own preferences if different from theirs and, second, that their total lack of awareness or attention to the needs of others should somehow be considered a deficit. The first factor would be mildly difficult to correct as it would require the narcissistic bully to relinquish some of their preferences. The second factor will be much harder to induce since it is irrevocably tied up with the ego. The older the bully, the more ingrained and embedded the feeling of their entitlement as being appropriate. With young children, the change is difficult but not impossible but with adults, the change seems only to be a distant hope. Remember, we are emotionally “coalesced” by age three and by the time puberty is added to the emotional mix, our ego boundaries become rigid and almost impenetrable.

We can now understand where the sense of entitlement comes from but where does the pre-emptive strike come in? When the fear induced bully feels triggered by the victim into feeling his unworthiness and inadequacy, the urge to strike is born. This activates the old adage “the best defense is a good offense.” If the bully can induce submission in the victim, the attention is drawn away from the bully’s own feelings of worthlessness and inadequacy and focused on the power they feel over their victim. If this doesn’t subdue these feelings, their actions will be over-emphasized. The stronger their sense of worthlessness and inadequacy is, the more intense becomes the bullying. The more elusive the submersion or cloaking of the bully’s worthlessness and inadequacy becomes, the more violent their bullying.

So now we have a perspective understanding of the two types of bullies and the victim. All three have their issues applicable to the creation of the problem. It takes two to Tango. Yet, consoling the victim and punishing the perpetrator does little more than to push their feelings of unworthiness or inadequacy further underground. In fact, consoling and punishing has the opposite effect. It intensifies the issue because it often ignores and suppresses its causes. It is common knowledge that anything that is emotionally compressed surfaces more violently in other unexpected areas and circumstances.

Bullying can be prevented in our children by making sure there is a balance between Self-Trust and confidence and their consideration and compassion for others. There must be enough Self-Trust to build worthiness and feelings of adequacy but enough humility and consideration for others to keep their interaction with others balanced and congenial. This must be taught if we wish to decrease the incidences of bullying. This may require some adults to receive some form of counseling if they are to prevent passing on this emotionally destructive and debilitating pattern to their children.

With advent of the media’s blossoming controversy about fake news and the rendering of misinformation by them and private sources we have felt a growing frustration in attempting to find out what’s really happening in the world and obtaining a fair and honest rendering through journalism and news reporting. With the added intensity over the differences in our political landscape and those utilizing it for manipulation, our belief and trust in what we are now being told has diminished significantly. Do we believe what we hear? Who do we trust? Do they have a vested interest in what they’re telling us? Who owns the media? Are they politically biased? Prejudiced? Are they giving us the facts? “Alternate” facts? Misinformation? Who should we put our trust in? The answer has finally and essentially come to the fact that, more than ever, we must now trust ourselves.

This may seem simplistic but it’s been a long time coming. With our social structure being flooded with so many authorities, experts, pundits, licensed providers, vetted officials, approved representatives, isn’t it only natural and inevitable that we must eventually reach a saturation point in our dependency on other people for advice and permission to do only what’s generally accepted by our peer group? Doesn’t it seem like there are so many conflicting edicts presented by so many groups we’ve come to trust, yet, they almost all tell us that we must be or do something other than what we feel? Today salt is good for you. Tomorrow it’s not. Today, one politician is a criminal. The next, they’re a hero. The majority of doctors say this drug is a miracle. The next day we hear of class action lawsuits levied by lawyers on behalf of people who have been irreparably damaged by them. Who do we believe? Who can we trust? The writing on the wall begs for us to begin relearning to trust ourselves. Relearn you say? How can this be? Aren’t we a self-sustaining and self-responsible culture? Haven’t we been trained to listen to and trust our own intuition and feelings? The answer is no. We’ve been trained by our parents and the media to seek outside of ourselves for the answers to all of our important questions.

Through being browbeaten into believing that all the important answers about how and why we are to live our lives comes from an outside authority, through omission it’s been strongly inferred to us that our feelings and intuition can’t and won’t be validated, proven, vetted or authenticated by others. We’ve been trained to put all of our faith into the scientific community and the proofs that it requires. There is a perpetual drive for evidence, evidence and evidence. We must only accept proof, validation and verification by others giving us permission to act even if it doesn’t feel right. Why have we allowed ourselves to believe this? It’s safer. We can be accused of less if we can validate who we are or what we are doing by following the rules and requirements of the social status quo. The underlying expectation is, and to most of us this is unconscious, that in doing so we won’t have to be responsible for the outcome of our choices. If we do something that someone disapproves of, all we have to do is point the finger at the accepted authority and we become vindicated and faultless. We’ve done what we’re told was proper. We’re blameless. We followed "the rules." We can now expect to be loved.

If we view the universe as a self-correcting system, we must understand that all things change and evolve. The snowballing of fake news and misinformation is simply occurring as a self-correction that the universe has been slowly and naturally energizing  as a re-balancing much like a market correction. Not that it is in any way intended, although there are many of us that believe in intelligent design, but that, according to its own nature, energy “seeks” toward simplicity and conservation of itself. Our focus outside of ourselves has reached such an extreme that the pendulum must now swing toward the side of personal and internal judgment simply in order to re-balance itself. The "rub" is that it must also return us toward being accountable for our actions and inactions. We will no longer be able to remain blameless and will now risk the possibility of not being loved or included in our chosen groups, clans or families.

Moving from being externally aligned toward being internally self-directed will seem foreign to many of us and even frightening to some. We have been so indoctrinated into listening to what comes from outside of ourselves that trusting our own feelings and intuition has come to seem unnatural and even treasonous toward the society and culture that has trained us toward, essentially, remaining subservient and obedient to itself. We’ve been relentlessly bombarded with the belief that we are responsible for the welfare of others over our own…even if subconsciously. This outlook heralds all the way back to colonial times when we actually needed the help of others simply to survive. Then, this easily fell in line with Christian principles claiming that we are our “brother’s keeper.” But circumstances change over time and so do the prevailing traditions that evolve from them. So now, when it comes to our contemporary emotional and psychological health, nothing could have evolved further from the truth. Although we claim to be self-sufficient, we do need others to see ourselves “objectively.” We have gravitated so much toward a selfless and personally sacrificial extreme that we are now all in perilous danger of losing ourselves totally simply to obtain the approval and acceptance of our peers through acquiescing to their parroted and, now, obsolete traditional judgments. Yet, this makes us feel safe and blameless. The ironic part of this is that everyone is looking toward each other as an authority which amounts to only each others opinions gathered from everyone else… No longer does anyone actually have or know the necessary truths. Through accepting this mindless echo as our standard for well being, we have simply become the blind leading the blind.

The breakdown in the media is simply one more superficial indicator of how over-invested we have become in the opinions and judgments of others. The recent assertion by our new president promoting “America First” exemplifies a tacit undercurrent moving us toward returning to a sense of balance nationally. We are in dire need of bringing our feelings and intuition back into play as being a valid form of information used for our choices and direction. Our blind acceptance of the need to validate everything scientifically has obliterated the awareness and validation of our own worth except in the context of social service and responsibility. We need to begin to allow ourselves to be selfish at least to the extent that we are able to regenerate ourselves before being subjugated to the socially expected demand of service to others. “Doctor, heal thyself!” We must regain a balance between being responsible to ourselves before we can become effective in being of service to others. A drained social worker is of little use to anyone.

So, now, the recent explosion and exposure of fake news and misinformation is, essentially, providing us with an unexpected side effect and open door encouraging us to reacquaint ourselves with our own feelings and intuition while showing us the necessity of giving ourselves permission to trust our own judgment in spite of the historic and overwhelming pressure levied on us by external authority. Isn’t it funny how life always brings us back to trusting our own heart and intuition? Yet, building the courage required to live according to them is, more often than not, ignored or even buried under the fearful possibility of being socially outcast for non-compliance.

1 Comment

Politically Correct is a term which is relatively new but stems from a perspective eons old. To put it simply, being Politically Correct is when you refrain from speaking from a perspective that might offend a social or political group even if your perspective is a fundamental principle that you ardently believe in. But then we must look at what might be considered offensive and determine if preventing someone else’s feelings from being hurt is actually our responsibility. We now must question where we draw the line between being actually assaultive or damaging and merely being expressive. What now happens to our right to be expressive? Does someone’s right to feel safe or secure now supersede our right to be expressive? There are many factors that contribute to how this may play out in our daily lives such as mixed company, political settings, proximity of children, vulnerability of participants, laws, customs, traditions and a whole host of other venues that may be used as a premise for the demand of its support or negation. Where do we begin? How did we arrive at this point? Probably the best place to start is our culturally progressive evolution toward tending to looking outside of ourselves for validation and approval through putting the importance of the feelings and opinions of others over our own. In this, self-effacement has become a required norm rather than an option. Here an example would be best in keeping with clarifying what we’re dealing with.

In my recent participation in a primarily spiritual group I encountered a circumstance that exemplifies the dilemma we face in understanding Political Correctness and how it can positively or adversely affect the participants in a situation.

The scenario occurred in a weekly meditation group that usually begins with good spirits, playful bantering, discussion of political and social events and relating personal encounters from the previous week before our sessions begin. The moderator was already present as I entered. No one else was present. Greetings were exchanged and a discussion ensued replaying some of the political and social issues and perspectives that had highlighted popular concerns during the week. Our discussion progressed to potential alternatives to actions that might be taken to ease some of the concerns people generally felt. At the peak of an engaging part of the discussion an older gentleman entered the room and shuffled to a seat. He listened for a few moments and then commented that the conversation was upsetting to him. He then stated that “the good lord had put us here to love one another.” I answered that that is just his opinion. He then stated that he didn’t want to be in this vibration and left the room. The moderator said he was sorry as the man left and then others entered the room. The usual bantering and joking ensued and we soon moved into silence for the beginning of our session. Before we began the moderator told the group that he’d like to apologize for his part in upsetting one of the participants who had left the room and asked that in future sessions the participants restrain their energies and expression as they entered the room to prevent disturbing other members in the group. The request was met with silence. It was obvious that this had put a damper on the elevated energy that usually permeates the group. We conducted our session and the group broke normally at its conclusion. I left very quietly while being pensive about what I had experienced. It had disturbed me but I couldn’t quite figure out why. It was a while before I came to understand what had actually transpired.

Let me first start off by saying that it is my choice to be either insulted or complemented by what someone else says. I must take responsibility for my own reactions. I really can’t blame anyone else for what I internally feel or generate myself. Therefore, I have no right to complain that someone has verbally hurt me even if I let myself buy into what they’ve said to me or about me. What I feel is my responsibility not a function of what someone else does or says. This being said, I am also not responsible for what anyone else feels as a result of what I say. They also have no right or room to complain. There is an old childhood saying that says, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me.” That alone says we either have or should have control over our own feelings and well being short of any physical contact. Let’s move a little deeper.

Our culture has become infected with a trending feeling that we must “dumb ourselves down” so others may feel comfortable and secure around us if we even think that they might feel frightened, jealous or intimidated by how we express ourselves. This perspective can very quickly become a slippery slope. It is a type of suppression that lends itself well to manipulation from within the cloak of political correctness and social etiquette. Psychologists call this the tyranny of the weak; those who use helplessness or infirmity as a guilt inducing tool evoking the relinquishing of our personal control and self-preference. In a crude fashion I can liken this type of behavior to someone dressing up as a beggar to panhandle in order to prevent having to get a job or a person who feigns sickness in order to evoke sympathy and special favors. Their behavior and assumption is geared toward us giving them deference in a number of ways. Currently, in our culture, we have become so brainwashed into believing that we are responsible for everyone else that when we do what’s good for ourselves we’re viewed as selfish or narcissistic.

I’m not promoting emotional anarchism as there are many instances where kindness for the frailty of another may be called for. But there are those of us who use that frailty as a tool for manipulation. Hypochondriacs are a prime example. And there are those of us who use the frailty and helplessness of others as a platform for their self-interest and our manipulation. We see this through guilt inducing tactics in blood drives, charity organizations, pet rescue commercials, feed the children commercials and more all insinuating that it is our responsibility to take care of those “less fortunate” while encouraging us to feel guilty if we don’t donate. A political example of this is “affirmative action;” the manipulation of one group to the advantage of another. The pendulum of who we should feel responsible for has swung way to the “others are more important than we are” side. In politics, I believe this is a stark reflection our population’s reaction and cheering on of Mr. Trump’s “America First” over the continued draining of our own country’s resources supporting every country who “whines” at us complaining about their woes and needs for rebuilding after they’ve done irreparable damage to their own resources themselves.

Now that we’ve done some exploration and laid some groundwork for how and what political correctness might encourage, let’s move back to my group experience expressed previously.

Was the older gentleman wrong in expressing his discomfort in remaining at the session? Not at all. He said what he felt and took action that reflected his feelings. He acknowledged his feelings and acted according to what he thought would be best for himself. A mature and commendable action.

Was the moderator wrong in apologizing for his part in the elder gentleman’s choice? No. He also made a decision based on what he felt and took action by informing the group of what he wished for his group in future sessions.

Were my feelings about what occurred wrong? No again. Although it took a little while before I clearly understood the dynamics of what had occurred. None of us had ill will at heart. Just preference based on what each of us had felt and decided based on our own previous and individual experiences. I doubt any of us felt manipulated or pressured toward any kind of action beyond our own choice as conditioned by our own historical experience.

I have not gone back to the group. I feel that if I can’t freely express myself there that it would not be a place for me to flourish or feel comfortable. But again, that was my choice based on my own preferences about how I’d like to live, whom I’d like to interact with and to what degree of freedom I’d like to have in doing so.

The important part of all of our individual decisions is that we didn’t take the actions of one another personally. Had we done so, blame, insult and all the other imagined insults would have led us toward taking immature and insecurity based manipulative action in order to exercise control or save face. Since we all remained responsible for our own feelings, the experience simply resulted in our individual choices leading us to put ourselves on an individual path comfortable for each of us.

If we are honest with ourselves, political correctness becomes unnecessary. In my opinion, political correctness is simply a manipulation and self-deception under the guise of needing a required personal sacrifice or suppression of one’s expression…yours or someone you’re “acting on behalf of.”

So the next time you hear the words politically correct, take a closer look. Is someone or something being shielded from the light of day or the truth? Is someone benefiting from the suppression of someone else? Odds are, most likely there is.

1 Comment

fear-1Quietly sitting in a meditation group, a question was posed by one of the members. The question asked what significance fear has in our lives. At first it seemed like a simple question but upon deeper consideration I realized that it held tremendous influence over the way I and others felt. This led me to attempt to, first, define the feeling.

Most sources defined fear as sensing and reacting to danger. But now this led me to search out the meaning of danger. The earliest meaning I could find comes from the 12th century French dangier meaning “the power to harm, mastery, authority and control.” So, essentially, fear and perceived danger are a sense or belief that we are somehow out of control or in a Fight or flightposition where life and others have power over us. Why would being out of control evoke such an intense feeling? Granted, fear is a primal feeling and involuntary reaction innate to our animal natures. But that only relates to the immediate and impending physical consequences of survival. We as humans know fear as having a much wider and more powerful influence over our daily lives. So, where then does this power come from? I believe that it is trained into us beginning with our earliest ability to think.

As children and before our metal capabilities to think are developed, we have not yet developed the discrimination between self and other so what we feel deprived of or  assailed by only seems to register as a feeling of pain or discomfort to which we simply react by crying. At that point the fear response, other than concerning our primal survival, has not yet formed as we need to have the experience of pain or discomfort, pair it with the perception of a threat coming from outside of ourselves and then create a retrievable memory of it. Memory is solely a function of the mind existing in linear time. Until we develop the capacity to think, that dimension has no relevance to us yet and hence no memory. Yet, at that age, having the experience of pain or deprivation creates a future trigger response in our animal natures to its next occurrence. Once the mind is formed and time is perceived, fear can now have a solid perceivable reference point for which it can generate feelings about future circumstances. So what are we actually saying? That animals gain an instinctual bad-feelingfear through the experience of immediate circumstances and that humans gain this too but we also develop ability to project far into the future and create fear based on “wouldn’t it be horrible if” through the power of our minds. In short, animals can feel fear in immediate circumstances but we humans have also learned to project it way into the future.

Our next question, logically, must be “how and why would we learn to do this?” I believe that our tendency to do this comes from being trained to believe that we must control ourselves and our circumstances if we are first, to stay “safe,” and, second, keep our personal world in a static state through the belief that circumstances can remain unchangeable. Even in light of the fact that we honestly know that security is an illusion, and this is still an unconscious knowing for most of us, we still consciously hold an irrational belief that the world can be animal masteryheld in a static state and that we should be able to control the rest of the world and others in it. But now, we have to ask “where did this irrational belief come from?” The answer is that we’ve been taught by our parents to expect to be able to control our circumstances. As children, how would have been able to know any different? At that age, we simply accept it as fact because our parents tell us it is so. What’s sad and disconcerting is that many of our parents still believe that this is so as they were taught to believe this by their parents.

At this point you’re probably asking yourself what fear has to do with eclipsing the heart. Right? To understand this we must first recognize that the heart uses feelings and intuition as its medium of exchange for communication. We first feel and intuit and then thinking is used to put it in a comprehensible form we can recognize, explain, create a judgment about (preference) and then commit it to our memory. What we think is an afterthought. While feelings and intuition are innate to humans, thinking, or our mental facilities, are all learned. This occurs after we are born through our exposure to the physical world within the landscape of time (past, present and future). In other words, we come into this life with feeling and intuition fully in operation already but skill in thinking must be acquired and developed before it can be used.

Feeling and intuition, the heart’s non-descriptive form of bringing our attention to something, is forever delivering us urges and impulses that are neither comprehended nor explained until they are subjected to the separative discrimination of the mind. Feelings arise in a moving wave and intuition occurs in a flash. It is not until the mind springs into action that they become “solidified” as a judgment of preference specifying whether we’d like to approach or avoid the experience expressed by them.

strategy-1As our mental capacity develops more and more and our childhood physical world begins to take dominance over who we are and what we pay attention to, our feelings and intuition slowly become submerged under the monumental weight and emphasis on thinking. Thinking gradually becomes the strategic and dominant force determining virtually all the choices we make. When our mental functions change the channel to fear, it short circuits all of our considerations for how we choose to act…or not with “wouldn’t it be horrible if.” Our feelings and intuition no longer even have the opportunity to have an influence other than the fear generated by the mind through “wouldn’t it be horrible if.” In this way fear totally eclipses the heart. Other feelings and our intuition are still there but essentially crushed under the weight of our fear invoking mental gymnastics.

Granted, the fear that’s triggered by fight or flight encounters (innate animal survival instincts) is essentially unavoidable. But the fear that’s generated by our “wouldn’t it be horrible if” is something that can be reprogrammed. Remember, it’s only a mental perspective that has been trained into us. It can also be replaced by reprogramming ourselves to say and feel “wouldn’t it be great if.” All we have to do is consider the beneficial aspects of whatever circumstances we feel intimidated by. It’ll take work and time but in the long run the physical and emotional benefits far outweigh the tension, anxiety and stress triggered by the “wouldn’t it be horrible if.”

self-doubt-7With every endeavor on untried ground there rises within us some measure of doubt as to whether we will be up to the task, accomplish what we desire or how we will appear to others as we conclude our efforts. But what is doubt? Where does it come from? Is it something that we’re born with or is it something that is learned and acquired? My belief is that it is learned and acquired.

When a baby begins to walk, talk or eat, these activities occur naturally, without effort or concern. Why? The thought processes that qualify or judge what we are doing have not been formed yet. Ask yourself this question. Have there been activities like painting, cooking, sculpting, reading or running that you have become so involved in doing that time, environmental circumstances and your concern with other issues never came to mind? It’s like you’ve been out of phase with the world, taken out of the loop, out of touch. What’s truly interesting is that after such an experience you end up feeling recharged, refreshed and more grounded and centered than you were before you started. Why? It’s because the mind and it’s judgments didn’t interfere with what you were doing.

Our judgment of the world comes from the workings of the mind. This is something that we were taught whether by our parents or from the feedback we get from others assessing our activities. These judgments come unhindered and are quietly incorporated into our beliefs about ourselves and who we are and then slowly and easily submerge into our subconscious. As children we become so attuned to what pleases our parents and family that we ultimately either transfer their authority and opinions to other significant people in our lives such as relationships, friends, enemies, neighbors and more or attract others to us who embody those same standards. As humans, we seek to create familiar circumstances over and over in our lives so we can feel security in the continuity of things. As children, and often as adults, we’re trained to take to heart what other say and feel about who we are and how we perform. As a result we go through a constant process criticismof comparing what we want to do with our perceived opinions, needs and requirements of others. Then, as we consider doing things that others may disapprove of or believe that we are incapable of, our mind very slowly begins to rationalize the validity of their opinions and judgments to the point that our own internal conversation begins to convince us that what we’ve chosen to do is unreachable or self-defeating.

Our doubt comes from two places: personal experiences that didn’t measure up to our expectations and learned internal dialogues that echo our parents and the opinions of others over our own. The first view necessitates the garnering of courage just to try again what we’ve attempted but from, perhaps, a different approach. This scenario is usually manageable and easy to overcome since this type of limitation is completely under our own control. However, if our doubt was initiated by training from others, it’s a bit more difficult to overcome, especially, since we had no control over the forming of what we now believe about ourselves before we even knew that we had a choice in such matters. Children almost always carry on their parents’ assessment of them throughout their lives, if not consciously, most certainly unconsciously. If their parents taught them to not believe in followtherulestheir abilities but to trust others over their own judgment instead, doubt will be a predominating influence in everything they do. What makes this so difficult beyond the fact that it has been incorporated into our belief system is that we also have no control over the doubt reinforcing feedback we receive from others. Because it’s ingrained in us, we tend accept those limitations at face value never questioning their validity.

If our investment in the opinions of others about whom we are and what we’re capable of is strong, doubt will be the primary limiting factor in every activity we consider doing throughout our lives. It acts like a hidden virus coming from a small seed, growing and overpowering our lives. Our self-worth will be sabotaged at every turn and we will feel powerless and insignificant at our core rationalizing that our perceived ineffectiveness comes from the world and the obstructions provided by others. In that light we never realize that our limitations came to us through our own early training. To extricate ourselves from this perspective we must first come to the understanding that doubt is a product of our own minds and training and that we must learn to trust our own feelings rather than the opinions of our parents and others in spite of our fear of their possible negative judgments and assessments. This is the hardest scenario for us to overcome.

If our faith in the judgments of others over our own is not as strong, our doubt may creep in intermittently depending on the circumstance triggered. There may be some situations where in we feel confident and others that we don’t. We must sort out which are which and work on the ones that are the most limiting through asking questions of ourselves as to where our doubt about them is coming from. Once the source is recognized, we can consciously take steps to intentionally create new experiences within the same issues thereby reprogramming our attitude and trust after Pic-The Thinkersuccessful completion creating a new assessment of ourselves and removing any potential for doubt. Restoring confidence can only come from personal experience regardless of whether it is spontaneous or planned. No amount of coaching or positive affirmations can substitute for the personal inner work that must be done. How we feel about ourselves is our own choice. Even as a child this is true but subject to much more difficulty since, as a child, we don’t know yet that we have a choice.

Doubt is odorless, tasteless and invisible. It is probably the most lethal opponent to our ambition and self-confidence. It is a viral agent capable of sabotaging every effort an infected person is able to muster. But it can be eliminated with care, patience and keen observation of how we feel when we choose to invest in any endeavor.  If you doubt its potency, simply consider what microscopic entity saved our hides in the movie War of the Worlds. It was odorless, tasteless and invisible to the naked eye. Yet, it annihilated an entire invading force…and they never knew what hit them.

1 Comment

Css-SubcssHow many times have we heard this or a similar statement? With the progressive advance of psychotherapy and analysis becoming part of our ordinary culture we have been given a convenient excuse for not being responsible for our actions. Or have we? Are we really not responsible for what our subconscious urges us to do or are we just acquiescing to the assertions of modern psychology that we may ease our conscience? There are many conflicting viewpoints but perhaps in order to have a clearer understanding we need to take a fresh look at the workings of our mind and it’s potential from a different perspective.

Css-subcss-uncssWhen we look at the origins of the word subconscious it is quoted as being a mental state that exists without consciousness. Since consciousness is defined as a state of being aware and sub means under, it would make sense to assert that the subconscious means the mental workings of the mind that are below our threshold of awareness. I think that most of us can agree on this. But wouldn’t it also be logical to assume that the experiences and incidents that exist in our subconscious were at one time conscious? That at some point we had an awareness of them? If that is so, then why would they be now unconscious or below our threshold of awareness? I think the scope of what the mind is able to focus on at any one time would be a deciding factor as to what is consciously available to us. Let me explain what I mean.

Close encountersIf I asked you to close your eyes and hold a number of pictures in your consciousness, you would probably be able to hold a small number of them until you reached a number of pictures beyond your capability. The mind has limits and can only hold focus on a certain number of things at the same time. Some of us may have better concentrative abilities than others and be able to hold more but we would all eventually reach a saturation point where it grew past our personal limits. In this way our mind and brain operate very much like a computer. The total of what we can hold in focus at any one time can be compared to computer RAM (Random Access Memory). RAM is like a workbench Control-1that is immediately accessible and workable. Most everything else would be in drawers or cabinets (memory) until something else was needed. Our mind is just like that workbench. Once we’ve reached capacity, the workbench becomes full and it becomes necessary to eliminate some items from the bench to make room for what else we’d like to include in our immediate work area or focus. So, there would be objects and tools (past experiences and emotions) that would be out of sight or below the threshold of our awareness until we were made aware of their need and then brought them into the light on the workbench switching them with something we’re finished with. In an even simpler comparison, if we were eating a pizza, we could only eat one slice at a time unless we switched bites between slices and then the rest of the pizza would remain on the table. Yet, we’d still smell it.

Although our previous experiences, emotions and judgments would remain below our threshold of awareness, they would still be triggered by environmental and personal stimuli, but be unable to surface into our awareness if our workbench (immediate awareness) was full with other issues. Even if we multi-task like a computer, which many of us have learned to do, we would all still have to reach a saturation point where new stimuli would be unable to be perceived.

So how does this relate to our subconscious and the perception that the result of our reactions are caused by a part of us that is perceived as unavailable and not attributable to us? Here, the old statement out of sight out of mind is eminently attributable. In other words, if we can’t see or sense it, it isn’t real for us. Basically, many of us never even acknowledge something that’s beyond our immediate awareness. This being the case, anything that css-subcss-3triggers a reaction from our subconscious will be seen as not related to us and therefore, having no culpability for us. In other words, we believe that we’re not accountable for the reaction to it that we produce. Based on this, many of us claim that we “didn’t know” or “we were unaware” thereby justifying our lack of accountability where, in reality, it was our own minds that we overloaded with so many other issues that we never even sensed that there was something else going on outside of our focus.

Our subconscious works with or without our acknowledgement. This being the case, how do we prevent such actions and reactions from taking place without our conscious approval and accountability? The problem lies with us always keeping our mind full. The solution rests in our ability to regularly clear the mind of as many concerns as we are able as often as we are able. But with our fast pace and demanding culture, this seems almost impossible to accomplish at any given point let alone to keep space open for the arrival of any unexpected triggers and influences. If we look at our prior computer example, if our RAM is full (the work bench) and we don’t make room for the pending data, our computer will give us a message 404-errorsaying “not enough memory.” Older computers without safe guards will often crash before such a message is broadcast. This is also the point where humans mentally “crash” and, in extreme cases, encounter a nervous breakdown. Institutions are full of people whose subconscious has overwhelmed their conscious ability to handle an overloading saturation of influences. This is, also, one of the factors that have contributed to dementia and Alzheimer’s. For many, our energy seems to diminish with age and we lose the ability to keep control of all the things that we have held together for so many years and our mental faculties’ crash under the lack.

css-subcss-mazeGenerally, when we’ve completed a task, it is usually easy to drop our focus on it. But when we have many tasks which all seem to be irresolvable and/or are attended by a feeling of overwhelming, we tend to be unable to let go even when we know that it would be in our best interest to do so. Our culture has very effectively trained us into being obsessive with the need for control coupled with the instilled belief that if we give up on anything, we will be viewed as lazy or cowardly. This is tremendously compounded when our self-judgment is coupled with our social and familially expected responsibilities and required accomplishments. Multi-tasking may extend our ability but ultimately crashes even if just a little further down the road.

So, back to “my subconscious did it.” Did I really do it? Yes. Am I just unaware that I did something without cognizance. Yes. Am I still accountable for my actions? Yes, even if I claim that I didn’t know or were unaware. Why? Because I didn’t clear my mind properly in order to stay open and ready for new life experiences, especially when they trigger old and In a bubbleinappropriate responses. I didn’t allow the new experience to come to my awareness because I was tunnel focusing and obsessing over other issues keeping my workbench full. Remember, they are still my reactions. Of course I’m responsible for them. We all need to remember this the next time we think “my subconscious did it” and we have the urge to use unawareness as an excuse for not being accountable. Even man-made law says ignorance is no excuse for transgressions. We don't live in a bubble...although we might wish to...

Everything youve ever wantedWith every action that we initiate or participate in we will approach that action from a perspective that will set the stage for how the resulting circumstances will present themselves and play out. For most of us we will choose either for the completion of something or for having an experience of some kind. For the western mind, the goal is usually comprised of a resolution of some concern or an arrival at some anticipated place. Since we are, essentially, a problem solving culture based on practicalities and material concerns and governed by tangible validation, a resolution or destination almost always becomes the intended purpose of our goal. With the influx of other cultures and with the progressively expanding spiritual movement, the journey as opposed to a destination has been taking on much more importance. More and more of us are accepting that choosing the importance of the journey over the destination is becoming the most appropriate perspective for our approach. However, there is an even more subtle dynamic that sets the stage for what circumstances we draw to ourselves that altogether goes unnoticed. The manner in which we approach that journey or destination defines whether we end up aligning with the best focus for making the energy applied supportive for our assumed objectives or if we align with setting up our own resistance thereby preventing our objectives from coming to fruition. This agrees with the principles of the Law of Attraction.

CrushedCulture_ForbesThe difference is quite obvious to those of us who are aware of how energy operates. If we focus on what blocks our way to being successful, we add momentum to the force impeding the accomplishment of our intention. If we focus on what is needed to manifest our intention, we almost invariably accelerate conditions leading to its accomplishment, sometimes, even with an advantageous twist in our preferred outcome. This often seems counter intuitive to us.  It seems like focusing on what could be is irrational in light of the fact that we are predominantly so materially directed. Not wanting to risk being irrational or seeming to look impractical to others, we almost always focus on what is there rather than what could be. To us, what could be is judged to be Pollyanna like. That is, our contemporary culture assumes that a what could be focus rather than what is focus is immature, irrational and impractical. This is simply a function of our having been trained into always attending what is already present rather than on any potential beyond our observed limitations. Over emphasis on this is often a lethal hazard to what we wish to accomplish through having been ingrained in our childhood training and supporting a materialistic view on things. It exemplifies our modern day obsession with needing to be and feel practical. Our culture has been deceived into believing that we must behave like scientists by putting our trust and faith only in what we can see, feel, smell, touch or hear. Unfortunately, the result is the sacrifice of any viable vision that only exhibits potential without supporting evidence for the assumed guarantee of the accomplishment our goal. In this view we are blocked through paying intention only to what is rather than what is needed or possible. Even you, the reader, now would most likely also align your trained belief with a practical approach believing that it must be used to be successful. But problem solving, the idiosyncratic obsession of our western culture, The Outsideralmost always focuses on what is and in the way of what we want, often focusing on what prevents our success rather that what accelerates it and prepares us for its arrival. But this approach always fails us and flies in the in the face of how energy naturally and universally operates. The truth is that energy follows thought. It is mindless. It simply goes where we direct it. If we direct our attention (energy) toward limitations, it accelerates their strength and momentum. If we direct our energy toward our vision and what would, conceivably, manifest our intention, momentum is built toward creating it. Again, a principle primary to the Law of Attraction.

The crux of what we’re speaking about boils down to whether we believe that circumstances control our fate or our own will and intentions do. In this, we have to ask ourselves which is stronger, what is or what could be? To which do we give our power and expectations over to; the actions of the external world or our own will and intentions? Which moves us? Which perspective holds dominance with us? Are we the controlled or the controllers? Are we the creators or the created? If we are predominantly the created, we will spend the rest of our lives Odd man outdoing and being what we’re told. We’ll feel snug, secure and like we have a prepared and secure place in the world (dictated by others). If we are predominantly the creators (dictated by our own heart), we might feel insecure about our place in the world and are likely to be shunned and ostracized by those who are afraid of growth and change by having to readjust the way they relate to us. We will have little support and even less feeling of belonging. An independent path often starts on a lonely road…until we attract those of similar interest and those who have also developed the courage needed for independent choices and action.

There needs to be a balance between our heartfelt actions and intentions and what the world sees as our place in it. We need to have a modicum of both perspectives in order to maintain our momentum toward our personal growth while maintaining our ability to integrate what we’ve learned with the world of what is. Others will see us as their external world and they are compelled to make the same choice for balance as we do.

Please understand that I am not promoting anarchy, simply more of an even balance between what we want and what is expected of us by the world around us. Our culture has become so over weighted with evidence based values based on our assumed expectations of what is that we have been trained into and all but forgotten that each of us have just as much a right to pursue what we want without being accused of being selfish through ignoring what the world attempts to bully us into believing. We are not scientists. We are human; a combination of what is and what we could become. Do you want to keep repeating the same old patterns producing the same results? Relative to world changes, it is vital that we include more of what could be rather than only repeating evidence of what is…our past. Great dreams are all based on what could be…the future. They are the driving force for expanding our awareness and evolution as a species. Don’t be bullied into believing that the world knows best for us. Don’t contribute to the Peak-Successfear and ignorance of the “sheeple.” The world around us simply shows evidence of what has already been tried. Be curious. Be playful. Be creative. We are also part of that world that determines how our growth will progress. We participate in both directions. Listen to your heart first, then synthesize it with the world and its need for security in maintaining their status quo. Balance your dreams with the practicalities, yet, still follow your dreams. Look at them in terms of potential and preparation not as a measure of prevention for what we’ve learned to believe we might lose if we step outside the envelope.