|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 20, 2020 7:25:46 GMT -5
I've met several people lately who have expressed the same concern about what's going on. One person told me that she worries about climate change and the wildfires out west, the virus and how it may kill several good friends in high risk categories, the possibility of fascism and authoritarianism replacing democracy, people going hungry who've lost their jobs, systemic racism, civil unrest in general, and on and on. I suggested that she take whatever positive physical action seemed appropriate (donate money to organizations that support her views, write letters to her representatives, etc. and then pursue duck therapy, bobber therapy, walking in the woods therapy, a formal meditation activity, or something similar. Duck therapy is going to a park, sitting by a lake, and just watching the ducks. Bobber therapy is going fishing and focusing on the bobber (whether you keep the fish you catch or throw them back doesn't matter). Walking in the woods therapy is just walking in the woods while looking and listening without reflection. IOW, develop some positive strategies for taking the mind out of the worrying mode.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 20, 2020 12:53:13 GMT -5
fear, emerges
the raw material, is anxiety, dread
it's the feeling of someone behind you on a dark street late at night
turn your head, look back .. at nothing
a disturbance in the web of the subconscious, a ripple refracted from the sea floor of the mind
this is the fabric of the survival instinct
this is the stuff of which unsettled dreams are woven, and otherwise formed
who are the craftsmen and craftswomen that would mould this particular clay?
where have their hands been?
are their ears open? what is the tenor and volume of their voice?
what, exactly, are they fighting against?
are their nightmarish figurines shaped, intentionally?
why, do they want you, to fear?
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 20, 2020 15:34:38 GMT -5
I've met several people lately who have expressed the same concern about what's going on. One person told me that she worries about climate change and the wildfires out west, the virus and how it may kill several good friends in high risk categories, the possibility of fascism and authoritarianism replacing democracy, people going hungry who've lost their jobs, systemic racism, civil unrest in general, and on and on. I suggested that she take whatever positive physical action seemed appropriate (donate money to organizations that support her views, write letters to her representatives, etc. and then pursue duck therapy, bobber therapy, walking in the woods therapy, a formal meditation activity, or something similar. Duck therapy is going to a park, sitting by a lake, and just watching the ducks. Bobber therapy is going fishing and focusing on the bobber (whether you keep the fish you catch or throw them back doesn't matter). Walking in the woods therapy is just walking in the woods while looking and listening without reflection. IOW, develop some positive strategies for taking the mind out of the worrying mode. What's happening is symbolical. An individual should observe, learn and apply. Out of control negative emotions generate negative energies that manifest into negative situations that yield more negative emotions. It is a positive-feedback loop. It doesn't matter "who's right", if "you are justified to ...", and such. When you experience negative feelings, at your level you'll bring / create negative situations into your reality that will bring more negative feelings onto you. When many individuals experience negative feelings (anger, fear, hate) negative mass-events happen. They manifest in whatever weak point may happen, like the ones you mentioned. If competent management or random actions deflect or lessen one manifestation, another one of the same magnitude happens in a different manner. Your advice is useful only to the degree it lessens, hopefully to elimination, that individual's negative feelings. If he keep his justified anger, fear, hate, he'll experience situations that will bring to him more anger, fear, hate. Again, it doesn't matter if he's right, his feelings are justified, or such. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 20, 2020 16:05:04 GMT -5
We are going to see the swing of the pendulum. Politics didn't use to be all-dirty, as it has become. I hope Mitch McConnell loses in his state. I think present POTUS is done, way done, the pendulum will swing with a vengeance. Trump is what's called a Hasnamuss. But he will squeeze out the last ounce of the swing, there will be a 6-3 court, and Chief Justice Roberts will not be able to maintain his balancing act. Vote, safely. bepresentfirst.com/the-rise-of-the-hasnamuss-in-contemporary-politics/ The whole article is good, but after reading the first paragraph you can skip down to the paragraph above 2. "The emotional center, when it works with its own energy, is an organ of perception, and the hasnamuss, who has only negative emotions, loses his ability to perceive from the emotional center. Part of what this means is that he has no conscience, no empathy and no shame. In many important ways, it is exactly this that gives him his power over other people and his apparent strength. Since he has no conscience, he is not troubled by his lies or by his actions that create suffering for other people. It's also his lack of shame that makes him attractive to a certain type of person. Many ordinary people are frustrated by the burden of conscience; shame and guilt and inner considering keep these people from acting on their most base impulses and the hasnamuss, when he leaves a position of power, gives them permission to manifest their prejudice, their hatred, and their violent desires. Here we come to another characteristic of the hasnamuss: he appeals to the lowest in his followers, and in doing so destroys whatever higher possibilities they have". written January 2020. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 20, 2020 17:48:43 GMT -5
I offer Charles D$ckens (which I misspell because the silly filter changes it to penisens) to console the body/mind:
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 20, 2020 20:00:29 GMT -5
We are going to see the swing of the pendulum. Politics didn't use to be all-dirty, as it has become. I hope Mitch McConnell loses in his state. I think present POTUS is done, way done, the pendulum will swing with a vengeance. Trump is what's called a Hasnamuss. But he will squeeze out the last ounce of the swing, there will be a 6-3 court, and Chief Justice Roberts will not be able to maintain his balancing act. Vote, safely. bepresentfirst.com/the-rise-of-the-hasnamuss-in-contemporary-politics/ The whole article is good, but after reading the first paragraph you can skip down to the paragraph above 2. "The emotional center, when it works with its own energy, is an organ of perception, and the hasnamuss, who has only negative emotions, loses his ability to perceive from the emotional center. Part of what this means is that he has no conscience, no empathy and no shame. In many important ways, it is exactly this that gives him his power over other people and his apparent strength. Since he has no conscience, he is not troubled by his lies or by his actions that create suffering for other people. It's also his lack of shame that makes him attractive to a certain type of person. Many ordinary people are frustrated by the burden of conscience; shame and guilt and inner considering keep these people from acting on their most base impulses and the hasnamuss, when he leaves a position of power, gives them permission to manifest their prejudice, their hatred, and their violent desires. Here we come to another characteristic of the hasnamuss: he appeals to the lowest in his followers, and in doing so destroys whatever higher possibilities they have". written January 2020. Nah ... You create your reality. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 21, 2020 6:57:00 GMT -5
I offer Charles D$ckens (which I misspell because the silly filter changes it to penisens) to console the body/mind: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only." I've been given to contemplating the notion of revolution over these past few months, and the differences between the American, French and Russian revolutions, and the difference between each of those and what happened in the U.K. (including Ireland) during that same time. One particular detail that I find interesting is the difference between George Washington, who we can compare, in one sense, to the Roman Cincinatus (he refrained from becoming a King), as opposed to Napoleon, who compares more in that sense to a failed Julius Caesar. We can see from both the French and the Russian examples, as opposed to the American and English examples, the consequences of decapitating a civilization from it's elite class: chaos, violence, fascism, and a prolonged economic suppression of the populace. The Americans had the luxury of an ocean between themselves and their crown, so there was no need for a terror, no need for a purge at the top. The French, surrounded by monarchs who were blood relatives of the Bourbons, were in the opposite situation. That breathing room allowed the Americans to set up a system where the endless cycle of bloody revolutions, wars of succession and palace coups were replaced by a cycle of elections. Some of the modern day criticisms of the architects of this system - even accounting for cultural context - certainly are valid, but they don't negate the differential of the American example, which has since been widely emulated, from what happened elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 21, 2020 7:06:55 GMT -5
We are going to see the swing of the pendulum. Politics didn't use to be all-dirty, as it has become. I hope Mitch McConnell loses in his state. I think present POTUS is done, way done, the pendulum will swing with a vengeance. Trump is what's called a Hasnamuss. But he will squeeze out the last ounce of the swing, there will be a 6-3 court, and Chief Justice Roberts will not be able to maintain his balancing act. Vote, safely. bepresentfirst.com/the-rise-of-the-hasnamuss-in-contemporary-politics/ The whole article is good, but after reading the first paragraph you can skip down to the paragraph above 2. "The emotional center, when it works with its own energy, is an organ of perception, and the hasnamuss, who has only negative emotions, loses his ability to perceive from the emotional center. Part of what this means is that he has no conscience, no empathy and no shame. In many important ways, it is exactly this that gives him his power over other people and his apparent strength. Since he has no conscience, he is not troubled by his lies or by his actions that create suffering for other people. It's also his lack of shame that makes him attractive to a certain type of person. Many ordinary people are frustrated by the burden of conscience; shame and guilt and inner considering keep these people from acting on their most base impulses and the hasnamuss, when he leaves a position of power, gives them permission to manifest their prejudice, their hatred, and their violent desires. Here we come to another characteristic of the hasnamuss: he appeals to the lowest in his followers, and in doing so destroys whatever higher possibilities they have". written January 2020. Read some history. To the extent that we were lucky enough to live in times of placid transitions (80's-'10's), it can be noted that those were the times of a ballooning public debt and a steady increase and increase in the rate of that increase of income and wealth disparity, where the differences between the people at the apex of the two-party system were essentially negligible: everyone at the top got what they wanted, at the expense of everyone else. It was similar in terms of wealth disparity, but not public debt, to the period of the 1880's to the 1930's. As far as the potential for change now .. well .. I've got no interest in trying to change your opinion of Trump, and this, in conjunction with my disagreement with it, should tell you something. What do you think, that something, might be?  |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 21, 2020 9:43:40 GMT -5
I offer Charles D$ckens (which I misspell because the silly filter changes it to penisens) to console the body/mind: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only." I've been given to contemplating the notion of revolution over these past few months, and the differences between the American, French and Russian revolutions, and the difference between each of those and what happened in the U.K. (including Ireland) during that same time. One particular detail that I find interesting is the difference between George Washington, who we can compare, in one sense, to the Roman Cincinatus (he refrained from becoming a King), as opposed to Napoleon, who compares more in that sense to a failed Julius Caesar. We can see from both the French and the Russian examples, as opposed to the American and English examples, the consequences of decapitating a civilization from it's elite class: chaos, violence, fascism, and a prolonged economic suppression of the populace. The Americans had the luxury of an ocean between themselves and their crown, so there was no need for a terror, no need for a purge at the top. The French, surrounded by monarchs who were blood relatives of the Bourbons, were in the opposite situation. That breathing room allowed the Americans to set up a system where the endless cycle of bloody revolutions, wars of succession and palace coups were replaced by a cycle of elections. Some of the modern day criticisms of the architects of this system - even accounting for cultural context - certainly are valid, but they don't negate the differential of the American example, which has since been widely emulated, from what happened elsewhere. To me this prose transcends context and is more of a statement about the yin and the yang than any particular instance of turmoil, thus a fitting piece now. I know Charles D. had a disapproving view of the French Revolution. I tend to be ambivalent,a la Laughy, about the conflicts you mention. But agree that a peaceful transfer of power is preferable. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 21, 2020 9:51:52 GMT -5
To me this is all about what sources of information you have access to. And that varies from person to person, and so their political opinions vary accordingly. In that sense, a question worth pondering for Joe Average is this: If it isn't announced in the 6 o'clock news and won't be be printed in the New York Times, did it really happen? Or conversely - since we are living in the age of fake news - maybe we should rather ask: If it is announced in the 6 o'clock news and will be printed in the New York Times, did it really happen? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 21, 2020 10:01:04 GMT -5
To me this is all about what sources of information you have access to. And that varies from person to person, and so their political opinions vary accordingly. In that sense, a question worth pondering for Joe Average is this: If it isn't announced in the 6 o'clock news and won't be be printed in the New York Times, did it really happen? Or conversely - since we are living in the age of fake news - maybe we should rather ask: If it is announced in the 6 o'clock news and will be printed in the New York Times, did it really happen?  .. but, sadly (and yes, I know there's a deeper implication in terms of the nature of "reality"), this issue is at the heart of the current contention : "who's telling the truth??"  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 21, 2020 10:03:49 GMT -5
I've been given to contemplating the notion of revolution over these past few months, and the differences between the American, French and Russian revolutions, and the difference between each of those and what happened in the U.K. (including Ireland) during that same time. One particular detail that I find interesting is the difference between George Washington, who we can compare, in one sense, to the Roman Cincinatus (he refrained from becoming a King), as opposed to Napoleon, who compares more in that sense to a failed Julius Caesar. We can see from both the French and the Russian examples, as opposed to the American and English examples, the consequences of decapitating a civilization from it's elite class: chaos, violence, fascism, and a prolonged economic suppression of the populace. The Americans had the luxury of an ocean between themselves and their crown, so there was no need for a terror, no need for a purge at the top. The French, surrounded by monarchs who were blood relatives of the Bourbons, were in the opposite situation. That breathing room allowed the Americans to set up a system where the endless cycle of bloody revolutions, wars of succession and palace coups were replaced by a cycle of elections. Some of the modern day criticisms of the architects of this system - even accounting for cultural context - certainly are valid, but they don't negate the differential of the American example, which has since been widely emulated, from what happened elsewhere. To me this prose transcends context and is more of a statement about the yin and the yang than any particular instance of turmoil, thus a fitting piece now. I know Charles D. had a disapproving view of the French Revolution. I tend to be ambivalent,a la Laughy, about the conflicts you mention. But agree that a peaceful transfer of power is preferable. Thanks for the kind words z'. One of my all time favorite modern commentaries on the terror is this one.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 21, 2020 10:29:22 GMT -5
To me this is all about what sources of information you have access to. And that varies from person to person, and so their political opinions vary accordingly. In that sense, a question worth pondering for Joe Average is this: If it isn't announced in the 6 o'clock news and won't be be printed in the New York Times, did it really happen? Or conversely - since we are living in the age of fake news - maybe we should rather ask: If it is announced in the 6 o'clock news and will be printed in the New York Times, did it really happen? .. but, sadly (and yes, I know there's a deeper implication in terms of the nature of "reality"), this issue is at the heart of the current contention : "who's telling the truth??" Wrong question! Mostly, I'd say, they are all telling the truth. But there is something that is called 'lying by omission', and that's very common in politics. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 21, 2020 11:00:07 GMT -5
.. but, sadly (and yes, I know there's a deeper implication in terms of the nature of "reality"), this issue is at the heart of the current contention : "who's telling the truth??" Wrong question! Mostly, I'd say, they are all telling the truth. But there is something that is called 'lying by omission', and that's very common in politics. They all put their blind spots on display and it seems to me that the more insightful they get, the more pronounced the effect: they describe the darkest parts of themselves in their perceived enemies. So simple! No way to make this stuff up! |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 21, 2020 11:31:32 GMT -5
Wrong question! Mostly, I'd say, they are all telling the truth. But there is something that is called 'lying by omission', and that's very common in politics. They all put their blind spots on display and it seems to me that the more insightful they get, the more pronounced the effect: they describe the darkest parts of themselves in their perceived enemies. So simple! No way to make this stuff up! Looking at it from a Machiavellian angle, accusing others of what you've been doing yourself all along is pure strategic genius, even more so when you're able to control the narrative. My theory is, if history wouldn't be so essential to our collective identities, no one would care what happened 10 years ago, let alone 100 years or 1000 years ago. |
|
.. but, sadly (and yes, I know there's a deeper implication in terms of the nature of "reality"), this issue is at the heart of the current contention : "who's telling the truth??" 