May 23, 2008

Morality Bites

 Caravaggio's David and Goliath

In preparation for this post, I researched articles and books for a simple definition of morality. This resulted in more questions than answers. Are women's morals superior to men's? Have religious people cornered the market on morality? Is social morality based on human being’s innate sense of right-and-wrong? Do we have Universal Morals for human behavior, or do morals evolve from culture to culture?

It finally occurred to me that setting a goal like writing about Moral Absolutes and Moral Relativity was so far over my head---I couldn't hit it armed with a pocketful of rocks and David's slingshot.

So, I'll write about what morality means to me since I don't have a philosophy or theology degree backing up my commentary. And in 2008, when human morality is the basis of scientific brain studies, I don't have credentials authorizing me to say there is a neurobiological foundation to moral behavior. But I'll tell you that anyway and throw in a few quotes and links for those who are inclined towards scientific explanations as to how narcissistic self-interest is trumped by our breathtaking capacity for altruistic, empathic and compassionate behavior. An internalization of what we call the Golden Rule: doing unto others, as we would have them do unto us.

“Morality is the alleviation of suffering for others.”

Several years ago, I heard this definition on a radio broadcast. It changed my perspective foreverafter by viewing the moral person as being other-serving. This definition was in direct contrast to moral piety serving the narcissistic self-image of religious perfection, holy sanctity and better-than-thou-superiority. In my experience, religiosity increases other people’s suffering; which by this definition, is the opposite of morality.

I know at least one or two holier-than-thou’s and you probably do, too. Holy folks defining moral virtue as strict obedience to absolutes like abstinence or a literal adherence to the law, killing the spirit entirely---but they don't seem to notice. Their judgmental attitudes towards themselves extend to judging others most likely struggling with complex situations in which there are no ‘right’ or easy answers. Morality, in that case, would demand the holy-moly put down the shield of piety and empathize. Immorality could be defined as standing like righteous sentinels refusing to lower the self to No-Right-Answer situations. Maybe we develop virtue when right answers are determined by our willingness to struggle with uncertainty?

Going for the Gold
“The deepest foundation on which morality is built is the phenomenon of empathy, the understanding that what hurts me would feel the same way to you.” ~Jeffrey Kluger
Reflecting on morality as other-serving made sense to me after raising two children who tested my ability to transform golden rules into explicit commandments protecting one another’s freedom. In our household, I defined the law according to Mom, the law according to Community, and nothing but the law according to God who holds everyone accountable, even mothers superior.

After a particularly feisty afternoon in the family kitchen, I put my implicit knowledge into terms simple enough for a child’s understanding (but evidently too complex for adult narcissists since they define morality as: the alleviation of suffering for their EGOS).

I dared stand in the middle of an ensuing brouhaha and said to my quarreling daughter, "Thou shalt not hit thy brother over the head with thy Barbie doll, for he suffereth; and Thou shalt be chastised for disobedience to the golden rule as will henceforth be enforced by thy governess."

That seemed to work fairly well though my tenacity teaching The Golden Rule was tested more than once while both kids learned the meaning of suffereth-ing. Enforcing consequences established limitations on two budding narcissists, reinforcing empathic consideration for their victim’s pain. Eventually, they matured enough to experience guilt for misbehavior as defined by Mom who instigated immediate consequences, such as: isolating them to a corner in the family room. The agony of their tearful remorse exceeded impulsive satisfaction exercising brute force in the realization of their end goal: he who has the most toys wins.

Mom disapproved of kids using each other like punching bags which meant it was highly unlikely they’d get dessert that night. Consistency with the enforcement of consequences meant results would never change, if they kept doing what they were doing, if you know what I mean!

If I had known everything then I now know about narcissism, good parenting and Freudian psychology, I’d never have chosen to be a mother. Much less become a single married mother teaching moral development to two kids and a husband with a learning-deficit.
“The capacity to feel contempt, anger, disgust, shame, embarrassment, guilt, compassion, gratitude, and elevation may or may not separate humans neatly from other animals, but it certainly separates us from Homo economicus. Morality dignifies and elevates because it ties us all to something greater than ourselves: each other.” ~Jonathan Haidt
Most parents instinctively teach a child that bopping someone over the head is self-defeating. No kid worth his egotism will share toys with someone who uses toys as weapons. I’m now learning parents also enhance children’s moral development when we allow them to tolerate chagrin, remorse and yes, even guilt and shame.

Internalizing moral responsibility for self-and-other is forged by the connection between feelings and cognition. Allowing them to endure personal distress for having negatively impacted a sibling, just might establish the foundation to moral responsibility in the future. It’s not a far stretch of the imagination to see how a child’s unregulated behavior could extend to narcissistic entitlement and cold indifference to other people’s suffering. Like people causing problems for other people and then saying, "It’s not my problem." You know the type.
“Other options that need to be distinguished include the possibility that bullies lack empathy in the sense that they do not identify with, or share, the joy or sadness of other people and the possibility that they do not understand what Sutton calls the ‘moral emotions’, such as guilt, love, remorse, sympathy, and shame.” ~Davies and Stone
I had a good friend with a bit of a temper or maybe even a mood disorder, who knows. She was asked to work in the church nursery, supervising little kids. Amongst this small group of children was a boy who became the terror of the toddlers since he was endowed with a sizable set of choppers...which he used to maintain superiority. If one of the kids was playing with a toy he wanted, he used his big teeth to bite their legs, arms or any body part in the way of him getting what he wanted.

Well, one day my friend decided to put an end to Goliath’s unholy reign of terror. She picked him up, sat him on her lap, and bit him back. Bit him hard enough to make certain he’d never forget that Sunday School lesson. She was duly released from her job in the nursery, which was probably a good thing. The other good thing? The bully stopped biting. 

At least as far as I know, she nipped his narcissism in the bud when he was only four years old. It's also possible that he repressed his natural instincts in order to look like a Good Guy and is currently blaming my friend for authoritarian abuse. But I'll choose to believe her refusal to stand by and watch him brutalize playmates, was a turning point for the kid. I hope he isn't biting employees today.

Seems there’s a fair number of bullies taking chunks out of other people’s arse in the corporate world. Maybe a few of those bully-bosses should have started their careers in my friend’s nursery. I hear-tell bullies are far less likely to bite if they know other people will bite ‘em back. Hard.

After all, in the case of a biter, biting back is the moral thing to do. Right??

Hugs all,


Davies, Martin, & Stone, Tony. Psychological Understanding and Social Skills 

Haidt, Jonathan. The Moral Emotions 

Kluger, Jeffrey. What Makes us Moral,28804,1685055_1685076_1686619,00.html

Pinker, Steven. The Moral Instinct 

Tangney, June Price, & Stuewig, Jeff, & Mashek, Debra. Moral Emotions and Moral Behavior 


  1. Here is a little something I thought to throw your way CZBZ since I am busy with interest these days in Jung…always have been. I have not much to say about Freud… Not much interest although the collective unconscious is riddled with his ideas as if they are facts where as Jung’s works seems to be reflective & on the rise in the integrative therapies of the present.

    Jung is a very strong bridge from Buddhist psychology to the present modes of moderns Phych.

    -anonymous * *’s

    In “Late Thoughts” Carl Jung says:

    We must beware of thinking of good and evil as absolute opposites.
    The criterion of ethical action can no longer consist in the simple view that Good has the force of a categorical imperative, while so-called evil can resolutely be shunned. Recognition of the reality of evil necessarily relatives the good and the evil likewise, converting both into paradoxical whole.

    In practical terms, this means that good and evil are no longer so self-evident. We have to
    Realize that each represents a judgment, we can not believe that we will always judge rightly. We might so easily be the victims of misjudgment. The ethical problem is affected by this principle only to the extent that we become somewhat uncertain about moral evaluations.
    Nevertheless we have to make ethical decisions. The relativity of “good” and “evil” by no means signifies that these categories are invalid, or do not exist. Moral Judgment is always present and carries with it certain characteristics psychological consequences.

  2. Hi Again...I got to thinking about the words "good" and "evil" and what comes to mind is my awareness to what is healthy. so without having to create a judgment or a good and evil evaluation I can speak for myself and say...this is unhealthy for me or this doesn't cultivate awareness.

    I can go even further and say that Narcissism is an unhealthy state yet I only consider this true due to it being unhealthy for myself as well as others not the narcissist. For the narc it may be the only thing the phyche could come up with in order to survive and boy oh boy how it want to exist.

    I tend not to view the narc as evil or a child who bites as being bad nor good because one doesn't bite.

    What functions & serves to establish and preserve can lack awareness on the level of collective unconscious.

    It seems interesting to me that people will continue to apply efforts to grounding in places that are un nourishing and then when it is uprooted (lack of adequate support) think of this as being evil or bad.

    I also find that morals are mixed in with what works for a person and what does not. It might be personal or universal. Biting a child to stop the biting ultimately would not benefit the child in learning about how to deal with a situation.
    for all we know the child might be biting back to get the attention which is necessary for growth...which is lacking from the child's life and inherent need to grow. Unfortunately the child may stop the biting action but it will reform into another action...perhaps something internal or otherwise difficult though an exterior means. There is no good or bad, right or wrong with either side.

    the woman at the ends of her wits has run out of options or feels the necessity to stop something since other children are being hurt. This is understandable. Yet it does not necessarily take care of the situation the child may be experiencing. Of course this is all me formulating and conjecturing.

    my point is that focusing on the black and white, the good and evil, what is moral or immoral, just or injustice seems to be temporary on the large scale and fixed or limited on a small scale.

    Since narcissism exists and there apparently is more Narcissism today then if this particular organism is growing...such as a mental/psychological disease...The problem is the lack of health that is reproduced from such an psychological climate.

    Biting back doesn't change the problem. sure it might put a narc or two out of commission, that is if dreams could come true on an individual/personal level...but a society..a culture and an entire human race will not effectively come to an awareness unless balance begins in every area. The lack of balance in societies that breed NARCISSISM have to look at everything..uncover everything. Cleaning up one area will not last for long if all other areas are still supportive of blind consumption.

    I find that there is acceptable promoted levels of lack of awareness. If this be the ground that supports and grows narcissists...that which is growing will not discontinue simply by cutting the obvious manifestations/ poisonous fruit off of the tree. Something deeper and more thorough has to happen.

    Collective unconscious has now produced the narcissist and the co narcissist. . It is like the good and the evil as a unit, a whole not separate. It functions as a whole until it has created distruction which destroys the spirit of one and feeds the narcissist.

    Because I live in the Unite states, I will make the opinion that America breeds narcissism. It is a perfect climate. Until the climate changes ..until the awareness opens nothing changes. Revenge is hardly a suitable means to eradicate a malignant human condition. Nor is a fight between good and evil. The job must start with awareness...not emotional supercharge or wrestling with judgments or morals.

    It will no longer be...this is a good thing...let s keep it or this is a bad thing we need to get rid of this. There has to be more awareness and growth on the behalf of all humans/individual to pull out of the current energy configuration. The answer will not arrive in pay back which is ego based. That application is short and simple for something that is far larger on an external level as well as internal.

    I find narcissism to not be about morals but about the spirit/health of a living organism, the human race as a fabric of life that covers the planet such as the other layers of life.

    It seems strange to me that we allow ourselves to point at the narcissist when each and every one of us lives off of some process that contaminates the earth with out any empathy at all for the atmosphere that cultivates human life, animal life & plant life.

    I mean if we are going to point at narcissism lets really take a gander at the whole web...not simply what we are immediately affected by in the sum of 80 years on the planet...a single human life time.

    Now how many humans are going to be willing to grow large enough to see the whole of the conditions ..take the ego self out of identifying with the conditions enough to do the work it is going to require to change the conditions for perhaps not his or her own generation but for the future.

    I know humans have the capabilities..they have proceeded in terms of various oppressions.

    I think Jung has something to offer in understanding how this works through understanding the collective unconscious and the personal unconscious.

    It is all about meeting with the larger "self" in relation to higher power.

  3. “Jung is a very strong bridge from Buddhist psychology to the present modes of modern Psych.”

    Thanks for posting your comments about Jung, ***s. I always appreciate your encouragement to become more self-aware, to think about our life experience from a non-dualistic perspective; to avoid getting stuck in blame, anger and vengeance.

    In reference to Jung, are you referring to Shadow work: recognition and re-integration of split-off aspects of self? If you have links or books you can recommend, please post them.

    My only problem with shadow work is when it is encouraged too soon. If we haven’t yet separated ourselves from a narcissistic enmeshment, we won’t really know what’s ‘us’ and what’s ‘them’. Seems there’s a foundation of preparatory work focused on Right and Wrong that requires naming abuse and the abuser before we can start healing.

    What do you think? Was your experience similar to mine??


  4. "Revenge is hardly a suitable means to eradicate a malignant human condition. Nor is a fight between good and evil. The job must start with awareness...not emotional supercharge or wrestling with judgments or morals."

    You make excellent points as a woman with a conscience. I admire your noble intentions facilitating self-awareness in those who are seeking and most likely, fully imbued with a conscience of their own.

    I think we're talking about two levels of perception though. One is ground level (dual, realistic) and the other is a spiritual level (non-dual, idealistic).

    We cannot apply nondual perceptions to a dual reality. Maybe in the spiritual world there is no right or wrong; but on the Earth School, there is. And if we can’t tell right from wrong, we’re in serious trouble. We'd best figure out quick that there are people without conscience, without empathy, without any intention to do The Right Thing. That's the trouble really. If everyone had a conscience and took responsiblity for harming other people, we wouldn't have to talk about Good and Evil.

    I think it’s liberating to think with Higher Mind where red equals green, which equals yellow, which equals red. Each color is one and the same without assigning attributions or value. But if your car is headed for an intersection, it’s comforting to know other people understand the meaning of red and STOP. Ha!

    “The woman at the ends of her wits has run out of options or feels the necessity to stop something since other children are being hurt. This is understandable. Yet it does not necessarily take care of the situation the child may be experiencing.”

    No kidding! I feel for that kid's parents! However, the other children were safe from further injuries because one woman didn’t wring her hands when a bully took advantage of adult inaction.

    Whether or not that bully was biting because his mama didn’t gaze properly into his eyes or not, empathy ought reside with his victims. Hopefully, twenty other toddlers aren’t in psychiatric counseling bemoaning the fact that adults were complicit in Mr. Big Teeth's terrorizing campaign in Sunday School.

    Applying this analogy to adult narcissists might look like this: when we are more concerned about ‘why’ the narcissist harms others, we are misplacing our empathy and wasting our energy. People continue being harmed when society does not enforce limits on abusive behavior.

    We can debate back and forth for years about whether or not its okay for a biter to get a taste of his own medicine; but at least while we're debating, twenty kids are free to play without fear.

    It's always hard defining morality and ethics. Just type morals versus ethics in google and note the number of philosophical links! Geez...makes a girl's head swim.

    Objective moral principles like justice, fairness, equality and victimization will continue to haunt most of us.

    I dunno, ***'s, what would you do with a biter in a room of vulnerable kids?? I'm guessing you wouldn't bite the kid, though.


  5. CZBZ..This Jung quotation is not with in the chapter which introduces "Shadow". I looked in the other chapters I read and I can not find it right now. this is a book that outlines or introduces: "Collected Works", I am also reading a book titled "Active Imagination". So it is between the two of them & definitely not with in the chapter discussing shadow.

    About "good and bad" or "good and evil".

    In therapy good and bad are never brought into the picture. In fact it is working with in the realms of gray that are encouraged and learned. Not the black and white of good and bad.

    Getting out of the good and bad thinking mechanics requires , well, a willingness to see past the personal (no longer identifying with the others persons assault).But more than that. I had to work through extreme thinking habits which in turn become extreme thinking experiences and extreme behaviors and reactions.

    It has been my experience that good and bad thinking keep the brain in lock mode. It is with in the gray mode that things can change and any experience can be elaborated on so that change is an option . I can not figure a better way of putting it.

    In terms of dealing out the narcissist it was necessary for me to see myself and how I was involved and not label the Narc as bad/black and me white/good. By erasing good and bad from myself and eracing good and bad from the narc then things are movable.

    Now the gut level or the instinctual tends to be all about bad and good...but not in those words and not in words at all...just that this is a threat or this is nourishing. This is poison and that is fresh. This will kill me and this will not.But what will poison me will do wonders for the plants.

    There is a lot of play in terms of
    looking at ones own behaviors that set up for the mix with a narc.

    This is something that did happen for me in council and It seems to be the last thing that any one would want to say..that they have something to do with the fact that their encounter with a narc has something to do with them and their ever they came to be. It is not about what one deserves.

    In a way we could say we are always a victim from the day we are born into thinking conditions that set us up for the future, the human condition. I mean at a certain point..I could wish a pay back on my whole culture including parents and their abuse. Yet at a certain point what really matters? I mean how far am I going to get pointing a finger at something that WAS unhealthy/unnurturing.

    If I look at life in its entirety I see what we consider good stuff as well as what we humans consider bad stuff playing out all of the time. It makes a gray color all together. That is life...all colors. but to separate the good and the bad means I miss out on a lot of experience in between.

    Jung also says something about the tension between the opposites and if it can be tolerated...if it can not then war.

    So, can I tolerate the sensation between the unhealthy conditions of my past narc relationship while my healthy job was/is still exists?

    In essence it is not what is what we do with do we handle it.

    I believe that if we are to change any certain condition it works not to take foot in the direction of change with revenge. It seems that the out come will be more about the emotion of revenge than teaching peace and tolerance and awareness.

    It would be difficult for me to teach peace while in the middle of anger.

    One must come from a peaceful place to do this kind of work. Anger must transform.

    Duality is no more real than non- duality. Duality just seems to be the habit or the pattern that is handed down taught and learned reinforced first.

    I believe this dimension comes from an instinctual formula

    War is on the level of instinct.

    The whole point is to use all of the brain which is growth in awareness/evolution.

    This is why I am always preaching about changing thinking habits or the mechanics of thinking. I wouldn't be rattling this off if I hadn't been decidedly stepping into a new course of action.

    Sure people are not completely aware... I am always hving ot wake up.

    SO, divide and conquer...good and bad...right and wrong. My god is the true god... etc etc etc. Yes, that is real duality is action. Awareness is evolution/change. Awareness doesn't come through labeling good and bad. Awareness is learning which means brain waves do neuro paths & thinking conditions. It is work.

    That is why I have no time to get the narc back or be angry...I would rather change my conditions and learn..tolerate tension etc.

    If every one around me is partaking in dualistic thinking then why is it that I should be tending to that position rather than making an effort in creating an awareness which bridges and informs about healing. So dualistic thinking is predominant...that doesn't make it more real it just makes the affects of this way of being more enforced acceptable and habitual.

    Dualistic thinking enables narcs to exist. My opinion. If certain kinds of experiences or behaviors were not viewed as being good...the N vocabulary would definitely require adjusting. narcs construct their tools in reference to a guaranteed out come . And they are guaranteed that no one will be able to look any deeper than that because dualistic thinking is easy & predictable & predominant. Changing triggers knocks them off course.when we are so sure about what 'good' looks and how it acts then the narc knows exactly what the mask will look like. Easy as pie and no one is going to question.

    Also bullies/narcs are not likely to hang around any person that is not going to be bullied. Of course not...there is no supply. So no they will not be taking chunks out if others who will do the same and thy will not take any chunks out of any body who does not give them attention. Thanks for Kathy Krajco words...she is the one that lent me this truth...ignore a narc I wold say narcs don't take chunks where they are ignored.

    Take note: bullies know how to find the nice people who do not take chunks because those nice people don't think they are allowed to because it is bad.They find people they can power over.

    Can i tell you how good it was the day I decided to be bad!!!!LOL

    Also I think that non dualistic thinking requires great effort.
    Dualistic is automatic. that is why it is so popular.

    Cheers :o)

  6. I think maybe I'm not using the 'right' words, LOL. Dualistic thinker, I'm not, if the term dualistic means Black and White.

    In fact, a little more 'right versus wrong' thinking might have kept me from giving narcissists the benefit of the doubt. Like calling a spade a spade and then shoveling them out of my life. But NO! I had to go and look at bad behavior in shades of gray. LOL

    Let me think about your last message and see where I'm not explaining myself very well. Black and white thinking is a stage we all go through as kids and I'm not suggesting this is healthy as adults.

    I kinda think we're talking about the same thing but I lack words to better define my meaning.

    I'm kinda getting old, anonymous. It'll take me a little while to retrieve the correct words from my brain files. But I'll find 'em!


  7. I think the words I was looking for are ‘relative world’ and ‘absolute world’. I always viewed my dual perspective as the Real World and the Spiritual World.

    I recalled a dialogue between Andrew Cohen and Ken Wilber that you may find interesting. In this particular article, they discuss Good and Evil and the relative world:

    COHEN: So here we are in postmodern America, up to our necks in a culture of narcissism, devoid of an authentic moral framework for making value distinctions. What happens when an individual has an enlightenment experience in this context? Let's say they taste nonduality, glimpse emptiness, are overwhelmed by fullness, see that all is One and One is all. They experience the truth beyond good and evil, beyond opposites. But how is that extraordinary experience going to help them navigate this complex, ever-evolving, ever-changing world system that we are all a part of?

    WILBER: In other words, if the ultimate truth is beyond good and evil, how do we navigate in the world of good and evil?

    COHEN: Exactly. Now, this is what has happened for so many of us, and I think it's obviously going to happen to the younger generations if something doesn't begin to change: When we had these enlightenment experiences, when we experienced the nondual state, we concluded, "Oh, the ultimate truth is beyond differences, is beyond good and evil." That's what our most profound spiritual experiences reveal to us. But because they occur in the context of a culture that is having a lot of difficulty making value distinctions anyway, these experiences end up lacking any kind of moral weight and, therefore, lack the power to create a real moral framework for our lives.

    WILBER: And so absolute truth is beyond good and evil, but relative truth has good and evil. And in the relative world, you're supposed to choose good and avoid evil—Buddha was very clear on that one. In the absolute world, you transcend both of them. Now, what we've done is to confuse the two, and we think that because the absolute is beyond good and evil, therefore in the relative world, we should make no judgments at all. And that is already to capitulate to an immoral action in the relative world. You're already reinforcing immoral action when you do that."

    If you're interested in reading the entire dialogue, you can find it on the “What Is Enlightenment” website. They offer a temporary pass with an email address, otherwise a paid membership is required.

    What is Enlightenment magazine online:

    In Search of a New Moral Compass by Ken Wilber and Andrew Cohen in Dialogue:

    I appreciated what they had to say about living in a relative world “devoid of an authentic moral framework for making value distinctions.”

    Their conversation is rather esoteric but maybe by using their words will make it easier to communicate.

    Your thoughts??


    p.s. You'll likely find this funny but the topic of one of their magazines is "Morality Bites." I don't figure they were writing about l'il Goliath in Sunday School, though. LOLLOL!!!

  8. I get what you are saying and I get what the above is saying. I had written a whole bunch about what I might call a bridge between meeting with that enlightened state and the grounded place of good and bad. I think I understand the way it works..especially after reading something written about active imagination.

    being enlightened with out having basic value system is like giving a thief the book " the secret ".

    I wold be happy ot give you wha I wrote if you are interested. I was happy to meet with the document on active imagination which was written by a catholic monk. It was his conversation with his anima (self) . e was attempting ot get the anima to join in with the soul instead of remaining ego identified. Very interesting and something I have gone through in therapy.

    I now understand from anothers story why after I was through with the narcs that I was some place very new and very large and I couldn't explain it.

    I could go on. I just wanted to say this for now and i had written earlier but I don't know if it went through.:o) anonymous :'s

  9. Whew, now we're talkin'!! I was not very clear on what you meant but now I think we're on the same page.

    I'd be very interested in the 'bridge' you are writing about. Even while reading Ken Wilber's interview, I wondered how to make such high-falutin' talk, PRACTICAL. That's the problem when topics are too esoteric. People need information they can use.

    BUT, I'd love to hear how you envision connecting both a relative and absolute world!

    p.s. The only message I received was this one, which means your other message didn't go through...sorry!


  10. I continue to try to answer this bridge idea. I don't know if I can get it down in a way that doesn't end up being so esoteric, so filled with symbolic language to do so.It has taken me from the time I was around 4 years old to form the bridge but now to explain; how to write it out.

    Words such as ego-identified, Identifications, self realization, Being, awareness,consciousness, god/goddess and soul and more keep coming up and I would like to arrange them in a manner that creates the map I have experienced and motivate from.

    Right now I find nothing coherent to present but I am sure having a great time putting efforts towards getting it out. I am learning all of the symbols , word symbols which vary from religious or spiritual tone to psychological tone.So I am still learning a vocabulary which means before I could pronounce the words hungry I understood hunger.

    I have done a lot of process with out the labels or symbols in order to be able to announce the process verbally. That is where it is at for the moment. I would gladly give you what I have written but that would be a job on your part.LOL

    I do say that value in the relative world is real.I am able to tolerate the frustration and anxiety that can accumulate between the poles of good and bad internally and externally.It is my experience that I see through the frustration but then am still able to act on behalf of value.This way the action based on value is not a personal revenge or something I solve for self. It is simply work that needs to be done. Hopefully with in acting on values with in the an identified state one will be able to trip on the process of individualization and get even further. And just take a look how all of a sudden I turn into the complex writer here. Not my intension.

    I like the way Jung describes his theory of "Individualization". I would call that a bridge. I also enjoyed reading the Cristian monks individualization process in terms of "active imagination".

    Reading these as well as many other things helps me identify the words that are associated with the process, that which describes the process or bridge.

    Knowing, in this instance, is quite different than being. knowing allows me to write it out.Being allows me to simply DO, Experience and example. I am doing fine with the being part but the knowing of how to create a representation of something which describes bridge from the mundane to the extraordinary..ummm. I think I do better painting about least for now.

    It is weird to be saying I understand but then not thinking constructively enough to map out the dots.

    It also seems to be more productive to work with people in the three-D. I can teach/learn through deliberate postures...I can create experience through painting which s another form of deliberate movement ...but writing the diagram out. I intend to do it that is for sure.

    I will continue to investigate my personal story to prepare for the collective story.



Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...