Re: The sacrifice archetype

[Guest guest]

Hi Cov, all,

I just read this:

At 07:08 PM 3/17/02 -0000, you wrote:

>

>I get a kick out of how many Christians are appalled at Yate's

>act of sacrifice, given that a very similar act born their precious

>religion. When Jesus talked about God's involvement with the

>crucifixion, I'll bet people thought he was loony, too. God wanted

>Jesus dead so that we could be saved, just as wanted her kids

>dead so that they would go to Heaven.

Glad to see this has occurred to someone else. Last week I mentioned In

Bible Class both this and that Jesus going voluntarily to the cross (if

that's one's interpretation) was akin to suicide (which most Christians are

taught to oppose). It Didn't make a great hit.

If I'm going to be an oddball (as it seems I'm doomed) it's nice to have

company <s>

Blessings,

P.S. I also tried to sell someone at a conference on 'the Medea Complex' as

one of the archetypes of our time (re: Yates, , etc)

without success.

[Guest guest]

Dear Alice,

Obviously, reading media-hype is no substitute for a one-to-one dialogue

with the individual concerned, but, purely as an opinion based on what I

have read, and in brief (very tired, going to doctor for blood tests

tomorrow):

1) I would not compare to the Christ archetype at all. 's idea

of a Medea archetype is interesting but still does not sit entirely

comfortably with me as Medea's act was malign, whereas I don't believe

's was.

2) I agree with your belief that she was not rational when she committed

this terrible act.

3) I think, despite her irrationality, she acted out of an inflation. The

two are by no means mutually exclusive. Jung gives numerous examples of

inflations in psychotic patients in CW3 and also in MDR which would tally

with 's behaviour.

Have just returned from a fascinating lecture (given by my own beloved Ann)

on multiple personalities. It is in two parts, the second will take place

next week. When I have recovered from these silly viral symptoms and

reviewed my notes, I will post more on the subject - it's timely and

illuminating.

love, fa (headed for bed)

Re: The sacrifice archetype

> I must take exception to the comparison of Jesus to - if she had

> wanted to sacrifice then she shld have sacrif herself not her 5 innocent

> kids!

>

> if she was rational [wh i don't bel she was], then sett herself up to make

> such a judgment wld have been an enorm inflation, don't u think?

>

> disturbed

>

> ao

>

>

>

> " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings

may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. "

>

> H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Toni,

I wasn't especially surprised to find my suggestions didn't sit well with

a fairly traditional group...or you. There are probably still places where

it might be called heresy.

Still it seems to me not inaccurate to call a death suicide when the

person knows that he is walking a path leading to death and continues to do

so. To call it 'integrity' is not necessarily incompatible. Think of the

Japanese Kamakazi (sp?) pilots or the al Quada pilots that flew into the

Twin Tower. In their lights they were acting 'on principle'.

I seems to me where the question arises is in considering whether the

person's alegience is to the False or to the True Self. I can hardly see

how any of us can have a truely well founded opinion as to which group

Jesus may have belonged 2000 years ago. Perhaps we can at most have

'beliefs'.

I suppose that I feel that if there is an 'error' it may be in regard to

the collective Christian attitude toward suicide. There, too, one would

have to distinguish between 'valid' intention and a 'cry for help'. Is

there a 'right to die' ? I'm not so sure we don't let our prejudices

intervene in making such distinctions pretty often.

Blessings,

P.S. I have also heard these doubt applied occassionally to our own

'heroes'. Think of a young man who has just received a 'Dear ' letter

and goes forth against a battery of machine guns, possibly overcoming and

even surviving.

At 05:09 PM 3/20/02 -0500, you wrote:

>Dear ,

>

>I can understand why your question didn't sit too well in your class.

Jesus did not commit suicide, in my opinion anyway. He maintained his

>integrity, even though he knew , in the end he would anger the wrong

people....the Pharisees, and the high priest. To remain true to who you are is

>not suicide, even if it means facing death. For example everyone who

would not deny his faith throughout history knew in the end he would pay with

>his life. WE often know the price we pay for actions or convictions, yet

feel it necessary to go on anyway.

>

>How did you come to the conclusion of suicide?

>

> wrote:

>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Glad to see this has occurred to someone else. Last week I

mentioned In

>> Bible Class both this and that Jesus going voluntarily to the cross (if

>> that's one's interpretation) was akin to suicide (which most Christians are

>> taught to oppose). It Didn't make a great hit.

>> If I'm going to be an oddball (as it seems I'm doomed) it's nice

to have

>> company <s>

>>

>> Blessings,

>>

[Guest guest]

>>I must take exception to the comparison of Jesus

to - if she had

wanted to sacrifice then she shld have sacrif

herself not her 5 innocent

kids!<<

--My understanding is that felt she was a

demonic influence and would corrupt her children if

she let them live. Christianity says children go to

heaven automatically, so the choice was pretty clear

for her. Sometimes religion and mental illness don't

mix.

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

, What was it you heard or read that gave you the impression that

'.. felt She [emphasis mine] was a demonic influence' rather than

that the environment or the dysfunctional 'collaboration' was a demonic

influence? I ask this with respect for your observations and perceptions.

I missed whatever it was that gave you this impression.

Blessings,

p.s. Know know, Alice, thinking of her children as sacrifice reminds me of

a part of Louisa May Alcott's Little Men where the children invent a sort

of animal god [i forget the name they gave him. Mousekin, maybe?] who

requires them each to sacrifice whatever 'possession' they value most...

{would that we could all 'sacrifice the possessions rather than

concretizing it onto the 'innocents'! ] a fairly grusome description of a

rubber or leather doll 'writhing' in the flames unfortunately sticks in my

mind.

This isn't all that differ from the incidence of sacrifice in some

cultures like the Aztec or even Abraham and Isaac [tho that was aborted in

time].

I don't say this to lessen your feelings of motherly outrage at the

....what? The seeming unfairness of what happened.

I just can't help feeling sorry for her that whatever possessed her made

her the instrument of 'its'injustice. Lord knows I'm thinking she'll

suffer for it even more that she must have to be brought to such a pass.

Good time of year to remember Jesus' " Forgive them; they know not what

they do. "

Blessings,

At 10:21 PM 3/21/02 -0800, you wrote:

>>>I must take exception to the comparison of Jesus

>to - if she had

>wanted to sacrifice then she shld have sacrif

>herself not her 5 innocent

>kids!<<

>

>--My understanding is that felt she was a

>demonic influence and would corrupt her children if

>she let them live. Christianity says children go to

>heaven automatically, so the choice was pretty clear

>for her. Sometimes religion and mental illness don't

>mix.

>

>

>

>

>__________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

I love your e-mails. i always have to stop and think.

I don't believe in heresy, by the way.

I do think we differ on what suicide is and if we can/cannot practice it. My

opinion is that suicide is a symptom of the loss of hope. It is also the

opposite of the greatest gift on earth, which to me is life.

Now on the other hand I lived through the " rather dead than red " years and i

always thought that ridiculous. As long as there is life there is hope,

strong convictions and the responsibility to those one leaves behind.

I would not have made a good martyr and years ago I used to worry about that

when comparing myself to the saints and early martyrs...particularly

when the myths accompanying the deeds were outlandish.

When a soldier throws himself on a grenade...that is to me not suicide because

suicide is selfish and totally self centered. He died to save someone

else. which is the complete opposite. Anyone who dies protecting another, does

not have suicide as an intention. His intention is to save a life, not

to kill himself. The samples you quote are the result of inculcated

values...nationalism or religion. I cannot judge , but I would assume,

fanaticism is some sort of illness especially in the committing of an evil deed.

I know those fanatics consider themselves as martyrs, but I am

inclined to feel sorry for them, They are entitled to act according to their

truth, although it revolts me. It is giving one's life to kill others

and I cannot consider it anything but evil for evil's sake, personally. They

don't think that way, so I must judge them according to their beliefs

not mine, if I dare judge them at all.

I do not judge those driven to suicide by pain, depression , despair or any of

the horrors life may present. I do feel they lay a great burden on

their survivors which is often hard for the survivors to deal with.

Metaphysically, since I did not bring myself into life, I have no authority to

kill myself. I do not know what meaning or what influence my life has

been and it is not mine to shorten. Those are my own personal beliefs and direct

my life. I do not write anything in stone, because I have no idea

how I will act at age 90 and in devastating pain.

That said, I must admit I cannot fathom Jesus being accused of suicide since he

followed his truth as a primary end and intention, and not suicide.

His death was a result of his being who he was to the end. That he was killed

for it, does not make it his responsibility. As to a well founded

opinion about Jesus' intentions...well, I find the existence of a major

religion over 2000 years pretty convincing. The myths surrounding his death

are not precisely historical . He know he lived and he died. The impact of his

life speaks volumes about his intentions, as does his influence in the

lives of others. He made a lot of statements, or maybe others just remember

those ideas, but it hardly would have been a notable life or death if he

had recanted his believes and in his mission as he saw it.

The saying is ; " by their fruits you shall know them " And as to whether we can "

know " which group Jesus belonged in, i would say, it would depend on

our experiences more than on one's beliefs.

Whether we personally believe " in " Jesus, really has nothing to do with his

influence in Western history and thought for the last 2000 years. Others

have been forgotten along the way...why.? Perhaps because he followed his truth

to the end where ever it would lead. That to me is not suicide which

is centered around a loss of hope, and which is the exact opposite of what any

witness ever said, thought or wrote about him.

About many groups dogma about the rightness or wrongness of suicide, that is a

matter of doctrine and can or cannot be believed or followed. It

certainly seems to me to be a case for one's personal truth, unclouded by

emotion, pain , belief,or any other influence on the mind that makes that

decision. Prejudice would be to pre judge. I have no intention of judging anyone

on whether I personally approve or disapprove of their actions, as

long as they do not threaten others. I only speak for myself and those over whom

I have had an influence.

How can suicide be a cry for help.? it is the refusal to believe anything could

be helped that drives someone to this final act, isn't it? The threat

of suicide is most definitely a cry for help.

Toni

wrote:

> Dear Toni,

>

> I wasn't especially surprised to find my suggestions didn't sit well

with

> a fairly traditional group...or you. There are probably still places where

> it might be called heresy.

>

> Still it seems to me not inaccurate to call a death suicide when the

> person knows that he is walking a path leading to death and continues to do

> so. To call it 'integrity' is not necessarily incompatible. Think of the

> Japanese Kamakazi (sp?) pilots or the al Quada pilots that flew into the

> Twin Tower. In their lights they were acting 'on principle'.

>

> I seems to me where the question arises is in considering whether the

> person's alegience is to the False or to the True Self. I can hardly see

> how any of us can have a truely well founded opinion as to which group

> Jesus may have belonged 2000 years ago. Perhaps we can at most have

> 'beliefs'.

>

> I suppose that I feel that if there is an 'error' it may be in regard

to

> the collective Christian attitude toward suicide. There, too, one would

> have to distinguish between 'valid' intention and a 'cry for help'. Is

> there a 'right to die' ? I'm not so sure we don't let our prejudices

> intervene in making such distinctions pretty often.

>

> Blessings,

>

> P.S. I have also heard these doubt applied occassionally to our own

> 'heroes'. Think of a young man who has just received a 'Dear ' letter

> and goes forth against a battery of machine guns, possibly overcoming and

> even surviving.

>

> At 05:09 PM 3/20/02 -0500, you wrote:

> >Dear ,

> >

> >I can understand why your question didn't sit too well in your class.

> Jesus did not commit suicide, in my opinion anyway. He maintained his

> >integrity, even though he knew , in the end he would anger the wrong

> people....the Pharisees, and the high priest. To remain true to who you are is

> >not suicide, even if it means facing death. For example everyone who

> would not deny his faith throughout history knew in the end he would pay with

> >his life. WE often know the price we pay for actions or convictions, yet

> feel it necessary to go on anyway.

> >

> >How did you come to the conclusion of suicide?

> >

> > wrote:

> >

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >> Glad to see this has occurred to someone else. Last week I

> mentioned In

> >> Bible Class both this and that Jesus going voluntarily to the cross (if

> >> that's one's interpretation) was akin to suicide (which most Christians are

> >> taught to oppose). It Didn't make a great hit.

> >> If I'm going to be an oddball (as it seems I'm doomed) it's nice

> to have

> >> company <s>

> >>

> >> Blessings,

> >>

>

>

> " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may

be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. "

>

> H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama

>

>

[Guest guest]

I suppose it would be a matter of deciding whether the person was crazy or in

full contact with reality. Why ? Abraham, of course. His

sacrifice he believed to be demanded by G-d. Was he " hearing voices " or was this

a myth about obedience to the will of G-d, and love? Considering the

far gone era, I doubt a man would have considered blood sacrifice in the same

way we do today. anyway.

It seems to me was totally incompetent to stand trial. I would have

considered trying her husband for blindness, lack of empathy and inability

to pay attention to anyone but himself. Noone can live and love a person who was

in as much pain as his wife, without willfully shutting his eyes

and ears. And he blamed the medical profession??? Anyone to blame, but not

himself.

Possession by demons, or any other act committed while one could not think

clearly, is not a matter of law courts or " paying a price " to meet

justice. It is a matter for deep concern to see the person does not harm herself

or anyone else.

No one in their right mind would kill her 5 children for any reason, I think.

She needed to be put someplace where she would hurt no one and perhaps

get some help. If fact she may never have gotten so far lost had someone seen

her terror and horror.

If we are to err as is human shouldn't we err on the side of compassion rather

than thirst for vengeance?

Toni

DKW wrote:

> Dear Alice,

>

> You wrote:

>

> > I must take exception to the comparison of Jesus to -

>

> More like , perhaps.

>

> Best regards,

>

> Dan Watkins

>

>

> " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may

be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. "

>

> H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Toni,

T: I love your e-mails. i always have to stop and think.

N: Thanks.

======

T :I do think we differ on what suicide is and if we can/cannot practice

it. My opinion is

that suicide is a symptom of the loss of hope.

N: You have a lot of company. People Do lose hope. I can’t see it’s a

sin, crime etc.

When forced to get even a little ‘scholarly’ about words I resort to my

American

Heritate Dict. [is the absence of the Oxford Eng. multi vol.} which give

roots. In the case

of suicide it gives ‘seu-’ which takes one to a lot. Here I select “ones

own”. To take ones

own life. Regardless of who or what gave it, as an adult it Is one’s own.

I agree there are

often survivors to consider. Let us talk of you and me with grown children.

My father with Parkinsons lived with my older brother [10 yrs.] and

family. He

repeatedly attempted or at least prepared for suicide. Finally he had the

brain operation,

but rather than recuperating stopped eating and died.

My brother’s summation was, “He didn’t want to be less than he was.” We were

perhaps raised [possibly to a fault] with the notion that people have a

right to make their

own decisions. My dad was an admirer of Ayn Rand. Which rather vaulted

what you call

‘selfishness’.

We both grieved [and I continue to] for his lose. Yet wouldn’t we be

selfish to

require that he stay when he felt he had lost too much? He wasn’t all that

old, 74.

.. Was his acquisition of a pistol which my brother found and confiscated a

‘cry for

help’? Possibly, but as far as I know he had the best care and situation

this earth could

provide. Thus again, moving as much as I can object ively beyond the

inevidable survirer

guilt, from whence was the help to come? Apparently it didn’t.

T: When a soldier throws himself on a grenade...that is to me not suicide

because suicide

is selfish and totally self centered.

N: You go on to speak of altruism which I don’t pretend to understand. We

once had a

Unitarian Minister who said no one did anything without the expectation of

some

satisfaction in return. All parents sacrifice for their children. I’m not

so sure that most

experience it quite as ‘sacrifice’. I can’t speak to split second

decisions made on the

battle field or elsewhere.

Christians do have the promise of a reward in afterlife. There is ‘dying

for glory’

etc.

Again back to causing pain to others. and moving a bit back from the

ultimate act

to ‘suicidal’ behavior. Let us consider some grown children. My closest

friend’s son was

lost to total organ shut down last summer from the use of alcohol and

concurent use of

ivupropine (sp?). She is a very ‘good’ woman without being pollyannish or

sacarine. She

is a very good Sunday School teacher, knows her Bible well and is

fascinated with her

relationship with God. For her I sense that he is real ‘out there’ as well

as inwardly. She

visits the sick, listen to others, all with spunk, if you will. She

rarely, if ever ‘preaches’.

Yesterday we had a great Bible Study (Episc.) I found to my surprise that

Apostle

had a thing or two to say with which I could hearlily agree: Romans

14:23 (I think).

Basically ‘judge not’. However co-group member, , told of a daughter

who is in the

process of organ shutdown. She is bipolar and self treated with alcohol

and drugs [some 9

prescriptions including lithium which is hard on liver and I think kidneys)

One of my own sons is close to a similar situation thanks to bipolar and

alcohol

self-treatment.

A ‘cry for help’? What is one to do? Get them therapy or analysis....?

What was

the study that showed that only about 20 percent (?) of persons in any form

thereof greatly

benefited? Lock them up? For how long? Condemn ourselves for parenting

failures? My

son has a stauch elder male friend who has done everything possible to

involve him in

church...any church [abet Christian]. Again, from whence is the ‘help’ to

come?

All these adult children are in their 40s-50s. It takes a while for them

to do

themselves in. But if one attends to what somatic analytic thought has to

say, mightn’t

that be said of any of us?

=======

T: ...but I would assume...

fanaticism is some sort of illness especially in the committing of an evil

deed.

N: Huh. Okay. Perhaps psychic ‘blindness’ is an illness wherever it

occurs. I’m not at

ease with the term ‘evil’, wondering if its use isn’t primarily a gage of

how much ‘we’

Don’t Like something.

=======

T: I know those fanatics consider themselves as martyrs...

N: Again Jesus... Granted his consenting sacrifice didn’t kill anyone else

(tho I’m glad

enough not to be ) still his movement surely has.

I Do feel the advent of his teachings into jJudaism added compassion to that

religion. Did he really have to die a martyr for it to be effective? Not

all leaders do. I

don’t mean to quibble here with the usefulness of this image in inner life

as Jung says. I

find it helpful when feeling torn between opposing currents.. I wonder if

he was any less

than a ‘fanatic’? One of the definition of that word is “inspired by a

god”. A famous man

wrote a book considering if he was paranoid. By that I tend to understand

that it may be

some sort of aberation to projected God outward as a ‘father figure’.

=======

T: That he was killed for it, does not make it his responsibility.

N: I’ve fuddled around with this with a lot of different ministers etc. and

it seem to me

that if you accept that he knew in advance (as those who think he was both

man and

Christ at all times do) and still went knowingly to his death, I don’t see

how you can

relieve him of that responsibility.

=======

Toni to Dan:

It seems to me was totally incompetent to stand trial. I would have

considered

trying her husband for blindness, lack of empathy and inability

to pay attention to anyone but himself. Noone can live and love a person

who was in as

much pain as his wife, without willfully shutting his eyes

and ears. And he blamed the medical profession??? Anyone to blame, but not

himself.

N: Hurrah! We can agree on one thing <s>

Only lets add the whole ‘Christian’ community down there. My parents were

from

a similar environment in Texas - headquarters of Capital Punishment. My

father fled from

it. My mother, committing ‘Selficide’, drowned in it. Or at least that’s

my distant view as

of now.

Blessings to all,

[Guest guest]

all,

>if she was rational [wh i don't bel she was], then sett herself up to make

>such a judgment wld have been an enorm inflation, don't u think?

>

>disturbed

I'd like to return to cov's original musing. The 'sacrifice'

archetype is perhaps a novelty. Or it's brutally central. Between the

extremes of psychotic unmooring and Christological magnanimity there

is the sacrifice each is called to make, and I make no value

judgement about the call itself because it can be positive or

negative, a matter of awareness or unawareness.

Any instance of fooling one's self, (and a big fool am I!) favors one

thing over another thing. Many if no most decisions preclude and

invoke sacrifice. I look at acres of (my own) wasted time and

self-indulgence (etc.) and know well often that I've made sacrifices,

terrible sacrifices, sacrificed myself. So: unconscious sacrifice.

The conscious sacrifice transforms. (By definition, yes?) Is not the

archetype of sacrifice both a great negation and an affirmation?

Individuation then is centered on sacrifice just as it could be said

to draw one positively toward atonement.

It's this kind of edge: commanded to sacrifice or to make the

sacrifice of command itself. ?

***

But the extremes obscure our own sacrifices. Cov, you bring up a very

cutting idea. . .if *this*, then certainly not *that*. Sometimes what

is lost, sacrificed, is lost forever.

What decision doesn't cut, isn't a knife?

***

regards,

in Clepheland

[Guest guest]

>>I suppose it would be a matter of deciding

whether the person was crazy or in full contact with

reality. Why ? Abraham, of course. His

sacrifice he believed to be demanded by G-d. Was

he " hearing voices " or was this a myth about

obedience to the will of G-d, and love?<<

--I keep meeting Christians who justify Moses killing

children (Number 31, where he orders all members of a

conquered tribe slaughtered except the female virgins

who are kidnapped) by saying " God ordered Moses to do

it, so it was justified " . A little prodding gets a

response like " The Midianites were a cancer on the

land and had to be removed, even the children " . With

logic like that, is it any wonder that some mentally

ill people react badly to such a belief system?

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Dear Toni,

You wrote:

>

> The level of consciousness of the people who did those deeds must be

> measured by their culture and neighbors, not people 4000 years later.

What makes you think that people are any better, or any more " conscious, " than

they were 4000 years ago? I see no evidence of recent evolution -

indeed, it seems more likely that we are devolving.

>

> It is

> also evident that Jung found that G-d needed Job to become more conscious.

>

> It is also possible that Moses, a human being credited G-d with his own

> thought pattern, and convinced himself and then his people. A myth is

> still a myth.

>

> You must discuss Scripture with a lot of fundamentalists.? No serious

> Scripture scholar would give those lame excuses for killing, house

> room. It

> always amazes me that so much time is spent trying to trip up the

> fundamentalists. baiting them or seriously wishing to convert them. May

> they have

> peace with the choices they made on what they would accept as " the word

> of G-d " . Why try to shake people's faith as long as it is physically or

> emotionally non threatening to those who believe otherwise?

Those beliefs are not, imo, merely non-threatening, but positively salutary,

even if they are not true (and I don't have any way of knowing if they

are true or not.)

>

>

> Mentally ill people are in a different category since they are not in

> touch with reality. I doubt they are susceptible to " logic " , in any

> case.

I find them to be very logical - they just procede from different premises than

the rest of us. If your movements can have catclysmic, world-wide

effects, it makes sense to remain very, very still. If the CIA is plotting

against you and bugging your house, it makes sense to try to find the bugs,

even if that means tearing up the walls.

The problem with arguing with madmen is not necessarily that they are illogical,

because often they are not - the problem, rather, is one of

perceptions.

Best regards,

Dan Watkins

[Guest guest]

The conscious sacrifice transforms. (By definition, yes?) Is not the

archetype of sacrifice both a great negation and an affirmation?

Individuation then is centered on sacrifice just as it could be said

to draw one positively toward atonement.

It's this kind of edge: commanded to sacrifice or to make the

sacrifice of command itself. ?

***

But the extremes obscure our own sacrifices. Cov, you bring up a very

cutting idea. . .if *this*, then certainly not *that*. Sometimes what

is lost, sacrificed, is lost forever.

Hi ,

I hope I express this okay because my wife is tugging on me to come to

the gym so that I didn't have time to edit what I just wrote. Here

goes:

It is important first and foremost that we remember that we live

symbolically, projecting from archetypes. It is easy to forget this

and think that principles live on the outside, separate from our

projections - or that principles come from an external God.

In ultimate sacrifice, something most important dies forever:

something great, as you put it beautifully. That great thing is

symbolized by both Self and Children, which represent a purer form of

Self. We symbolize this symbolism (take a mirror to the mirror) when

we drink the blood and eat the flesh of Christ in communion, but it is

in the same spirit. We die and transform symbolically to a more

self-aware existence.

Actually killing oneself or one's children in the spirit of sacrifice

is much more real than communion, but it is still a symbolic act. It

may be where nature and the symbol intersect. My term for this state

is the " real deal. " When killed her kids, it was the real deal.

When terrorists flew huge planes into our buildings full of people, it

was the real deal.

I think that the central archetype of ultimate sacrifice expresses

itself with the experience of being where symbol and nature merge. In

this moment, we experience that what is lost forever is at the same

time gained forever. All elements in time merge into a state beyond

time, i.e., eternity. " Forever " is merely a function of temporal time,

whereas eternity, which is gained by merging all that which our ego

clefts asunder, is in the moment of ultimate sacrifice. Self, or God,

is beyond time. And the archetype of Self, or God, reveals to us

intuitively that it can only be realized in ultimate sacrifice.

By my definition, the ultimate symbolic sacrifice gained by actually

killing oneself or one's children is almost home, but not quite. The

ultimate sacrifice is killing one's ultimate hold-out; that which we

hold out even at the cost of natural death - in the face of the firing

squad. In other words, we will kill our kids or fly our plane into a

building before we will accept that the " I, " and all the " being right "

that the I entails, is but a mirage: a protector against realizing the

communion with nature that we hold within. When we accept the death of

the " I, " we suffer the ultimate death and thus gain ultimate life in

eternity.

and Christ thus came close, but obtained no cigar. We obtain

the cigar when we experience for what they died.

My best,

Cov

[Guest guest]

There are a lot of unthinking, or deluded Bible readers. Why give them

house room?

The level of consciousness of the people who did those deeds must be

measured by their culture and neighbors, not people 4000 years later.

It is

also evident that Jung found that G-d needed Job to become more conscious.

It is also possible that Moses, a human being credited G-d with his own

thought pattern, and convinced himself and then his people. A myth is

still a myth.

You must discuss Scripture with a lot of fundamentalists.? No serious

Scripture scholar would give those lame excuses for killing, house

room. It

always amazes me that so much time is spent trying to trip up the

fundamentalists. baiting them or seriously wishing to convert them. May

they have

peace with the choices they made on what they would accept as " the word

of G-d " . Why try to shake people's faith as long as it is physically or

emotionally non threatening to those who believe otherwise?

Mentally ill people are in a different category since they are not in

touch with reality. I doubt they are susceptible to " logic " , in any

case. The images they conjure up and the meaning it takes on is a

measure of their illness, not a teaching from fundamentalists. We all

may distort what we hear or read, and give our own meaning to it. Our

psyche does that. I would hardly blame the beliefs of the insane, on

the words of others about G-d. It is not what is said but what one

hears that makes the difference.

Toni

wrote:

> >>I suppose it would be a matter of deciding

> whether the person was crazy or in full contact with

> reality. Why ? Abraham, of course. His

> sacrifice he believed to be demanded by G-d. Was

> he " hearing voices " or was this a myth about

> obedience to the will of G-d, and love?<<

>

> --I keep meeting Christians who justify Moses killing

> children (Number 31, where he orders all members of a

> conquered tribe slaughtered except the female virgins

> who are kidnapped) by saying " God ordered Moses to do

> it, so it was justified " . A little prodding gets a

> response like " The Midianites were a cancer on the

> land and had to be removed, even the children " . With

> logic like that, is it any wonder that some mentally

> ill people react badly to such a belief system?

>

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

The loss of hope is only a crime for those whose hope is lost. It is a

self-inflicted wound. The Church considered it a sin against the Holy Ghost,

but a sin is a sin only to those to define it. A mistake, a wrong tern, a

disaster, all those words would apply if no one else was involved. Who

are we to judge what is behind the decision others make for themselves. Sins are

those actions or thoughts that separate me from my true Self...and

only I in the long run can judge myself. Laws are a different thing and usually

pertain to interaction between people, except when lawmakers decide

their ethics must prevail.

I am not sure I can even accept the basic premise that one's life is one's own.

We are not born into a vacuum, and everything we do has some effect

on others. That is aside from one's belief on how one was created. The decision

to commit suicide is deemed honorable is some societies and

dishonorable in others. What it is per se no one can ultimately judge.

Even the Church gives people the out when it considers them " temporarily out of

their minds, and grants them Christian burial nowadays. The rest of

us must make up our own minds on how much weight to give one's responsibility to

the community and those one loves. This is outside the realm of

metaphysics. What one lives by and believes is another thing. What seems humane

is another thing. We human beings have a lot to consider when we make

major decisions for ourselves. We certainly can't make them for others. Isn't it

in the end a matter of consciousness? (at least for those still in

command of their faculties?)

Old people in particular ( I don't have to guess on this) are often prey to

depression and despair. Those who love them and look on can really not

change that. maybe drugs can? But there is little one can do for those who give

up hope, is there. I for one am not thrilled at the idea of a long

painful death. I have no idea how matters will turn out so i make no

pronouncement for myself. I judge time will come to make decisions, except for

our living wills in which we ask for no " heroic " efforts to prolong life, once

the light has gone out.

Since I believe the Self to be without end, I will try to maintain my integrity.

But who knows?

(My mother talked constantly about suicide even when younger, but I never took

it seriously as a threat, only as a symptom. She became senile and

lived until 90. I am terribly sad for how her life ended, but she never would

have taken her earlier threats seriously even before the senility.)

Depression and despair are very hard to overcome, as one gets really old and

infirm. If one hasn't figured out one's meaning, I think it is too late

to try to think rationally when one is in great pain or depressed.

Altruism is a funny word. it is interpreted differently depending on one's point

of view. I agree with Emerson that " the reward for a thing well done

is to have done it "

The beliefs one held before the " ultimate " moment will influence one's idea of

altruism. Most people don't have time to think the matter over once

they must act.

As for the motives for acts of bravery, heroics, sacrifice. I must admit, I do

not know. I shy away from the word altruism because I am not sure how

much of the ego is involved and how much of the Self. I do know many altruistic

people are unfulfilled and angry for being unrecognized, unloved or

bitter. I have known the " martyr " type and find them unpleasant in the whole.

I rather think the right hand ought not to pay attention to what the left hand

is doing. Self righteousness is often the result of " doing good " for

some people. They have their reward right there. And to the determent of the

Self. WE will not all be Mother s, nor will we be Eichmann either.

We range around the middle plain until we become conscious to understand just

what " our duty " to our fellow man is, don't you think?

I do remind you that " reward and punishment according to Kohlberg are only the

first rung of moral decision making. If we expect a reward in

heaven...well i guess they will have to come to terms with that. it is immature

to my mind to expect rewards for doing what one should do anyway.

By the way suicide per se is not the only way of " taking one's life " People

indulge in many modes of self destruction. It seems incomprehensible to

others, but somewhere within those people either feel they have no right to

live, or do not want to because of the possible mental anguish. When that

happens to someone we love, it is a horrible way to suffer, and most often they

cannot be deterred from their course by counsel or care. I have seen

it close up too.

Why tell me the goodness of the woman whose son is in such a state. She did not

bring it on nor can she keep a n adult from his choices. G-d, in my

opinion. is not " punishing her. Her grief and helplessness are awful to bear. I

know you too must be suffering terribly with your son. I think most

of us have children who sometimes lose their way, and nothing we can do will

stop them. I saw destructive behavior at different periods of some of my

children's lives. It was incomprehensible to me or my husband, and we were

powerless to do anything other that watch and pray.

How can this be parental failure always and everywhere.? I know pundits have

tried to blame us parents for everything our children do or ever did.

But why buy into that ?. We are an imperfect race. Most of us, i think , try to

do the best we can at least most of the time. We have our own

failures to cope with. But our children, as adults have had their own

experiences, their own peers, and have taken their own paths. Is it heredity,

like heart disease or environment like a hell at home? Every case is different.

But as el said it is not the situation but how we react, our

attitude toward the situation. ( spent years carrying the guilt of being a bad

daughter and a bad mother, teacher, or wife. I do know a lot about

guilt. )I also know what to accept as mine and what to discard as not mine. ( of

course that took a long time and Jungian analysis for me. I did

finally drop all those heavy loads i was carrying which were not mine. Doesn't

Jung place stuff like that as un necessary suffering instead of

fruitful suffering?

Didn't mean for this to get so long. I am so long winded and never say anything

simply when it can be said in many words. I confess i love language

and its uses, but I should not force everyone else to yawn too often. For that I

am sorry,

Toni

wrote:

>

> T :I do think we differ on what suicide is and if we can/cannot practice

> it. My opinion is

> that suicide is a symptom of the loss of hope.

>

> N: You have a lot of company. People Do lose hope. I can’t see it’s a

> sin, crime etc.

> When forced to get even a little ‘scholarly’ about words I resort to

my

> American

> Heritate Dict. [is the absence of the Oxford Eng. multi vol.} which give

> roots. In the case

> of suicide it gives ‘seu-’ which takes one to a lot. Here I select “ones

> own”. To take ones

> own life. Regardless of who or what gave it, as an adult it Is one’s own.

> I agree there are

> often survivors to consider. Let us talk of you and me with grown children.

> My father with Parkinsons lived with my older brother [10 yrs.] and

> family. He

> repeatedly attempted or at least prepared for suicide. Finally he had the

> brain operation,

> but rather than recuperating stopped eating and died.

> My brother’s summation was, “He didn’t want to be less than he was.”

We were

> perhaps raised [possibly to a fault] with the notion that people have a

> right to make their

> own decisions. My dad was an admirer of Ayn Rand. Which rather vaulted

> what you call

> ‘selfishness’.

> We both grieved [and I continue to] for his lose. Yet wouldn’t we be

> selfish to

> require that he stay when he felt he had lost too much? He wasn’t all that

> old, 74.

> . Was his acquisition of a pistol which my brother found and confiscated

a

> ‘cry for

> help’? Possibly, but as far as I know he had the best care and situation

> this earth could

> provide. Thus again, moving as much as I can object ively beyond the

> inevidable survirer

> guilt, from whence was the help to come? Apparently it didn’t.

>

> T: When a soldier throws himself on a grenade...that is to me not suicide

> because suicide

> is selfish and totally self centered.

>

> N: You go on to speak of altruism which I don’t pretend to understand. We

> once had a

> Unitarian Minister who said no one did anything without the expectation of

> some

> satisfaction in return. All parents sacrifice for their children. I’m not

> so sure that most

> experience it quite as ‘sacrifice’. I can’t speak to split second

> decisions made on the

> battle field or elsewhere.

> Christians do have the promise of a reward in afterlife. There is

‘dying

> for glory’

> etc.

>

> Again back to causing pain to others. and moving a bit back from the

> ultimate act

> to ‘suicidal’ behavior. Let us consider some grown children. My closest

> friend’s son was

> lost to total organ shut down last summer from the use of alcohol and

> concurent use of

> ivupropine (sp?). She is a very ‘good’ woman without being pollyannish or

> sacarine. She

> is a very good Sunday School teacher, knows her Bible well and is

> fascinated with her

> relationship with God. For her I sense that he is real ‘out there’ as well

> as inwardly. She

> visits the sick, listen to others, all with spunk, if you will. She

> rarely, if ever ‘preaches’.

> Yesterday we had a great Bible Study (Episc.) I found to my surprise

that

> Apostle

> had a thing or two to say with which I could hearlily agree: Romans

> 14:23 (I think).

> Basically ‘judge not’. However co-group member, , told of a daughter

> who is in the

> process of organ shutdown. She is bipolar and self treated with alcohol

> and drugs [some 9

> prescriptions including lithium which is hard on liver and I think kidneys)

> One of my own sons is close to a similar situation thanks to bipolar

and

> alcohol

> self-treatment.

> A ‘cry for help’? What is one to do? Get them therapy or

analysis....?

> What was

> the study that showed that only about 20 percent (?) of persons in any form

> thereof greatly

> benefited? Lock them up? For how long? Condemn ourselves for parenting

> failures? My

> son has a stauch elder male friend who has done everything possible to

> involve him in

> church...any church [abet Christian]. Again, from whence is the ‘help’ to

> come?

> All these adult children are in their 40s-50s. It takes a while for

them

> to do

> themselves in. But if one attends to what somatic analytic thought has to

> say, mightn’t

> that be said of any of us?

> =======

>

> T: ...but I would assume...

> fanaticism is some sort of illness especially in the committing of an evil

> deed.

>

> N: Huh. Okay. Perhaps psychic ‘blindness’ is an illness wherever it

> occurs. I’m not at

> ease with the term ‘evil’, wondering if its use isn’t primarily a gage of

> how much ‘we’

> Don’t Like something.

> =======

>

> T: I know those fanatics consider themselves as martyrs...

>

> N: Again Jesus... Granted his consenting sacrifice didn’t kill anyone else

> (tho I’m glad

> enough not to be ) still his movement surely has.

> I Do feel the advent of his teachings into jJudaism added compassion

to that

> religion. Did he really have to die a martyr for it to be effective? Not

> all leaders do. I

> don’t mean to quibble here with the usefulness of this image in inner life

> as Jung says. I

> find it helpful when feeling torn between opposing currents.. I wonder if

> he was any less

> than a ‘fanatic’? One of the definition of that word is “inspired by a

> god”. A famous man

> wrote a book considering if he was paranoid. By that I tend to understand

> that it may be

> some sort of aberation to projected God outward as a ‘father figure’.

> =======

> T: That he was killed for it, does not make it his responsibility.

>

> N: I’ve fuddled around with this with a lot of different ministers etc. and

> it seem to me

> that if you accept that he knew in advance (as those who think he was both

> man and

> Christ at all times do) and still went knowingly to his death, I don’t see

> how you can

> relieve him of that responsibility.

> =======

>

> Toni to Dan:

>

> It seems to me was totally incompetent to stand trial. I would have

> considered

> trying her husband for blindness, lack of empathy and inability

> to pay attention to anyone but himself. Noone can live and love a person

> who was in as

> much pain as his wife, without willfully shutting his eyes

> and ears. And he blamed the medical profession??? Anyone to blame, but not

> himself.

>

> N: Hurrah! We can agree on one thing <s>

> Only lets add the whole ‘Christian’ community down there. My parents

were

> from

> a similar environment in Texas - headquarters of Capital Punishment. My

> father fled from

> it. My mother, committing ‘Selficide’, drowned in it. Or at least that’s

> my distant view as

> of now.

>

> Blessings to all,

>

>

> " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may

be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. "

>

> H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Alice, Toni, , Dan, all,

Here's a shocker I stumbled across in the Washington Post this morning.

And to think UNECEF, where I buy Christmas cards, is involved:

" From the US, the ABCs of Jihad "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5339-2002Mar22.html

I'd like to actually See those children's texts.

Blessings,

[Guest guest]

>>Here's a shocker I stumbled across in the

Washington Post this morning.

And to think UNECEF, where I buy Christmas cards,

is involved:

" From the US, the ABCs of Jihad "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5339-2002Mar22.html

>>

--Wow. What a relief that we're the good guys,

otherwise the whole mess would get morally complex.

=====

" The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its

laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children... This is not

a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it

is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. " Dwight D. Eisenhower

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

>>When killed her kids,

it was the real deal.

When terrorists flew huge planes into our

buildings full of people, it

was the real deal.<<

--Not so sure about that. I think they were both in a

trance state, acting out a fantasy which was vastly

separated from immediate reality. What is " real " is

relationship, life. A death-wish is the exact

opposite, a desire to retreat into a Platonic, perfect

sterile world where opposites never meet.

Re: sacrifice--has anyone considered the term in

chess? Offering something of value to gain something

of greater value.

=====

" The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its

laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children... This is not

a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it

is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. " Dwight D. Eisenhower

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

At 01:09 PM 3/23/02 -0500, you wrote:

>Dear ,

>

>The loss of hope is only a crime for those whose hope is lost. It is a

self-inflicted wound.

N: I saved this primarily for you and this subject. Don't know that it's

of so much general interest:

Empathy for young bombers [in their dispair]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5314-2002Mar22.html

I think that's one of the main reasons democracy works. It gives folk at

least the illusion of some control in their lives with election choice.

Often the optimism even spreads to the stock market.

> The Church considered it a sin against the Holy Ghost,

>but a sin is a sin only to those to define it. A mistake, a wrong tern,

a disaster, all those words would apply if no one else was involved.

N; Against the Holy Ghost? As comforter? We ungratefully turn away from

the comfort placed there for us? That seems a simplistic and moralistic view.

> Who

>are we to judge what is behind the decision others make for themselves.

Sins are those actions or thoughts that separate me from my true Self...and

>only I in the long run can judge myself. Laws are a different thing and

usually pertain to interaction between people, except when lawmakers decide

>their ethics must prevail.

N: I'm inclined to raise the same qestions about the word 'sin' as I do

about 'evil' Mayn't it just be a gage of how much we don't like something?

>I am not sure I can even accept the basic premise that one's life is one's

own. We are not born into a vacuum, and everything we do has some effect

>on others. That is aside from one's belief on how one was created. The

decision to commit suicide is deemed honorable is some societies and

>dishonorable in others. What it is per se no one can ultimately judge.

N: I'm comfort enough, I think with our lives being our own. I don't see

that this view impinges on our responsibility to interact appropriately

with others. If we 'own' a field, a horse or anything else it doesn't mean

that we may not have a responiblity to see that it is appropriately used or

cared for.

>Even the Church gives people the out when it considers them " temporarily

out of their minds, and grants them Christian burial nowadays. The rest of

>us must make up our own minds on how much weight to give one's

responsibility to the community and those one loves. This is outside the

realm of

>metaphysics. What one lives by and believes is another thing. What seems

humane is another thing. We human beings have a lot to consider when we make

>major decisions for ourselves. We certainly can't make them for others.

Isn't it in the end a matter of consciousness? (at least for those still in

>command of their faculties?)

N: We never get away from the balancing of opposing pulls, the weighting of

options. Maybe that's a reason for the fundies seeing black and white. It

decreases the tension of opposites within.

>

>Old people in particular ( I don't have to guess on this) are often prey

to depression and despair. Those who love them and look on can really not

>change that. maybe drugs can? But there is little one can do for those

who give up hope, is there. I for one am not thrilled at the idea of a long

>painful death. I have no idea how matters will turn out so i make no

pronouncement for myself. I judge time will come to make decisions, except for

>our living wills in which we ask for no " heroic " efforts to prolong life,

once the light has gone out.

>

>Since I believe the Self to be without end, I will try to maintain my

integrity. But who knows?

N: I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that the soul goes on in

some way? Or...

>

>(My mother talked constantly about suicide even when younger, but I never

took it seriously as a threat, only as a symptom. She became senile and

>lived until 90. I am terribly sad for how her life ended, but she never

would have taken her earlier threats seriously even before the senility.)

>Depression and despair are very hard to overcome, as one gets really old

and infirm. If one hasn't figured out one's meaning, I think it is too late

>to try to think rationally when one is in great pain or depressed.

N: I've always found the Idea of suicide rather a comfort. It was a

possible way out of suffering. But then it was always there for

tomorrow...and tomorrow...and... if things got worse instead of improving.

But with enough tomorrows, oddly things always did improve...<g>

>

>Altruism is a funny word. it is interpreted differently depending on one's

point of view. I agree with Emerson that " the reward for a thing well done

>is to have done it "

N: Maybe. My father would have agreed. Sometime I find that the reward

don't seem worth the effort ahead of time for many things...

>

>The beliefs one held before the " ultimate " moment will influence one's

idea of altruism. Most people don't have time to think the matter over once

>they must act.

>

>As for the motives for acts of bravery, heroics, sacrifice. I must admit,

I do not know. I shy away from the word altruism because I am not sure how

>much of the ego is involved and how much of the Self. I do know many

altruistic people are unfulfilled and angry for being unrecognized, unloved or

>bitter. I have known the " martyr " type and find them unpleasant in the whole.

>

N: Without research I'd say the types to whom you refer aren't really

altruists. I'd reserve that terms for those who find their own reward in

selfless acts (like the job well done bit) I'm not sure I've ever know one.

>I rather think the right hand ought not to pay attention to what the left

hand is doing. Self righteousness is often the result of " doing good " for

>some people. They have their reward right there. And to the determent of

the Self. WE will not all be Mother s, nor will we be Eichmann either.

>We range around the middle plain until we become conscious to understand

just what " our duty " to our fellow man is, don't you think?

N; Something like that. Not sure there is ever that murety ever arrives <s>

>

>I do remind you that " reward and punishment according to Kohlberg are only

the first rung of moral decision making. If we expect a reward in

>heaven...well i guess they will have to come to terms with that. it is

immature to my mind to expect rewards for doing what one should do anyway.

N: You have a moralistic view, Toni? Full of 'shoulds'? It seems to me I

almost never do what I 'should', but more what seems 'best' at the time.

>

>By the way suicide per se is not the only way of " taking one's life "

People indulge in many modes of self destruction. It seems incomprehensible to

>others, but somewhere within those people either feel they have no right

to live, or do not want to because of the possible mental anguish. When that

>happens to someone we love, it is a horrible way to suffer, and most often

they cannot be deterred from their course by counsel or care. I have seen

>it close up too.

N: No argument there.

>

>Why tell me the goodness of the woman whose son is in such a state. She

did not bring it on nor can she keep a n adult from his choices. G-d, in my

>opinion. is not " punishing her. Her grief and helplessness are awful to

bear. I know you too must be suffering terribly with your son. I think most

>of us have children who sometimes lose their way, and nothing we can do

will stop them. I saw destructive behavior at different periods of some of my

>children's lives. It was incomprehensible to me or my husband, and we were

powerless to do anything other that watch and pray.

>

>How can this be parental failure always and everywhere.? I know pundits

have tried to blame us parents for everything our children do or ever did.

>But why buy into that ?. We are an imperfect race. Most of us, i think ,

try to do the best we can at least most of the time. We have our own

>failures to cope with. But our children, as adults have had their own

experiences, their own peers, and have taken their own paths. Is it heredity,

>like heart disease or environment like a hell at home? Every case is

different. But as el said it is not the situation but how we react, our

>attitude toward the situation. ( spent years carrying the guilt of being a

bad daughter and a bad mother, teacher, or wife. I do know a lot about

>guilt. )I also know what to accept as mine and what to discard as not

mine. ( of course that took a long time and Jungian analysis for me.

N: So, though you ask, you know quite well why I mention the virtues of my

friend. To me it is all a part of individuation where one much try to

separate oneself from the collective view - which often in its effort to

lay blame does heap it on the parents, particularly the mother - to work

and listen to the Self until one finds some surity where one must stand in

this as in other matters.

>I did

>finally drop all those heavy loads i was carrying which were not mine.

Doesn't Jung place stuff like that as un necessary suffering instead of

>fruitful suffering?

N: I don't recall that. I wonder where he say it. My contact with that

approach came from a movement call Discovery started by psychiatrist in

Chicago, a sort of self-help group where one made a point of commending

oneself whenever possible and trying not to give mind room to inappropriate

responsibility. I guess the group support Did help quiet the inner voices

of negative animus and such.

> Didn't mean for this to get so long. I am so long winded and never say

anything simply when it can be said in many words. I confess i love language

>and its uses, but I should not force everyone else to yawn too often. For

that I am sorry,

>

N: Seems to be sort of who you are, doesn't it? And no one if 'forced' to

read. I got all snarled up trying to answer RL and used up all my words

without sufficient coherent result <s>. To bad. It is bright and we're in

the middle of a cold snap. Good day for writing haiku and yard work

instead of staying in. Hopefully I'll reach some understanding of why and

try again tomorrow.

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

I have battled those 'shoulds " all my life. I think I have discarded them for

other people's behavior except in a subjunctive way. I say " they should

" as a more polite or opinionated " they must if... "

Should really to me, when used by me say " It would be better for me, but I

don't want to " As in I should get up earlier, I should do the laundry...

Sin, is such a subjective concept, and we all were brought up with it in one

way of another. Scholars say that we translated the Hebrew wrongly .

Sin (hesed) means to miss the mark.

I can confess my missing the mark to G-d anytime. i cannot confess for other

people. They may not have missed, and so no sin occurred. Sin is really

a loaded word, even used as outrage. ...it is a sin who these people must live.

The moral code preached by the great religions didn't spring up out the head of

Zeus. They are/were always in the collective unconscious. Someone

just set them in concrete and forced all others to obey them So being moral,

with an " informed conscience " as a mature adult ,seems to me, to be an

instinct after a while, as listening to oneself. Morality is so often high

jacked to meet certain rules set up for everyone. The culture has most

effect on that., I think. It is pretty basic. " you respect my rights, i will

respect yours. But " right intention " seems to be left out.

you add:

" N: I'm inclined to raise the same questions about the word 'sin' as I do

about 'evil' Mayn't it just be a gage of how much we don't like something?

Not us personally, i think. but the culture as a whole. It has also a

protective function for the society. If it is hurtful to oneself or others,

many term it a sin. If it breaks down the fabric of the collective it is seen as

sin.

Are you of the opinion, that we really have no control over our lives as you

said:

" at least the illusion of some control in their lives with election choice. "

Of course the Church is simplistic. It does not have a high regard for the

maturity of its members. You said:

" N; Against the Holy Ghost? As comforter? We ungratefully turn away from

the comfort placed there for us? That seems a simplistic and moralistic view.

Often we are not mature enough to take the bitter medicine to become well. I

doubt anyone who knows he/she is turning away from the Spirit would do

it. The spirit doesn't intrude into closed places, i think. But not everyone

hears, or sees.

I personally do not accept the word " moral' as an insult. It is a judgment one

makes about one's life and how to live it. Only word. it doesn't imply

anything, does it, except acting in what one believes to be true values for

you.

You asked;

" : I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that the soul goes on in

some way? Or...

It is my opinion that nothing created ever ceases to exist. I have not heard a

definitive message from " on high " It just seems logical to me. The

collective unconscious...the consensus of all peoples taken together seems to

be that Soul or self has and will continue to exist. It resonates

with me.

Of course, no one knows. It is pure instinct as well. But many people, including

me, consider the possibility of continued existence somehow , to be

a truth. If it is The Truth, I cannot know.

Please do not credit me with belief in " heaven and hell " as popularly expressed.

I personally favor some kind of reincarnation, or even our desire

after death to refine ourselves further and consent to another go-around. I

certainly do not expect anyone to take my word for it. Or maybe we are

all assumed into the One immediately. It really does not matter what my opinion

is, since it is grasping in the dark. What is, is. I accept that

whatever it might be.

you said:

" Sometime I find that the reward

don't seem worth the effort ahead of time for many things...

There is no reward, except what we give ourselves. Why should there be a reward?

are we back to making points to be cashed in the future? Maybe the

reward is not to have a guilty conscience, or remorse for not doing it. It is

the love that needs expressing which makes us act for others, I would

think. Sharing that love with the Giver and the recipient seems reward enough.

That's where the " shoulds " come in. I should do this, but it is too much

trouble, too dangerous, too involving...whatever.

That is why I personally try not to use that word on myself because what i

really mean is ...i know this is my work, but i really don't want to get

involved, to make the effort. We pride ourselves that at least we " know " the

right thing to do...we are so conscious " , but we just don't feel like

it. But see how aware we really are, we know the right thing.

That is the problem with shoulds...yet every human being falls into this morass

, i think.

You said ;

" N: Without research I'd say the types to whom you refer aren't really

altruists. I'd reserve that terms for those who find their own reward in

selfless acts (like the job well done bit) I'm not sure I've ever know one.

If the person truly believed in Emerson's words you wouldn't know it , would

you? " Altruistic " acts are usually accompanied by a trumpet , and you

know what the Book in its wisdom says about people who want everyone to admire

their 'selflessness " (wrong word, for sure). They have their reward.

How can an act be selfless? Do we lose our Selves? would we if we could, NO.

altruism would only mean putting someone's desires before our ego's. It

also usually brings resentment and bitterness if it is not done out of fullness

of heart. I am rather skittish around that word. I have a Self and I

am intent on keeping it, dead center ,thank you. Now, putting someone's needs

above our own, we do that every day if we are part of a loving family

or relationship, don't we? The problem is, how far out do we take this concern?

Who is my brother? in other words. And as we are finite beings, I

suggest there is a finite number of those whose concerns come before ours, in

the normal average, (not Mother ) life.

You said

" : I've always found the Idea of suicide rather a comfort. It was a

possible way out of suffering.

I learned a lesson long ago which I have often repeated to those close to me. i

think it is universal: " the only way out is through. " Blunt, but to

the point.

Should we avoid suffering? yes, if we can without the ultimate step, if it can

be done without lessening who we are in our sight. But, I expect that

to be an aspirin or such. The suffering that comes to us, makes us who we are,

and thankfully does not last forever for most of us. How else do we

become the person we were meant to be? If left to ourselves, our road would be

short and lavishly surrounded by goodies. Where would that get us?

Jung says if we avoid the suffering that comes, we will have neurosis and suffer

without the suffering accomplishing anything..in other words " false

suffering "

Thanks for your thoughts.

Toni

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

I thought it was understood on this list that whatever we write is our own

opinion and based on the experiences of one life, ours. To infer, which

you do a lot of, that i am speaking personally to you, instead of saying how I

feel about things, is I think a problem you have stemming from the

past you describe. I say as plainly as possible what I see personally as

something obvious (like the fact that the culture decides on issues of

morality and law). I am sorry you take such exception to what I say. perhaps

direct quotes from Jung would be better....those at least you cannot

take personally.

I thought we were discussing different ways of seeing reality. Mine and yours. I

quote the Church only when I say so on paper, mostly is is stuff i

see a point to.

I personally believe that the " negative coding of words " is within your mind,

not in the general usage, and that you attribute judgments to me, i did

not make and do not hold. I say usually " I judge that, I think that , it seems

that.

You, of course are perfectly within your power to lay any meaning or nuance on a

any word you wish, and to accuse me of preaching. My answer is, I

don't know when you consider it preaching and when I am allowed to speak my

mind.

You will spend many sleepless nights if you take everything anyone says, you

disagree with personally. No one directed anything at you, least of all

I. I do not know you well enough to give advice you wouldn't take anyway, and I

am explaining only where I take a stand. Why should i have everything

thrown back at me, because you feel I am not respectful; of your inner freedom

to do as you please. You are not a little girl, i am not your father.

I am someone who likes to discuss ideas, some of which i hold dear, others of

which, I may agree or disagree with. How can i judge someone i do not

know, how can you feel threatened by my written word, when I speak about me, or

people in general, modern society in general or quote Church

teachings that have meaning for ME?

Jung says we all have complexes, every last one of us. We have no control of

these complexes when they weld up from the unconscious ,our emotions

take over temporarily. But after a second or two, we can be aware of what just

happened, realize we are reacting to old stuff, and bring our emotions

under conscious control. If we do not do this, we are at the mercy of anyone who

acts, speaks, writes on any topic whatsoever and we allow others to

have control over our emotions. So much of what happens and is unpleasant even

violent in this world, is when such a complex is activated, and we are

not in control of our emotions.

I know you don't want me to have that kind of power over you, to make you mad,

sad, angry, or fearful. You certainly don't want your father to still

retain that kind of power, do you?

you said:

" for me is the 'negative loading' of words. I stay so aware of this because

it causes me such suffering when exposed to them, especially when used with

a moralistic tone. As does 'preachiness', and speaking or writing as if

beliefs were facts.

It is a judgment to use 'negative loading of words " " moralistic tone " and even

" preachiness. You have chosen to project such meanings on to letters

on a page....Good or bad, we do this all the time. But why allow ourselves to be

so much in the control of others?

The suffering was caused by your father, long ago. Will you carry that around

and let it influence your life forever? It is like carrying a heavy

sack over your shoulders as you trudge through life. It gets our backs

overloaded pretty quick. I learned both from jung and my earlier experiences

that the only way for me to be rid of those heavy burdens is to forgive whoever

hurt me, and understand what caused them to act in such a way. Then,

i am free of their constant influence over me, and can switch to consciousness,

quicker each time what I consider a prick of the needle hits a

complex.

This is my way. It works for me. I do not preach it for anyone else. In fact I

should (see) just not see the heavy burdens others carry around of

their own free will., and shrug off anyone who interprets me according to their

past unpleasant experiences.

you said:

" It really doesn't matter that others don't Intend to cause me pain. I

find it next to impossible to care about their intentions, in this. I

always find myself wondering how they can go bumbling around among others

so oblivious to the pain they cause.

Is this how you want others to take what you say in perfect ignorance of other

peoples' various complexes? I may cause physical pain by inflicting it

on you. I cannot cause you mental anguish or suffering without you absolute

cooperation. You let others say something, then allow the unconscious to

judge it, and then wonder why others don't know what is going on with you? I

certainly, and I would wager, others on this list do not want to cause

suffering and pain...you may not care about their intentions, but that is really

the only thing you can judge in fairness.

you add;

" Guess it's all part of my own personal cross <s>

I personally disagree with this comment as I am allowed to do. In my personal

opinion, we are not fashion our own crosses, they are usually something

we cannot change. I personally feel most people can begin work on their

unconscious responses. If one is control of one's feeling consciously, one

can change those feelings with insight over time. I always felt a " cross " was

imposed on us. To me, selecting one ourselves is part of what jung

meant by unfruitful suffering. That is purely my view, my experience, and

obviously does not apply universally to all men everywhere. It is either

your understanding or it is not. i feel, that all I can do is point out another

way of looking at life...reality.

you wrote:

" Us, individually, if we use these negatively loaded words in such a

way as to imply that we are applying them to others. Even, I feel, to our

own poor selves. An example for me of improper guilt or self bashing. Or

as my son says, listening to the inner 'Shitty Committee'.

This 'spiritus rector " i believe jung called it, seems to invade all of at

times. It is our choice whether he has power over us, i think.

you said:

" It's wrong for you

to tell me how I must or must not feel/act/think in order to be a 'good'

person, even by implications. " Indeed as it happens, that is pretty much

what I actually do believe about right and wrong. Though some might feel

that is an invitation to social chaos by extension.

It seems to me impossible that I would accept someone else's view of how I am to

feel. We used to call that " discounting the feelings of others "

That said, as long as it is only " feeling " you are on solid ground. But if you

decide to run someone over with your car, the collective will hold you

responsible of its terms, not your. You may go to jail insisting you did nothing

wrong, but you will still be in jail.

Any act which influences, impinges another's freedom is going to be part of a

code of conduct the society has figured out for itself. For its own

protection all cultures do this. Think what you want in your head, but obey the

laws and the rights of others.

If you think others are telling you " by implication " , perhaps this is not what

was said but what you heard.

Mankind cannot live in moral or ethical anarchy, therefore makes a distinction

based on consensus of what is right or wrong. Obviously some rebel,

but the only thing that usually happens when you hit your head against a brick

wall, is a sore head. We have to give up some of our freedom to live

in society. Of course, you know this. Rebelling against outward authority only

turns out OK if you are powerful enough to win. otherwise in my

opinion it is an exercise in futility.

Moral codes of conduct exist in every collective. Many of these collectives are

voluntary. If you don't like the code, leave that collective. The

rules were not made to spite you personally, anyway. just leave. Some human

beings feel safer under law and under authority. In personal matters only

you have a range of choices. Jung for example is one. No one decrees you have to

live by every word, or even any of his words.

On the subject of the Church, you said:

" N: Good. Then we have one more point of agreement. Except that I find it

tyrannical and belittling of the human spirit in this whereas I think you

may not. [Or in the case of Dan, he may see virtue in what I call tyranny.]

Disregarding for a moment the individual harm, one good thing likely to

come out of the current 'priest abuse' scandals is to make the church

reexamine it's vesting of, in my view, too much authority in its clergy.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I never felt a tyranny of my spirit. In fact

i cannot fathom anyone ruling my spirit.I left the Church also, but

because I could no longer find there what I was looking for. My spirit is under

the control of the Holy Spirit,I hope and pray, because that is my

daily intention. You see i think intentions do count, especially with the Self.

I may eat fish of Friday because it really doesn't matter, or because I

understand how and why that rule came to be. I am free to do as i want and

have a big steak while I am at it. Rules, religious rules are kept, in my

belief, because one sees what caused them and their efficacy. Once that is

gone why would you stick around?

you said:

" That seems a simplistic and moralistic

view.

and:

" I read you as making a lot of assumptions as to the validity of Church

teachings when you state the above in a declarative sentence as if it were

fact. [Can you hear my inner child screaming with pain?] And also using

the distasteful concept of 'immature' as something of a whip toward

acceptance of these statements.

>

whatever would you say in your hurt if i said something like that?

Everyone makes assumptions on the validity of what they believe, otherwise they

wouldn't believe. My assumption is that some of what they teach is

valid for me. So what?

Now you want me to stop using declarative sentences? The fact I write is a fact

for me at this moment when I write it. For goodness sake, as as for

the " distasteful " concept of immature. I was paraphrasing Jung. His notion of

the second half of life, and what is then necessary. It has nothing to

do with you or me, or anyone else on the list. Mature and immature are the only

measure for when and how individuation usually starts. They are not

value descriptions in any other context than in the way it was discussed. You

do see, that again, you chose to take umbrage at words in general and

not even pointed at you? What would you call this?

> you remark:

" N: I'm aware of these other peoples. To tell me so, I read as to imply

that I might not be.

You speak of logic where I see little, except as based on very doubtful

assumptions.

Dear Lord, , how can we ever carry on a meaningful conversation?

You said:

"

N: The above sounds like you believe in the existence of a God Being 'out

there'.

Then so must jung, the Buddhists, as well as all theologically astute believers.

No, But when we deal with " object and subject we use such words.

Jung is always mentioning this :

" The self is superordinal. it is felt empirically not as subject but as object

because of its indirectly unconscious component. The self is so far

removed from the conscious mind that it can only be partially expressed by human

figures. The other part of it has to be expressed by objective

abstract symbols. " (CW 18)

" Ego stands to the self as moved to mover. as object to subject.( CW 11)

Toni said:

" There is no reward, except what we give ourselves.

you said:

N: Aaargh! You state that as if it were a Fact. That reads so omniscient.

How else does one say it. Of course that means, " as far as I am able to discern,

Emerson was correct when he stated that .....quote " Fact, schacked.

It seems to be true in the experiences of many. Please contradict that with

facts and example???

you wrote:

" N: Love is another word I really don't understand. I have experienced the

concern one feels for one's children's (and other's) welfare. I have

experienced the affection one sometimes feels for others, pets, flowers

etc. [when they haven't behaved to awfully so as to rouse more negative

than positive feelings] Somehow when righteous people talk of Love, it

always sounds like something so much more than these, and I usually sense a

hidden 'should', of which you go on to write:

" somehow when righteous people talk of love, " you probably have never

had LSD either or experienced it, but it does exist and people have

experienced it. What can I say to a remark such as I don't understand love. Of

course, you don't. No one ever has, including poets, mystics, wise

men and fools. What is to understand? Some people say " God is Love " can one

rationally deal with this?

What " You sense " is your projection on to the words of another. May other people

not have experiences different than yours? Must they be hypocrites,

or false prophets or liars?

What do you know about how " righteous " some one is? You cannot see into his

souls, so you can only make a conditional judgment. Furthermore there as

so many ways to use this word negatively (as a slur) or positively as a

blessing, it is not a matter of opinion. We really cannot have an opinion

based on unknowns.

you said:

" N: It's my notion that in this post, in regard to 'shoulds', that you have

given a good example of what fa suggested of you months ago. I think

'inconsistency' was the word she used [though it might have been something

similar]

You go on about a concept as if you had a perfectly good understanding

of

it, and then turn right around and do exactly what you've just explained

you understood to be disadvantageous in some way. i.e. 'shoulds' have

great drawbacks, and yet you use them. I say this by way of observation

rather than accusation and ask, isn't this an instance of unintegrated

intellectual understanding? And hence a breach in integrity?

Gee whiz. I am not consistent in all my thoughts and words. golly, I must be

human after all. Shoulds as i mentioned are a great problem for me

because we use them as a convention of language. " You should take an umbrella,

it might rain, I should go to the grocery, but I don't have time now.

" I should be studying, but i will sleep instead.

hardly world shaking moral problems, are they?

Now " i shouldn't yell at my kids " I should give more of myself to my aged

mother " I should write all those overdue letters " Maybe these have a

moral decision included.

I still maintain that " should " usually means " I know this is right, but I

don't want to do it right now. Is this some kind of a serious problem for

me? no, not really. My conscience usually won't let me get away with it for

long. Or if it is inconsequential, i may just blow it off.

You may judge me as " unintegrated intellectually " as you wish. Shoot me, I am

still not perfect, but at least I know when and how i am playing

games with myself.

Lastly, and I know this is too long, but what the h....

you said ;

;

> " N: Without research I'd say the types to whom you refer aren't really

>altruists. I'd reserve that terms for those who find their own reward in

selfless acts (like the job well done bit) I'm not sure I've ever know one.

You do judge people pretty severely, don't you. No one you know has ever done

something for others without a reward?

you said;

" N: I have a curious notion that if I met a saint I'd see a glow, and smell

the odor of sanctify. And personally feel I'd sense great warmth emanating.

[tho I must say that the latter seems often to be absent in the writings

of those canonized by the RC.]

I feel sorry for your lack of experience with saints or near saints. I feel I

have met some in my life, and they are wonderful to know and exude the

love you don't understand.Most often now adays it is a political ploy and not a

theological one

Those. .e canonized by the Church and those unknown ones are still human beings.

They set an example, so the Church sets them up. They are supposed

to be people to emulate by the young in particular. Most often now adays it is a

political ploy and not a theological one.

I took a long time with this , because unless we come to some agreement

that what I say is not what you hear, and that i am never personally

judging you or anyone else, and that the statements of fact you so dislike are

not promulgation from on high, but my considered opinion or

experience, we cannot exchange our thoughts.

Toni

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> >

> >How can an act be selfless? Do we lose our Selves? would we if we could,

> NO. altruism would only mean putting someone's desires before our ego's. It

> >also usually brings resentment and bitterness if it is not done out of

> fullness of heart. I am rather skittish around that word. I have a Self and I

> >am intent on keeping it, dead center ,thank you. Now, putting someone's

> needs above our own, we do that every day if we are part of a loving family

> >or relationship, don't we? The problem is, how far out do we take this

> concern? Who is my brother? in other words. And as we are finite beings, I

> >suggest there is a finite number of those whose concerns come before ours,

> in the normal average, (not Mother ) life.

>

> N: When I write 'self' I refer primarily to ego. When I use 'Self' I refer

> to that large Self beyond ego. Many Jungian seem to make this distinction,

> though Jung himself wasn't consistent about it. I don't see any such

> distinction in what you write above. What I'm finding I want and don't

> seem to have, is a word for the guiding center of Self. Maybe this is what

> Alice means with 'Divine Guest'? Funny. I'm getting an image of a Phoenix

> resting on its nest <s>.

> >

> >You said

> > " : I've always found the Idea of suicide rather a comfort. It was a

> >possible way out of suffering.

> >

> >I learned a lesson long ago which I have often repeated to those close to

> me. i think it is universal: " the only way out is through. " Blunt, but to

> >the point.

> >Should we avoid suffering? yes, if we can without the ultimate step, if it

> can be done without lessening who we are in our sight. But, I expect that

> >to be an aspirin or such. The suffering that comes to us, makes us who we

> are, and thankfully does not last forever for most of us. How else do we

> >become the person we were meant to be? If left to ourselves, our road

> would be short and lavishly surrounded by goodies. Where would that get us?

>

> N: As I recall we have something of an expert in the latter on this list in

> the person of Cov. Perhaps, if he delves this far into this post he'll

> care to comment. I don't see where he's done so badly in becoming his own

> person.

>

> >Jung says if we avoid the suffering that comes, we will have neurosis and

> suffer without the suffering accomplishing anything..in other words " false

> >suffering "

>

> N: You sound pretty shouldish and moralistic above. It doesn't seem to me

> that it is a fact that 'the only way out is through', if I'm understanding

> you. At least not unless you are predicating an afterlife.

> Yet quite probably the hope of some inner resurrection to a higher

state

> is why I have always put off the act until tomorrow and may likely go on

> doing so, possibly far longer than may be profitable...

> >

> >Thanks for your thoughts.

> >

> >Toni

> >

> N: And you for yours,

>

>

> >

> >

> > " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings

> may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. "

> >

> >H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear Toni,

I perceive you to be mistaken in much of what you say in this post.

Though some of it I left myself open for in my little confidences as well

as some suggestions about your own ways of expression. It is not awfully

surprising to me the you should flair back defensively, or so I perceive

you to be doing.

Let's see if it's possible to examine some of this.

>I thought it was understood on this list that whatever we write is our own

opinion and based on the experiences of one life, ours.

N: Don't you think it's each of our own responsibility to present our

thoughts for what they are rather than rely on the list for contrary-wise

interpretations. In one sense what you say is true. Anything one writes

is from one's personal experience. This is true for Jung, the Bible, all

writing or speech. Yet I also consider it true that we all have our own

'writing voice' which may or may not be tasty to others.

You and I have been around this bush many times. Not necessarily together

but with others. I admit I've been around the bush over 'sensativity' with

others, particularly others more extraverted and more on the thinking side

than I. I have seen you go around this bush of others feeling that you

expressed yourself in a 'preachy' way as if you knew what was good for

others. I have even seen posts where you admitted this tendency. So on

that score I didn't quite expect such a flare.

Sensitivity is a two edged sword. Yes, it does make one more vulnerable.

It also makes one more aware in many ways. I've never gotten dead clear on

what was meant by 'well developed intuition'. It appears to me that

Intuition is always in need of somewhat more so-called 'reality checking'

than Sensation. On its own it is not as open to consentual validation. I

accept that. But it does not make me entirely disregard my perception

just because others are not fully or at all conscious of what they pick up.

Sometimes I find they do not come through to me in a way that others

recognize immediately. In a great many years of analyis I've had much the

same experience with analysts. Many of their observations about me were

not phrased in a way that was immediately recognizable or useful to me.

Sometimes it has taken 20 or 30 or 40 years for me to see much truth in

their assertions because they were so tainted with their own viewpoint and

so foreign to mine. They were not 'cooked' in a way I could metabalize.

For all that, with the passage of time I have come to see at least some

truth hidden away in many if not all. Here too I see grains in yours.

>To infer, which

>you do a lot of, that i am speaking personally to you, instead of saying

how I feel about things, is I think a problem you have stemming from the

>past you describe. I say as plainly as possible what I see personally as

something obvious (like the fact that the culture decides on issues of

>morality and law). I am sorry you take such exception to what I say.

perhaps direct quotes from Jung would be better....those at least you cannot

>take personally.

N: Since you are 'speaking' to me, I Do suppose that what you say is meant

for me. Jung himself was very much that way. It has been the source of a

lot of confusion and some charges of inconsistency that he spoke or wrote

his truths differently depending on whom he was addressing.

Here, too, it's truth that my dislike of ill aimed communication was

sharpened in my childhood by a mother who spoke almost entirely in

homilies. In that regard I did not have a personal relationship with my

mother. Nor did anyone else. She was taken over and swallowed up by her

collective. It was not a pretty sight to witness. Still I do not suppose

that my sensitivity to this was 'caused' by her, only sharpened. I am

surprised that you speak of parently 'causing' dynamism in their children

when I thought we had discussed this earlier and agreed that the idea of

'causing' was a bit too strong. That there are so many other factors

involve in how a child is born and develops.

>

>I thought we were discussing different ways of seeing reality. Mine and

yours. I quote the Church only when I say so on paper, mostly is is stuff i

>see a point to.

N: I still think that is what we are doing. You write as if you had come

to question it. Even if I were projecting as much as you say, which I

don't believe, I would still be speaking from my own reality...abet more

unvalidatable.

>

>I personally believe that the " negative coding of words " is within your

mind, not in the general usage, and that you attribute judgments to me, i did

>not make and do not hold. I say usually " I judge that, I think that , it

seems that.

N: It seems to me that you miss the mark above. I definitely believe that

many. if not most, words have nuances acquired by time and use in a

culture. It is one of the reasons I would hate to move, and write in

another country. Particularly if it involved a change in language. My

sense of word nuances has always stood me in good stead. Although I have

found, as in this case, that if I didn't attend to using it to keep me our

of trouble and away from criticism, I had to be willing to face and deal

with the results. I once talked a US govt. official out of pulling the

grant to a psychiatrist for whom I was working using these very perceptions

and without knowing beans about the history of or wording of the grant itself.

>

>You, of course are perfectly within your power to lay any meaning or

nuance on a any word you wish, and to accuse me of preaching. My answer is, I

>don't know when you consider it preaching and when I am allowed to speak

my mind.

N: You are always 'allowed' to 'speak your mind'. If you do it with no

attention to nuance, then like me, you will be left with the consequences.

The trick to speaking ones mine with impunity is to pay very close

attention to nuances. Occasionally one may do it and find that one has

truly stepped on a hornest's nest. Usually then it turns out that one has

truly been speaking to one with little contact with reality. I do

sometimes find in myself insufficient willingness to taylor my words. Then

I am dependent on the broad mindedness and good will of others. Something

I appreciate greatly in the Episcopal Bible Study group I attend. I

wouldn't go to one in a Fundamentalist church because by and large, I've

had enough of environments where invisibility was a necessity.

>

>You will spend many sleepless nights if you take everything anyone says,

you disagree with personally. No one directed anything at you, least of all

>I. I do not know you well enough to give advice you wouldn't take anyway,

and I am explaining only where I take a stand. Why should i have everything

>thrown back at me, because you feel I am not respectful; of your inner

freedom to do as you please.

N: On the other hand, why should you not?

>You are not a little girl, i am not your father.

N: Are you sure <g>

>I am someone who likes to discuss ideas, some of which i hold dear, others

of which, I may agree or disagree with. How can i judge someone i do not

>know, how can you feel threatened by my written word, when I speak about

me, or people in general, modern society in general or quote Church

>teachings that have meaning for ME?

N: Any person with dominant thinking might say that. Such are, in my

experience, as hyper sensitive to others taking them 'personally' as

dominant Feeler [of which I'm really not one, being balanced in this area]

are in wanting to believe that what is addressed to them is consciously

directed for them.

>

>Jung says we all have complexes, every last one of us. We have no control

of these complexes when they weld up from the unconscious ,our emotions

>take over temporarily. But after a second or two, we can be aware of what

just happened, realize we are reacting to old stuff, and bring our emotions

>under conscious control.

N: I believe for most 'a moment or two' is a bit short. Having seen others

suffer from your strong assertions, I thought mentioning it was worth a

shot. I'm still not certain that it wasn't.

By way of reusing my earlier mentioned insight that sometimes notions are

not taylored closely enough in their phraseing, I will mention that I once

worked with someone who had much the same 'voice' in speaking as I see in

your writing. The way she phrased her difficulty in the response of others

was that she came on 'too intense'. And it was true. When she spoke of

her personal certitudes I could almost see the charged air crackle between

herself and others. I mention this only in case you find it a more

meaningful phrasing. Again I once had a director who was very extraverted.

She was also pretty narcisistic, amusingly signing her notes with the

initials Ra. Which, aside from the Egyption god implications, indicated to

me her feeling of self over family as well a considerable tendency toward

inflation. It was almost impossible to sit in her small office with her.

Her psyche and forcefulness simply took up all the room. I varified this

perception with others, particularly introvetes. And like me they report

the feeling that she almost didn't leave enough air for others to breath.

I'm sorry if you aren't at home in this imaginal world. It's a magical

place, in my estimation.

>If we do not do this, we are at the mercy of anyone who acts, speaks,

writes on any topic whatsoever and we allow others to

>have control over our emotions. So much of what happens and is unpleasant

even violent in this world, is when such a complex is activated, and we are

>not in control of our emotions.

N: I've read this other places and still don't subscribe to it as an ideal.

Others Do trigger emotions in us. And even complexes. I don't feel in

the least out of control. I am and have been simply registering these

fluctuation aloud. Personally I don't believe its possible to avoid these

fluctuations of emotions without cutting oneself off from ones depths. To

me the task is to simply register their passing even when they cause pain

and without really reacting to it. I think it possible for

thinking/sensation types to stay unaware of much of what passes. More

comfortable perhaps in the short term.

>

>I know you don't want me to have that kind of power over you, to make you

mad, sad, angry, or fearful. You certainly don't want your father to still

>retain that kind of power, do you?

N: Lord, I wish my father were still around. Despite that early experience

I related, he was one of the most discipled people I've known in not

imposing his certainties on others. Though what my niece says also has

truth, " I already had a Real grandfather, I didn't need that.' He was

attune to college or gratuate students much more than to young children.

And he never mellowed quite to the point of maintaining a constant flow of

real intimacy and warmth. It was he who taught me quite deliberately to

not take much at face value, but to be aware of nuances and undercurrents.

Something that got him 25 books published from which we still draw

royalties. I don't see the world having control over me just because it

and its goings on evoke emotions in me. Any more, I guess, than Jesus

thought that the money lenders controlled him just because they evoked

righteous indignation in him. Or so I imagine.

>

>you said:

> " for me is the 'negative loading' of words. I stay so aware of this because

>it causes me such suffering when exposed to them, especially when used with

>a moralistic tone. As does 'preachiness', and speaking or writing as if

>beliefs were facts.

>

>It is a judgment to use 'negative loading of words " " moralistic tone " and

even " preachiness. You have chosen to project such meanings on to letters

>on a page....Good or bad, we do this all the time. But why allow ourselves

to be so much in the control of others?

N: I suppose we do, but I think when enough people do it in similar

instances, it isn't unreasonable to conclude there is more truth than

projection.

Generally speaking I'd be more inclined to call what you are observing an

instance of projective identification which can be a perfectly good

information gathering tool, abet one to be used with some caution.

>The suffering was caused by your father, long ago. Will you carry that

around and let it influence your life forever?

N: Toni I dealt with this at the time of writing it yesterday and you

clipped it. He did not cause my sensativity, though he may have reinforced

it.

> It is like carrying a heavy

>sack over your shoulders as you trudge through life. It gets our backs

overloaded pretty quick. I learned both from jung and my earlier experiences

>that the only way for me to be rid of those heavy burdens is to forgive

whoever hurt me, and understand what caused them to act in such a way. Then,

>i am free of their constant influence over me, and can switch to

consciousness, quicker each time what I consider a prick of the needle hits a

>complex.

N: Bully for you, if you are able to tune such stuff out. I'd guess you

were born with much of this ability, at least in potentia. I feel we all

differ in this sort of thing and get really tired of hearing 'Well, I'm

able to do this and it works great for me.' If you can't see any

implication for the reader in such statements then I can't make you see.

Those that will not, don't.

>

>This is my way. It works for me. I do not preach it for anyone else. In

fact I should (see) just not see the heavy burdens others carry around of

>their own free will., and shrug off anyone who interprets me according to

their past unpleasant experiences.

N: I think the use of 'their own free will' is perjorative in this usage,

as well as inacurate. Still I don't doubt you can find those who will agree.

>

>you said:

> " It really doesn't matter that others don't Intend to cause me pain. I

>find it next to impossible to care about their intentions, in this. I

>always find myself wondering how they can go bumbling around among others

>so oblivious to the pain they cause.

>

>Is this how you want others to take what you say in perfect ignorance of

other peoples' various complexes?

N: Huh? I don't find that very clear. I don't know that I have much to

say about how others will take what I say...at least until I know them well

enough to taylor my writing for them. And then it depends on how much of

my good will they retain, as to whether I'll consider it worth the bother.

I'd imagine that that is true the other way around, also. I have both a

friend and a son who by and large slip their way though life with charm.

That gives them a lot of control of how others will treat them. But some

lose of control, to my mind, in regard to presenting themselves with

integrity.

>I may cause physical pain by inflicting it

>on you. I cannot cause you mental anguish or suffering without you

absolute cooperation. You let others say something, then allow the

unconscious to

>judge it, and then wonder why others don't know what is going on with you?

N: Now might that not be Your projection? You are telling me a good deal

about myself that I don't validate. You said earlier that one cannot

control the surfacing of complexes but that one can limit their effect. We

only disagree a bit in regard to the time needed. It is true that I don't

have to expose myself to folks I know will 'push my buttons'. Knowing that

I have a choice as to how much I'm willing to do so. Jung and many of his

admires recommend getting to know those who 'push your button' as a way of

befriending one's own shadow. To do so, I think, necessitates undergoing

some suffering. I suppose I might chose to do so stoically, without

mention. But then I would be depriving you of a like opporunity. Also I

don't know that one really gets to know another by being so covert.

>I certainly, and I would wager, others on this list do not want to cause

>suffering and pain...you may not care about their intentions, but that is

really the only thing you can judge in fairness.

N: Says Who? Though we may be using the word 'judge' differently. I don't

get the impression that folk who 'enjoy' causing pain would stay long on

this list. It's too carefully moderated. We all judge in term of what we

find 'good food' and what not.

>

>you add;

> " Guess it's all part of my own personal cross <s>

>

>I personally disagree with this comment as I am allowed to do. In my

personal opinion, we are not fashion our own crosses, they are usually

something

>we cannot change. I personally feel most people can begin work on their

unconscious responses. If one is control of one's feeling consciously, one

>can change those feelings with insight over time. I always felt a " cross "

was imposed on us. To me, selecting one ourselves is part of what jung

>meant by unfruitful suffering. That is purely my view, my experience, and

obviously does not apply universally to all men everywhere. It is either

>your understanding or it is not. i feel, that all I can do is point out

another way of looking at life...reality.

N: Quite. That is yours. I agree that what crosses we have are imposed on

us. Typology is one of those. Often it is not a cross. But almost

everything has its light and its burdensome side. People Do hurt one

another's feelings. They can either take that responsibility or claim that

there is none. That it is altogether up to the other whether their

feelings are hurt or not. I agree only so far as we are talking about

adults in a free country. Then usually they can chose whether to walk

away. I'd also agree that over time one can often modify what is give and

its effects. More often people just build thicker and thicker defenses.

This is something lodged again analysts, not infreqently. That they

sometimes cause wounds on top of scar tissue. So that the scar tissue or

callusing just become thicker.

>

>you wrote:

> " Us, individually, if we use these negatively loaded words in such a

>way as to imply that we are applying them to others. Even, I feel, to our

>own poor selves. An example for me of improper guilt or self bashing. Or

>as my son says, listening to the inner 'Shitty Committee'.

>

>This 'spiritus rector " i believe jung called it, seems to invade all of at

times. It is our choice whether he has power over us, i think.

N: I don't agree that it is entirely within our control whether to feel

pain when this happens. Again with awareness most can limit the time the

pain lasts.

>

>you said:

> " It's wrong for you

>to tell me how I must or must not feel/act/think in order to be a 'good'

>person, even by implications. " Indeed as it happens, that is pretty much

>what I actually do believe about right and wrong. Though some might feel

>that is an invitation to social chaos by extension.

>

>It seems to me impossible that I would accept someone else's view of how I

am to feel. We used to call that " discounting the feelings of others "

>That said, as long as it is only " feeling " you are on solid ground.

N: " Only feeling " . What a mass of experience you throw out here. It isn't

my father complex I'd transfer to you, Toni. It's my mother. If I heard

once I heard a thousand times, " Sticks and stones will break your bones but

words will never hurt you. " What a load of crap. Particularly it's a poor

way to go about raising a sensitive child. Poor woman. I don't think she

was free to chose, but that she was early on eaten alive by her own

collective, which was fundamentalist Texan. Collective nonesense was all

she had to offer, after I passed the 'nestling' stage.

>'But if you decide to run someone over with your car, the collective will

hold you

>responsible of its terms, not your. You may go to jail insisting you did

nothing wrong, but you will still be in jail.

N: What a surprise. I'd have never guessed. <s>

>

>Any act which influences, impinges another's freedom is going to be part

of a code of conduct the society has figured out for itself. For its own

>protection all cultures do this. Think what you want in your head, but

obey the laws and the rights of others.

>If you think others are telling you " by implication " , perhaps this is not

what was said but what you heard.

N: That's not totally impossible occassionally <g> But Toni, when you

write of 'speaking your mind' you seem to forget that we only know a small

part of our 'minds'. We only know what is conscious. [News, huh?] So the

fact is that none of us are in much of a position to speak about

'projection' as these are unconscious. Even if the undeterminable truth

might be that someone else is projecting on us, we aren't in a position to

accurately say so. If they are projecting, they won't know it. If they

are actually seeing something we are unaware of in ourselves, we won't know

it. All we can honestly say is, " Well, I don't right now find that in

myself " and, as I did in one case, " Huh, I've seen no indication of that,

even in my [wildest] dreams. "

>Mankind cannot live in moral or ethical anarchy, therefore makes a

distinction based on consensus of what is right or wrong. Obviously some

rebel,

>but the only thing that usually happens when you hit your head against a

brick wall, is a sore head. We have to give up some of our freedom to live

>in society. Of course, you know this. Rebelling against outward authority

only turns out OK if you are powerful enough to win. otherwise in my

>opinion it is an exercise in futility.

N: By and large society only protects us from the grossest mishandling of

one another. There is still a great deal of room for the smaller invasions

one to the other.

>

>Moral codes of conduct exist in every collective. Many of these

collectives are voluntary. If you don't like the code, leave that

collective. The

>rules were not made to spite you personally, anyway. just leave. Some

human beings feel safer under law and under authority. In personal matters

only

>you have a range of choices. Jung for example is one. No one decrees you

have to live by every word, or even any of his words.

N: You are certainly carrying what I said to its wildest extreme. By and

large laws are made precisely so the majority will not have to leave.

>On the subject of the Church, you said:

> " N: Good. Then we have one more point of agreement. Except that I find it

>tyrannical and belittling of the human spirit in this whereas I think you

>may not. [Or in the case of Dan, he may see virtue in what I call tyranny.]

>Disregarding for a moment the individual harm, one good thing likely to

>come out of the current 'priest abuse' scandals is to make the church

>reexamine it's vesting of, in my view, too much authority in its clergy.

>

>Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I never felt a tyranny of my spirit.

In fact i cannot fathom anyone ruling my spirit.I left the Church also, but

>because I could no longer find there what I was looking for. My spirit is

under the control of the Holy Spirit,I hope and pray, because that is my

>daily intention. You see i think intentions do count, especially with the

Self.

N: I suppose it is fair to say that intentions count. What I said was that

in some circumstance I just don't care about them. But hew rather to the

'road to Hell being thus paved.'

As for the RC despite some virtues, as you said earlier it doesn't have

much faith in the abilities of the majority to find their own way. Dan

would probably say they are right in their estimation. I don't really

agree. It seems to me that, particularly with the young, if people are

raised under such an attitude that far fewer will develop the ability to

think for themselves. Some won't care, because they won't be all that

interested in spiritual life. Some will continue to prefer the role of

sheep to sheperd. I stick with what I said that it is tyranical to procede

on the assumption that people should be led. Education, spiritual as well

as other, isn't true to its name if it doesn't offer the opportunity to

become free in all ways. I don't fault those who don't wish to accept

freedom. Perhaps there is good reason for their choice. But I believe it

is best if they have that choice rather than having the deck stacked

against them from the beginning. It's often said of the RC that if they

can get folk young enough they'll never be free, and I'm supposing that may

be true for many.

>I may eat fish of Friday because it really doesn't matter, or because I

understand how and why that rule came to be. I am free to do as i want and

>have a big steak while I am at it. Rules, religious rules are kept, in my

belief, because one sees what caused them and their efficacy. Once that is

>gone why would you stick around?

N: True, but you have had many advantages for varied experience. And the

church was not your family's first choice , as I understand it, only their

second for very pragmatic reasons. If you have manages to get some good

out of it without being totally captured that's so much gravy.

>

>

>you said:

> " That seems a simplistic and moralistic

>view.

>and:

> " I read you as making a lot of assumptions as to the validity of Church

>teachings when you state the above in a declarative sentence as if it were

>fact. [Can you hear my inner child screaming with pain?] And also using

>the distasteful concept of 'immature' as something of a whip toward

>acceptance of these statements.

>>

> whatever would you say in your hurt if i said something like that?

N: Gee, I don't know. I guess you might have to try it so we can both find

out. Might it be that you are sensitive in that area because of a lot of

experience with others finding you ... what have you said in the past?

Bossy doesn't sound quite right. I think it's a gift for someone to be

able to take charge. Like all gifts it has its down side both with others

and with oneself. All gifts expose their possessors to temptations for

abuse. Mine not the least of all nor yours the most.

>Everyone makes assumptions on the validity of what they believe, otherwise

they wouldn't believe. My assumption is that some of what they teach is

>valid for me. So what?

>

>Now you want me to stop using declarative sentences? The fact I write is a

fact for me at this moment when I write it.

N: Aren't you leaving the reader out of the equation? I don't mind

declarative sentences. I just prefer folk try to reserve them for ...

umm... probably for Sensation type observations. Few are going to feel

pushed around if you declare that the sky is blue.

>For goodness sake, as as for

>the " distasteful " concept of immature. I was paraphrasing Jung. His notion

of the second half of life, and what is then necessary.

N: I Do Not regard Jung as an expert in not hurting people feelings. Quite

the contrary. It's my understanding that several of his supervisess

committed suicide is early years. I don't say this is his fault, but

anyone who would kick a parent downstair can hardly be consider

supersensitive to the feelings of others. At any rate, it my believe that

the word 'immature' has taken on a lot of negative loading since Jung. I

guess the insult before was for an adult to be called 'childish'.

>It has nothing to

>do with you or me, or anyone else on the list. Mature and immature are

the only measure for when and how individuation usually starts. They are not

>value descriptions in any other context than in the way it was discussed.

You do see, that again, you chose to take umbrage at words in general and

>not even pointed at you? What would you call this?

N: A dislike of judgmental purjoratives. <s>

>

>> you remark:

>

> " N: I'm aware of these other peoples. To tell me so, I read as to imply

>that I might not be.

>

>You speak of logic where I see little, except as based on very doubtful

>assumptions.

>

>Dear Lord, , how can we ever carry on a meaningful conversation?

N: If you mean 'meaningful to both of us' only by being open minded, as

untainted by collective opinion as possible, and ready, if called on, to

define every word we use taking little for granted. I think Dan and

are doing a pretty good job of this at the moment.

>

>You said:

> "

>N: The above sounds like you believe in the existence of a God Being 'out

>there'.

>Then so must jung, the Buddhists, as well as all theologically astute

believers.

N: Not in the sense I mean. I'm speaking of a Being in the sense of, for

example, a 'father god' as opposed to perhaps a pure energy force beyond

our understanding. I can't agree that either Jung, the Buddhist or all the

'theologically astute' do this. Whadda you mean by 'believers'? Is this

circular? And where'd you get the impression that Jung fits in this catagory?

> No, But when we deal with " object and subject we use such words.

>Jung is always mentioning this :

> " The self is superordinal. it is felt empirically not as subject but as

object because of its indirectly unconscious component. The self is so far

>removed from the conscious mind that it can only be partially expressed by

human figures. The other part of it has to be expressed by objective

>abstract symbols. " (CW 18)

> " Ego stands to the self as moved to mover. as object to subject.( CW 11)

N: Maybe we are getting snarled over the word 'Being' as entity.

>

>Toni said:

> " There is no reward, except what we give ourselves.

>you said:

>N: Aaargh! You state that as if it were a Fact. That reads so omniscient.

>

>How else does one say it. Of course that means, " as far as I am able to

discern, Emerson was correct when he stated that .....quote " Fact, schacked.

>It seems to be true in the experiences of many. Please contradict that

with facts and example???

N: Huh. Guess we need to watch and Dan's discourse. They seem to

be dealing with a similar issue of what is fact. I guess for me 'fact'

needs to be concretely demonstable. Not belief or opinion. Regardless of

how many people share it. Seems to me I recall the word 'catagorical'

being leveled before.

>you wrote:

> " N: Love is another word I really don't understand. I have experienced the

>concern one feels for one's children's (and other's) welfare. I have

>experienced the affection one sometimes feels for others, pets, flowers

>etc. [when they haven't behaved to awfully so as to rouse more negative

>than positive feelings] Somehow when righteous people talk of Love, it

>always sounds like something so much more than these, and I usually sense a

>hidden 'should', of which you go on to write:

>

> " somehow when righteous people talk of love, " you probably have

never had LSD either or experienced it, but it does exist and people have

>experienced it. What can I say to a remark such as I don't understand

love. Of course, you don't. No one ever has, including poets, mystics, wise

>men and fools. What is to understand? Some people say " God is Love " can

one rationally deal with this?

N: Not really. To me it seems like an inversion and that maybe what they

really mean is 'Love is God.'

>What " You sense " is your projection on to the words of another.

N: Nuts. It's me making an effort to take responsibility for my own

assertions. It may or may not be a projection.

May other people not have experiences different than yours? Must they be

hypocrites,

>or false prophets or liars?

N: What a curious question. Makes me wonder if you are reacting to my

efforts to Not be catagorical, in a way very similar to my reaction when I

feel you Are catagorical. If it weren't so puzzling it would be funny.

>What do you know about how " righteous " some one is?

N: I'm thinking of people who would describe themselves that way.

>You cannot see into his souls, so you can only make a conditional

judgment. Furthermore there as

>so many ways to use this word negatively (as a slur) or positively as a

blessing, it is not a matter of opinion. We really cannot have an opinion

>based on unknowns.

N: There appears to be some truth in the above, but then it's getting late

and I'm getting tired <g> So maybe I'm overlooking a possible objection.

>you said:

> " N: It's my notion that in this post, in regard to 'shoulds', that you have

>given a good example of what fa suggested of you months ago. I think

>'inconsistency' was the word she used [though it might have been something

>similar]

> You go on about a concept as if you had a perfectly good

understanding of

>it, and then turn right around and do exactly what you've just explained

>you understood to be disadvantageous in some way. i.e. 'shoulds' have

>great drawbacks, and yet you use them. I say this by way of observation

>rather than accusation and ask, isn't this an instance of unintegrated

>intellectual understanding? And hence a breach in integrity?

>

>Gee whiz. I am not consistent in all my thoughts and words. golly, I must

be human after all. Shoulds as i mentioned are a great problem for me

>because we use them as a convention of language. " You should take an

umbrella, it might rain, I should go to the grocery, but I don't have time

now.

> " I should be studying, but i will sleep instead.

>hardly world shaking moral problems, are they?

>Now " i shouldn't yell at my kids " I should give more of myself to my aged

mother " I should write all those overdue letters " Maybe these have a

>moral decision included.

>I still maintain that " should " usually means " I know this is right, but

I don't want to do it right now. Is this some kind of a serious problem for

>me? no, not really. My conscience usually won't let me get away with it

for long. Or if it is inconsequential, i may just blow it off.

>You may judge me as " unintegrated intellectually " as you wish. Shoot me,

I am still not perfect, but at least I know when and how i am playing

>games with myself.

N: Rather than 'judging' you I asked you. We all have unintegrated areas.

I've read so many objections to allowing oneself to use the word 'should'

that a red flag goes up for me every time the word comes into my mind and I

try to find another word. I still feel that its use indicates a conflict

with interalized collective values. Most places I've read the objections

the writer has been calling it obsessive compulsive, which I prefer to

fight in myself. It Is in common use. But I wonder if to a degree we

aren't 'what we say'? If the effort to change our language isn't like a

monument toward changing our thinking. I wouldn't questions you about

inconsistency if you didn't phrase you beliefs in such absolute terms.

They read as if they were there forever.

I wonder if you tested Judging on the MB while I usually test Perceptive.

Some of this may boil down to different attitutes toward 'closure'. But I

doubt it.

>

>Lastly, and I know this is too long, but what the h....

>you said ;

>;

>> " N: Without research I'd say the types to whom you refer aren't really

>>altruists. I'd reserve that term for those who find their own reward in

>selfless acts (like the job well done bit) I'm not sure I've ever know one.

>

>You do judge people pretty severely, don't you. No one you know has ever

done something for others without a reward?

N: Do you remember my writing about the UU minister who counted the feeling

of satisfaction as a reward? Thinking this way, then I'd say no, I

haven't... if you discount some acts made and latter regretted. But I was

really thinking of an 'altuistic person' as one who habitually acted out of

regard for others rather than self, rather than as indiviual acts.

>

>you said;

> " N: I have a curious notion that if I met a saint I'd see a glow, and smell

>the odor of sanctify. And personally feel I'd sense great warmth emanating.

> [tho I must say that the latter seems often to be absent in the writings

>of those canonized by the RC.]

>

>I feel sorry for your lack of experience with saints or near saints. I

feel I have met some in my life, and they are wonderful to know and exude the

>love you don't understand.Most often now adays it is a political ploy and

not a theological one

>Those. .e canonized by the Church and those unknown ones are still human

beings. They set an example, so the Church sets them up. They are supposed

>to be people to emulate by the young in particular. Most often now adays

it is a political ploy and not a theological one.

N: Yes. I'd like to meet some people like I described. Perhaps I still will.

>

>I took a long time with this , because unless we come to some

agreement that what I say is not what you hear, and that i am never personally

>judging you or anyone else, and that the statements of fact you so dislike

are not promulgation from on high, but my considered opinion or

>experience, we cannot exchange our thoughts.

N: Okay. If you say so. I will go by what I read. If a belief reads like

a statement of fact I will probably suppose that is what the writer means.

If you prefer to not obide by that when I feel it's perfectly reasonable

then we might each prefer to spent more time elsewise. I, too, am spending

a lot of time on this. But I Do like to take others at their word.

Blessings,

[Guest guest]

Dear Toni, As far as I can make out my very long reply to you of yesterday

did not appear of the list. I've even registered direct with yahoo,

something I've resisted for years, in order to see if it was on the web

site. Problems there, too, in that I haven't received there automated

response to complete the cycle so I can examine the posts there.

I responsed to each point as I read and so was a bit startled in getting

to the bottom and find that it appeared you didn't wish to continue the

exchange if I continued to hold you to what I deem everyone's own

responsibility to 'own their own statement'. This Is still my feeling, so

I'd suppose that even if I resent my post it would resolve nothing. For

this reason I'm inclined Not to resend it. Like Lenhert my inclination is

to take such lacundas as God's intervention to protect me from myself <g>.

And to respect that intervention.

If the 'lost' post Does turn up after this 18 hr. lapse, you may deal with

it if/and/or how you wish. Or if you have anything more to say about or

analysis of our apparent communication rift, I'm quite willing to attend.

In the meantime this is my 'sacrifice' for the day <g> The time it took

to write is already gone beyond recall.

Blessings,

[Guest guest]

Dear Toni,

You quoted me:

> " I responsed to each point as I read and so was a bit startled in getting

> to the bottom and find that it appeared you didn't wish to continue the

> exchange if I continued to hold you to what I deem everyone's own

> responsibility to 'own their own statement'.

>

> What i said was :'

> " I took a long time with this , because unless we come to some

>agreement that what I say is not what you hear, and that i am never

personally

> judging you or anyone else, and that the statements of fact you so dislike

>are not promulgation from on high, but my considered opinion or

> experience, we cannot exchange our thoughts.

N: You began with: I thought it was understood on this list that whatever

we write is our own opinion and based on the experiences of one life, ours.

I don't agree that the list must take responsiblity for stating beliefs

and opinions as facts.

I suppose " I took a long time with this , because unless we come to some

>agreement that what I say is not what you hear... "

Conceivably you 'could' be proposing that we continue to trade opinions

whether they are received or not. But somehow I really Didn't think that

was what you were proposing.

>

> For the life of me, I cannot find any connection between the two quotes.

> " " I still and always hold to what i consider right. That i don't always

>live up to

> and use the word 'should' where it

> does not belong...ie in judging others.

> when

> I later find to my dismay

N: Do something get lost above? It does read as a complete thought as far

as I can tell.

N: Are you suggesting that I said you were doing that or this " and that i

am never personally

> judging you or anyone else, and that the statements of fact you so dislike

>are not promulgation from on high. "

I Do think that fairly often the way you phrase your choice of how to

handle a situation Does read as if you were 'talking down'. I don't think

I'm altogether alone in this reading. Though many reader don't pick up

nuances at all, let alone necessarily the same that I do. Some way

automatically excuse them.

With most people, when I get such meanings and they down agree that it can

be read that way, I put them aside to see what light the future shed. I've

been doing that for a long time with yours.

My closest friend with a PhD in Educ Psych usually reads the same nuances

as I. By this I don't mean that I've checked anything of yours out with

her. I haven't.

Think about it when you read the posts of others and see if you can see

any difference.

If you like I'll repost my earlier response that never arrived.

I don't insist that you accept anything I say. Nor do I insist that any

of the nuances I read in your writing. I only say that I am convinced that

there Is some basis, other than my own, for what I see... some of which

may be due to defensive reaction in your writing. Everyone has their

reasons for what they do. Some people definitely do 'talk down' to defend

themselves from their own uncertainties rather than from feelings of

superiority.

> " " " " ?

>

> If this is all that comes out of our exchange, we are still not

>communicating , are we.?

N: I definitely agree that we do not appear to be communicating with any

smoothness or much feeling that we are each Heard by the other.

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

Peace and love,

Toni