Devil's Child

[sowhatifit'sdark]

And if you believe this long enough, it becomes true - and you really end up needing to whip yourself into action, because otherwise you get nothing done.

And who, after long periods of being whipped into labor, would not want to take it easy or numb onself with something that is like a drug.

This is why I think that anyone serious about their own spiritual practice has to seriously contemplate the possibilities that the Universe is ruled by an evil god, or chaotic, or that burning in hell for all eternity might be possible, that one might be evil, delusional or in denial, that everyone else is enlightened but oneself.

I agree with has to in the way that it is likely to be inevitable. At least to have the feelings that go with these things.

Most people seem to ignore such things as call them "absurd" - but the fact is that they are there, lurking just underneath the surface. And unless one is prepared for those "absurd" scenarios, one will be easy prey to anyone playing on that card that those scenarios are unresolved - which is what fire&brimstoners do.

What they do and what they are.

We seek out the tortures that fit the crimes we feel we committed.

The good thing is we can, when pressured from without sometimes get
how wrong it is.

I think I have learned a lot from shifting between noticing how I really feel about my treatment by others and how I really feel about my own treatment of myself
and how these are related.

 

[greenberg]

I agree with has to in the way that it is likely to be inevitable. At least to have the feelings that go with these things.

It is inevitable, yes.
But moreover, it is a matter of protecting oneself, being ready for that kind of attack. It's not a question if it will happen (even though one can to some extent avoid situations where it might happen), but when.

And of course it's ugly and morbid to even remotely think of such things. But once the experience is made about how vulnerable one actually is in this regard (like when proselytized by fire&brimstoners), there is also the urge to protect oneself against such things in the future.

We seek out the tortures that fit the crimes we feel we committed.

True. I think there is also another aspect to it: Mitridatism, becoming resistant to poisons - although I mean it here in the psychological, metaphorical sense.

I think self-protection is gravely underappreciated, especially in discussions - because we tend to think "Oh, it's just words".

I think I have learned a lot from shifting between noticing how I really feel about my treatment by others and how I really feel about my own treatment of myself
and how these are related.

Yes. And again, I think issues of protecting oneself, using one's resources wisely are central in this. All too easily, we fall into worldy ways where there are more than enough people who are all too willing to squander one's time and energy and attention - and who evenmanage to make us feel guilty if we don't give them what they want.

 

[SnakeLord]

My unhappiness with my current state of being is nowhere near to the Joy of knowing my eternal state of being.

I would contend to you that the latter is an emotional creation because of the former. It's good though, It's undoubtedly safer than cocaine or alcohol - but it does have it's own serious downsides.

You guys are under the impression i spend my days in mourning or in distress or self-loathing. Noooo i am at peace, i do not suffer depression.

But clearly you'd be a suicidal wreck if you didn't have that god belief keeping you afloat. If it works for you, enjoy it - but I think there are better methods that will make you a whole person without all the baggage.

 

[wesmorris]

That is one of the fears. If I am not on myself with a whip I will just lie around - physically, morally, etc.

Indeed.

to trust the feeling that one is being asked to hate oneself. Most askers do not word it this way, though you can get hellfire sermons that come pretty close. Most askers may smile and say nice things that have as implicit that you should hate yourelf. To trust the feeling that the message is to hate yourself, despire the mask the asker wears, can be tricky.

Well, I can't say you're wrong but think that naturally some people are far more susceptable than others for this little trick. On a very personal note for me: I forgave myself my humanity long ago. I do have to remind me to continue it from time to time when I get annoyed about this that or the other, but honestly I think the best advice... assuming you can defend yourself from the trick - is to forgive them, for they truly know not what they do (most of the time at least). Of course that doesn't mean you can't just ignore or avoid them, but harboring anger about it is just as bad as the attempt to inducing self loathing.

I wasn't making claims about the afterlife. I've just noticed I haven't become a raving selfish streamroller.

Oh yeah sure. Lol.

And anyone who has thought so has learned to shut up by now.
(ha, ha)

Uhm... I guess I'll just be quiet.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

I do have to remind me to continue it from time to time when I get annoyed about this that or the other, but honestly I think the best advice... assuming you can defend yourself from the trick - is to forgive them, for they truly know not what they do (most of the time at least). Of course that doesn't mean you can't just ignore or avoid them, but harboring anger about it is just as bad as the attempt to inducing self loathing.

Harbouring anger and reacting again are not so easy to distinguish. I often find there is a pressure to achieve a permanent 'good' state. In this case the state of forgiveness. How much time and how much expression of the feelings around their behavior is never really written out on paper. And how could it be? But for the same reasons that it would be hard to write out on paper how long one can 'still be angry and not feeling forgiving' there should be more caution about when people are told to 'move on' 'stop hanging on to the anger' etc. Somehow people trust their intuitive tossing out of these kinds of phrases in relation to people whose process and stage in that process they know nothing about. Which takes the risk of being a kind of outer guilt for that person.

I think these kinds of interpersonal suggestions imply that forgiveness, for example, it something you reach, like the top of a mountain. I mean there you are, at the top, looking down. Whereas forgiveness, when and if it comes, is likely to come in stages and disappear - especially if the other continues whatever act it is. To be intermittent and of various strengths.

Last it if very hard to forgive what has not changed. If someone does something shitty and I can see they get that it was shitty, generally speaking
I move into forgiveness very, very fast. If they don't get it and worse keep it up, I find it impossible to forgive AND remain in contact with them. At a distance, safe from whatever it was they did and would continue to do, then I can be forgiving and not forgetting.

And anger is not the only thing that is harboured - or wisely a part of the reactions. Fear is in there also.

 

[wesmorris]

Harbouring anger and reacting again are not so easy to distinguish. I often find there is a pressure to achieve a permanent 'good' state.

Yeah but that's unrealistic for the most part, if you don't live in a monestary or something.

In this case the state of forgiveness. How much time and how much expression of the feelings around their behavior is never really written out on paper. And how could it be? But for the same reasons that it would be hard to write out on paper how long one can 'still be angry and not feeling forgiving' there should be more caution about when people are told to 'move on' 'stop hanging on to the anger' etc.

Well I tend to think you're right in more serious cases, such as someone intentionally fucking you over, beating you, shooting you, that kind of thing. In the case where someone tries to lead you to hating yourself however, it's generally because people are clueless about the psychology they employ. I think generally they should be forgiven and if possible, perhaps 'enlightened' as to what it is they're doing. Not often very possible I don't think though, so I just try to forgive, which allows me to relate, which in turn allows at least for me, a slightly greater chance of imparting something meaningful to them. I really didn't intend "turn the other cheek" all the time at all. While perhaps in a noble ideal, I find it rather impractical. Hate exists for a good reason IMO, it's just best not to waste it on those who haven't a clue they're doing anything wrong, generally anyway.

Well I'm half asleep and have no clue what I'm saying, so please forgive me. I mean, if you can reach that state.

 

[greenberg]

Well, I can't say you're wrong but think that naturally some people are far more susceptable than others for this little trick. On a very personal note for me: I forgave myself my humanity long ago. I do have to remind me to continue it from time to time when I get annoyed about this that or the other, but honestly I think the best advice... assuming you can defend yourself from the trick - is to forgive them, for they truly know not what they do (most of the time at least). Of course that doesn't mean you can't just ignore or avoid them, but harboring anger about it is just as bad as the attempt to inducing self loathing.

What do you mean by "forgiveness", "to forgive"?
I'm asking because there are at least two very different, incompatible interpretations around.

 

[greenberg]

Harbouring anger and reacting again are not so easy to distinguish.

True.
For both parties involved. Sometimes, I got accused for "holding on to anger" and "not forgiving" - but the fact was that the other party kept doing what was offending me.

I often find there is a pressure to achieve a permanent 'good' state.

... and also a kind of indifference.

But for the same reasons that it would be hard to write out on paper how long one can 'still be angry and not feeling forgiving' there should be more caution about when people are told to 'move on' 'stop hanging on to the anger' etc. Somehow people trust their intuitive tossing out of these kinds of phrases in relation to people whose process and stage in that process they know nothing about. Which takes the risk of being a kind of outer guilt for that person.

This is something that bothers me very much. Someone analyzes me, imposes their understanding of terms on me, as if those terms were totally objective, like what "forgiveness" means (and more: what it is supposed to mean).

One big reason I left the 12 Steps program and some other psychological approaches were precisely the simplistic ways in which I am supposed to understand myself. They were and still are too abstract to me. And of course, those supporting them will say that I am "enabling" myself, am "in denial" etc.

There is a term for such people who make a point of analyzing and diagnosing others - New Age Bullies.

I think these kinds of interpersonal suggestions imply that forgiveness, for example, it something you reach, like the top of a mountain. I mean there you are, at the top, looking down.

I think a lot depends on what one means by "forgiveness", what one thinks is necessary for it.

On the whole, I think anything can be forgiven (in the sense that one isn't angry about it anymore), but not everything can be reconciled.

In order to forgive someone, they need to ask forgiveness. But one can, of course, let go of the negative feelings on one's own, even without the other person asking for forgiveness.

And anger is not the only thing that is harboured - or wisely a part of the reactions. Fear is in there also.

Of course. One is after all in a relationship with someone who does shitty things. That has to make one wonder whether it is safe to be in such a relationship, or whether it is worth it.

 

[Roman]

As I always say:

If one believes about oneself that one is evil, that one has an evil nature, that one is bad,
then one will not be interested in doing anything about it, one will not care about oneself nor about others (because caring simply is not what evil people do!),
one will become passive, lazy, irresponsible, irresponsive, atrophied in body and mind.

I bet Hitler thought he was a good person.

 

[EmmZ]

I'm not sure he questioned his motives all that much.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

I bet Hitler thought he was a good person.

And your point is?

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

I think generally they should be forgiven and if possible, perhaps 'enlightened' as to what it is they're doing.

(I'm just focusing on small portions of your post because otherwise I think the whole thing will get unweildy.)

Devil Child says: I think the urge to enlighten will get punished in most cases. People have a very hard time facing the fact that when they are being 'nice' or 'good' or 'logical' they are actually attacking someone else. Of course you can try to put this in 'building bridges' terms. I used to do this all the time. Carefully explaining, as much in their language as I could, that what they were doing was asking me to rush through my feelilngs, or dislike potions of myself, or suppress my feelings, etc. What came back was generally very defensive and or pathologizing. Here on the internet I tend to emphasize the crankier more sure of myself facets of communication. Because I can and I can learn from that. In person I come off much milder, in general, extremely patient, etc. Still......

They definitely slapped that other cheek and I learned not to listen to Jesus on this point.

 

[greenberg]

Devil Child says: I think the urge to enlighten will get punished in most cases. People have a very hard time facing the fact that when they are being 'nice' or 'good' or 'logical' they are actually attacking someone else.

Open confrontation is relatively rarely a good way to handle things between people.

For one, because many people do not react well to confrontation. This can be due to a number of reasons. A very common one seems to be that people simply do not have much of a common ground between them, be that in regards to their value systems, or the stage of the relationship.

For two, because being able to deliver a confrontation properly (matching words and body language) is something that needs a lot of practice to be mastered. By the time one masters this, one will probably be so independent and sure of oneself that it won't seem necessary to use confrontation all that much anymore.

Of course you can try to put this in 'building bridges' terms. I used to do this all the time. Carefully explaining, as much in their language as I could, that what they were doing was asking me to rush through my feelilngs, or dislike potions of myself, or suppress my feelings, etc. What came back was generally very defensive and or pathologizing.

I can relate to this very well.

One can't be friends with everyone, and one must choose one's friends wisely. I would say 90% of the "psychological discussion" people normally engage in (whether in fact with others, or playing out the scenarios in one's mind) is pointless.