(no subject)
Recently, my mind has been turned to some unpleasant circumstances. Some dear friends of mine have or are suffering. Their situations are not unlike the problems faced by many, but my true attention has been turned to someone who suffers in a far different way:
Willfully - adj. Said or done on purpose; deliberate. See Synonyms at voluntary / obstinately bent on having one's own way.
Ignorant - adj. the condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.
Put them together and you have an individual who would make any sophist squeal with delight. Pessimistically, people of this nature probably led the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus to affectionately believe that most people were no better than cattle.
I would have used “Sheep,” myself, as I like subtle links between mindless followings and hardcore religious fanatics, but Heraclitus lived five hundred years before The Great Sheppard came.
I digress. My issue tonight is the continued longevity of the American disposition to ignore truths or even possibilities in favor of the “Ignorance is Bliss” mantra. I am appalled by this behavior. Even small children will ask the question greatest Human question: “Why?” and settle for nothing less than a complete explanation. Unfortunately, a child’s questioning is presumed to be a cleaver form of annoyance. Now, our society is so focused on disregarding “Bad Things” that individuals place themselves in compromising positions without considering the possible repercussions of those actions.
These people simply annoy me.
I become seriously appalled when Human Beings adamantly disregard information which suggests that the individual is in mortal danger, simply because they fear interpersonal conflict (powerful and inevitable) or (considerably reduced, but immediate) intrapersonal pain.
Conflict & Pain
These two forces are inevitable in Life. There is not a day in our lives which is not fraught with some form of adversity. There are misunderstandings, disruptions in routine, failures in convenience, accidents, Love, and the inevitable Death (the big scarry one we won’t talk about tonight). There is no day without conflict, for conflict is part of a healthy, responsible life. However, people often times attempt to prevent conflict and pain through aversation. By avoiding conflict, individuals believe they have prevented the problem.
This is wrong.
No conflict disappears by avoiding the actual conflict. When conflict arises, it requires a single counterforce: resolution. When two people dispute, when a tire goes flat, when a man drives recklessly, some kind of resolution must come from these actions. Some form of Effect must be derived from the Cause. The two people will fight or resolve their differences, the tire will either be inflated or fail, and a reckless man may safely return home or die in the attempt. Yes, Resolution is a powerful force. Effect is something that can never be avoided. In attempting to avoid one circumstance, an individual may inadvertently cause something less desirable.
Life is Suffering: The First Noble Truth in Buddhism. The Buddha teaches this to us to understand that in life, there will be challenges. We should not shun these, but embraces them as an opportunity to grow closer to Enlightenment. But, since fat people are discredited in our society, I’ll stick to leaner men of wisdom (even though Buddha himself was not copious. Rather, his great girth is symbolic of the great joy Enlightenment has brought him).
We must stand against our adversaries and challenge ourselves or we will forever be emotionally and spiritually deficient.
But, how do we stand against those things which cause us so much pain? How can Humans survive another crush? The answer is so simple, it is insulting to think it took our species so long to discover it.
Knowledge.
“The More You Know.” “Knowledge is Power.”
“So, you say you want a revolution?”
Carl Marx taught the world, over a century ago, that our species has the capacity for great personal achievements and that these Great Wonders could never be achieved while under the rule of an oppressive government.
I’d like to point out that an individual, suffering under the emotional and psychological oppression of another, cannot make great works, as well.
Now, I’m going to rant about something seemingly unrelated (though I mentioned it previously) which really is related to my whole THEME tonight (if you guess right, I’ll tell you so). It’s also more coherently written (because it was mostly written at a different time...three weeks ago).
Love.
What is love? Wikipedia.org, The Free Encyclopedia, suggests that love is an emotional reaction to various forms of stimuli, which produces sensations of intimacy, passion, or commitment (Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love). Dictionary.com, the ad-laden refuge of semi-literate college students, offers, “A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.” Wikipedia and Dictionary seem to express the more common ideas regarding definitions of love. Lofty feelings and vague explanations are acceptable when discussing this omnipresent expression. Scott Peck, however, discusses love in a clinical fashion, arguing that several pseudo-loves have replaced the social ideal, ultimately depleting its meaning. Here, this section discusses Peck’s False Loves as well as his definition of Love.
Scott Peck defines love as, “The will to extend one’s self for the purpose of nurturing one’s own or another’s spiritual growth.” Peck’s statement is deceptively simplistic, as he continues defining his definition for an additional three pages. Essentially, one consciously chooses to engage in the act of placing themselves in a position to evolve or to help another evolve. Peck’s explanation comes from practicing psychiatric therapy for many years (he was also a thin man, making him far more credible than The Enlightened One). Therefore, to better understand what love is, a discussion of the False Loves may help reveal Peck’s true meanings.
Peck’s first False Love is the cultural buzz-line, “Falling in ‘Love,’” (henceforth FIL). Peck refutes this pheromone-induced, orgasmic collapse of ego barriers. Peck explains that two major problems with FIL. The first reason was briefly mentioned already: FIL is generally sexually motivated, thereby removing the capacity of love from most friends, family, and animals. Secondly, FIL is plagued by a brief sense of longevity. As a relationship remains in a state of FIL, it eventually whines down into a state accompanied by boredom. It is here, that Peck’s second False Love becomes relevant.
“Romantic Love,” is Peck’s second False Love. It is essentially the transient state between Falling in Love and the likely collapse of a relationship. As a FIL-based relationship enters decline, individuals attempt to recapture their pre-rational experience by recreating the milieu which lead to FIL. Romantic Love is also the social misconception of what a loving relationship should be. As a relationship progresses, individuals may lament their leaving former lovers, or complain that their current partner is unsatisfying. From Peck and other experiences/sources, this author has inferred the following: The longevity of a lasting union is not measured by the sexual extravagance or financial stability of the union’s participants; rather, it is built and measured on the participants’ willingness to acknowledge each other as real people, with different agendas, attempting to consolidate their lives to build a better world.
“Dependency,” is the third False Love and also a serious psychological/sociological concern. Dependency is often characterized by the insatiable desire for another’s attention. Peck defines a dependant person as a,”parasite on [another] individual…[dependency is] the inability to experience wholeness or to function adequately without the certainty that one is being actively cared for by another.” A healthy relationship is not an act of parasitism or even symbiosis (as characterized when either host or symbiotic die following separation). Dependency lacks a key characteristic in a sustaining relationship: will. Without the ability to chose, there is no freedom. The caged animal will flee with great haste, leaving its captor devastated. Conversely, the captor does not experience wholeness from the relationship, as they can never achieve growth from a participant who cannot freely love. I have come to believe that this form of False Love is one of the most dangerous. It is often identified with statements such as, “I could never love anyone else but you,” or “I could never live without you.” Obsessive behavior is apparent in both the dependant individual and their partner. While difficult to stomach, in truth, a dependant person CAN live without the other and often WILL. Loss is a common theme in life and becoming dependant solely to prevent loss is an excellent method of achieving loss.
The fourth False Love is, “Cathexis,” or, “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.” Cathexis is the emotional attachment to inanimate objects or ideas as a substitution to human interaction. In Cathexis, individuals channel unrequited emotions into objects which are incapable of challenging that emotional attachment (such a rebuking or absolving). Unfortunately, cathexis is a psychological disorder found in all humans today. The capitalist social structure Marx warned of has reached its greatest achievement, where people not only consume, but worship consumption. While this follows more into the texts of William Lawhead and Neil Postman, the topics are closely related. While cathexis may have a sizable workload, the gratification from worship of money/religion/material ends is ultimately fleeting. There is no “spiritual growth” or true intimacy. Cathexis is a psychological disease, like depression. However, unlike depression, few are willing to seek clinical attention for it as the social system in place encourages materialism. An appropriate analogy may be if the CDC willingly spread a horrible disease. We may also consider Cathexis as a kin to a certain facet “romantic” involvements. In many poorly founded relationships, an individual may give many elaborate gifts in effort to solidify the relationship. The receiver of these gifts gives into Cathexis and the giver enjoys the satisfaction of holding their connection a little longer. Attempting to use Cathexis to gainfully compensate in a relationship is morally objectional. Babbles a relationship do not define.
The final False Love is the misconceptualized “Self-Sacrifice” Love (SSL). SSL is not a noble gesture. It is the willful suppression of an individual’s spiritual growth in favor of another. Hollywood has glorified acts of SSL while ignoring the long-term social ramifications of these acts. Continued SSL may lead to a depressed giver with an infantilized receiver. Peck uses the phrase sadomasochism (coined originally by Freud) to describe Masochism and Sadism when discussing SSL. Masochism is the inability to become sexually aroused or satisfied without receiving some form of pain (physical or psychological). Sadism is the reverse, when an individual is unable to become sexually aroused or satisfied without giving physical or psychological pain. However, these phrases are not restricted to sexual activity. They also form a vicious circle of continuous receiving and giving of pain. Women who remain with abusive men, for instance, tough-out the pain for those few, rare moments when the man begs for her to take him back. In more general terms, individuals sometimes maintain relations within another, enjoying those fleeting moments of superiority and wholeness.
(Quotations of Scott Peck come from his book, The Road Less Traveled)
So, with a little knowledge, hopefully the people of the world can be less ignorant.
And please, Humanity, learn something.
You’re really pissing me off.
Love,
- Jarax
Willfully - adj. Said or done on purpose; deliberate. See Synonyms at voluntary / obstinately bent on having one's own way.
Ignorant - adj. the condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.
Put them together and you have an individual who would make any sophist squeal with delight. Pessimistically, people of this nature probably led the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus to affectionately believe that most people were no better than cattle.
I would have used “Sheep,” myself, as I like subtle links between mindless followings and hardcore religious fanatics, but Heraclitus lived five hundred years before The Great Sheppard came.
I digress. My issue tonight is the continued longevity of the American disposition to ignore truths or even possibilities in favor of the “Ignorance is Bliss” mantra. I am appalled by this behavior. Even small children will ask the question greatest Human question: “Why?” and settle for nothing less than a complete explanation. Unfortunately, a child’s questioning is presumed to be a cleaver form of annoyance. Now, our society is so focused on disregarding “Bad Things” that individuals place themselves in compromising positions without considering the possible repercussions of those actions.
These people simply annoy me.
I become seriously appalled when Human Beings adamantly disregard information which suggests that the individual is in mortal danger, simply because they fear interpersonal conflict (powerful and inevitable) or (considerably reduced, but immediate) intrapersonal pain.
Conflict & Pain
These two forces are inevitable in Life. There is not a day in our lives which is not fraught with some form of adversity. There are misunderstandings, disruptions in routine, failures in convenience, accidents, Love, and the inevitable Death (the big scarry one we won’t talk about tonight). There is no day without conflict, for conflict is part of a healthy, responsible life. However, people often times attempt to prevent conflict and pain through aversation. By avoiding conflict, individuals believe they have prevented the problem.
This is wrong.
No conflict disappears by avoiding the actual conflict. When conflict arises, it requires a single counterforce: resolution. When two people dispute, when a tire goes flat, when a man drives recklessly, some kind of resolution must come from these actions. Some form of Effect must be derived from the Cause. The two people will fight or resolve their differences, the tire will either be inflated or fail, and a reckless man may safely return home or die in the attempt. Yes, Resolution is a powerful force. Effect is something that can never be avoided. In attempting to avoid one circumstance, an individual may inadvertently cause something less desirable.
Life is Suffering: The First Noble Truth in Buddhism. The Buddha teaches this to us to understand that in life, there will be challenges. We should not shun these, but embraces them as an opportunity to grow closer to Enlightenment. But, since fat people are discredited in our society, I’ll stick to leaner men of wisdom (even though Buddha himself was not copious. Rather, his great girth is symbolic of the great joy Enlightenment has brought him).
We must stand against our adversaries and challenge ourselves or we will forever be emotionally and spiritually deficient.
But, how do we stand against those things which cause us so much pain? How can Humans survive another crush? The answer is so simple, it is insulting to think it took our species so long to discover it.
Knowledge.
“The More You Know.” “Knowledge is Power.”
“So, you say you want a revolution?”
Carl Marx taught the world, over a century ago, that our species has the capacity for great personal achievements and that these Great Wonders could never be achieved while under the rule of an oppressive government.
I’d like to point out that an individual, suffering under the emotional and psychological oppression of another, cannot make great works, as well.
Now, I’m going to rant about something seemingly unrelated (though I mentioned it previously) which really is related to my whole THEME tonight (if you guess right, I’ll tell you so). It’s also more coherently written (because it was mostly written at a different time...three weeks ago).
Love.
What is love? Wikipedia.org, The Free Encyclopedia, suggests that love is an emotional reaction to various forms of stimuli, which produces sensations of intimacy, passion, or commitment (Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love). Dictionary.com, the ad-laden refuge of semi-literate college students, offers, “A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.” Wikipedia and Dictionary seem to express the more common ideas regarding definitions of love. Lofty feelings and vague explanations are acceptable when discussing this omnipresent expression. Scott Peck, however, discusses love in a clinical fashion, arguing that several pseudo-loves have replaced the social ideal, ultimately depleting its meaning. Here, this section discusses Peck’s False Loves as well as his definition of Love.
Scott Peck defines love as, “The will to extend one’s self for the purpose of nurturing one’s own or another’s spiritual growth.” Peck’s statement is deceptively simplistic, as he continues defining his definition for an additional three pages. Essentially, one consciously chooses to engage in the act of placing themselves in a position to evolve or to help another evolve. Peck’s explanation comes from practicing psychiatric therapy for many years (he was also a thin man, making him far more credible than The Enlightened One). Therefore, to better understand what love is, a discussion of the False Loves may help reveal Peck’s true meanings.
Peck’s first False Love is the cultural buzz-line, “Falling in ‘Love,’” (henceforth FIL). Peck refutes this pheromone-induced, orgasmic collapse of ego barriers. Peck explains that two major problems with FIL. The first reason was briefly mentioned already: FIL is generally sexually motivated, thereby removing the capacity of love from most friends, family, and animals. Secondly, FIL is plagued by a brief sense of longevity. As a relationship remains in a state of FIL, it eventually whines down into a state accompanied by boredom. It is here, that Peck’s second False Love becomes relevant.
“Romantic Love,” is Peck’s second False Love. It is essentially the transient state between Falling in Love and the likely collapse of a relationship. As a FIL-based relationship enters decline, individuals attempt to recapture their pre-rational experience by recreating the milieu which lead to FIL. Romantic Love is also the social misconception of what a loving relationship should be. As a relationship progresses, individuals may lament their leaving former lovers, or complain that their current partner is unsatisfying. From Peck and other experiences/sources, this author has inferred the following: The longevity of a lasting union is not measured by the sexual extravagance or financial stability of the union’s participants; rather, it is built and measured on the participants’ willingness to acknowledge each other as real people, with different agendas, attempting to consolidate their lives to build a better world.
“Dependency,” is the third False Love and also a serious psychological/sociological concern. Dependency is often characterized by the insatiable desire for another’s attention. Peck defines a dependant person as a,”parasite on [another] individual…[dependency is] the inability to experience wholeness or to function adequately without the certainty that one is being actively cared for by another.” A healthy relationship is not an act of parasitism or even symbiosis (as characterized when either host or symbiotic die following separation). Dependency lacks a key characteristic in a sustaining relationship: will. Without the ability to chose, there is no freedom. The caged animal will flee with great haste, leaving its captor devastated. Conversely, the captor does not experience wholeness from the relationship, as they can never achieve growth from a participant who cannot freely love. I have come to believe that this form of False Love is one of the most dangerous. It is often identified with statements such as, “I could never love anyone else but you,” or “I could never live without you.” Obsessive behavior is apparent in both the dependant individual and their partner. While difficult to stomach, in truth, a dependant person CAN live without the other and often WILL. Loss is a common theme in life and becoming dependant solely to prevent loss is an excellent method of achieving loss.
The fourth False Love is, “Cathexis,” or, “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.” Cathexis is the emotional attachment to inanimate objects or ideas as a substitution to human interaction. In Cathexis, individuals channel unrequited emotions into objects which are incapable of challenging that emotional attachment (such a rebuking or absolving). Unfortunately, cathexis is a psychological disorder found in all humans today. The capitalist social structure Marx warned of has reached its greatest achievement, where people not only consume, but worship consumption. While this follows more into the texts of William Lawhead and Neil Postman, the topics are closely related. While cathexis may have a sizable workload, the gratification from worship of money/religion/material ends is ultimately fleeting. There is no “spiritual growth” or true intimacy. Cathexis is a psychological disease, like depression. However, unlike depression, few are willing to seek clinical attention for it as the social system in place encourages materialism. An appropriate analogy may be if the CDC willingly spread a horrible disease. We may also consider Cathexis as a kin to a certain facet “romantic” involvements. In many poorly founded relationships, an individual may give many elaborate gifts in effort to solidify the relationship. The receiver of these gifts gives into Cathexis and the giver enjoys the satisfaction of holding their connection a little longer. Attempting to use Cathexis to gainfully compensate in a relationship is morally objectional. Babbles a relationship do not define.
The final False Love is the misconceptualized “Self-Sacrifice” Love (SSL). SSL is not a noble gesture. It is the willful suppression of an individual’s spiritual growth in favor of another. Hollywood has glorified acts of SSL while ignoring the long-term social ramifications of these acts. Continued SSL may lead to a depressed giver with an infantilized receiver. Peck uses the phrase sadomasochism (coined originally by Freud) to describe Masochism and Sadism when discussing SSL. Masochism is the inability to become sexually aroused or satisfied without receiving some form of pain (physical or psychological). Sadism is the reverse, when an individual is unable to become sexually aroused or satisfied without giving physical or psychological pain. However, these phrases are not restricted to sexual activity. They also form a vicious circle of continuous receiving and giving of pain. Women who remain with abusive men, for instance, tough-out the pain for those few, rare moments when the man begs for her to take him back. In more general terms, individuals sometimes maintain relations within another, enjoying those fleeting moments of superiority and wholeness.
(Quotations of Scott Peck come from his book, The Road Less Traveled)
So, with a little knowledge, hopefully the people of the world can be less ignorant.
And please, Humanity, learn something.
You’re really pissing me off.
Love,
- Jarax