TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Daniel Mackler - Essays For The Enlightenment Seeker
Pages (7): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 »

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno Any problem that someone else has that resonates so strongly with you that you end up carrying it around yourself is simply a reflection of your own unresolved garbage. Trust me on this one. And kids (if you work directly with them) will see through your thin veneer much faster than any adult will.

Again, thanks for your slycho-analysis, but you're wrong.

I am an extremely empathetic person. I don't like to see or hear about other people's suffering because I genuinely feel for them. If someone came to me and was telling me about their problems, I would feel for them so deeply that I would not be able to effectively help them. I also have a tendency to want to help people as much as I can, so would feel an obligation to go beyond my call of duty to do so. This would amount to stress, of which, I do not need.

Also, kids love me. I have worked with kids for years, and have always had kids warm up to me almost instantly.

Your insisting that I have unresolved issues could be interpreted as projection on your part, but I will refrain from making my own slycho-analysis.

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa Read what he says in its entirety: My observation is that all parents, even the worst parents, �did the best they could.� Yet this doesn�t let any parent off the hook. A child has the right to blame his parents for their (The parent's) inadequacies�because their (The same inadequacies, and as such, the parent's) inadequacies damaged him. Laying blame at the feet of perpetrators is a huge step in breaking the intergenerational cycle of trauma�and sets the stage for healing.(In other words, it helps a person realize why they've performed the damaging behaviour, and begin to overcome it) As such, I interpret his meaning of "laying blame" as placing the responsibility for your inadequacies on someone else.

I think you're misreading this quote... I've bolded an edit into it to note how *I* comprehend the quote you've posted. I think it's just as dangerous to believe you're 100% responsible for something that's not entirely your fault as it is to believe you're 100% blameless for something that's at least partly your fault.

quote:

This is not the same as "laying blame" on someone for doing whatever they did and therefore, hurting you, which thus made you choose to do what you did as a result.

This right here is exactly what I read the passage you quoted to mean. So I don't know what, specifically, you have against that quote.

quote:

The one implies that you skip the personal choice (whether it be reactionary based on something shitty or whatever), and the other acknowledges that you controlled what you did, but understand that it was because of a reaction. In other words, the one implies that you have no personal responsibility for your own actions, and the other does.

Agreed. But I think you're still misreading the quote you've used.

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa I don't like to see or hear about other people's suffering because I genuinely feel for them.

And you're a psych major.

Un-fucking-believable.

Ever ask yourself why you feel for them so much? Doesn't it seem strange to you that something that you view as a positive trait cripples you (sorry, "amounts to stress") to the point that it will ultimately limit your capacity as a therapist?

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa I also have a tendency to want to help people as much as I can, so would feel an obligation to go beyond my call of duty to do so.

Replace "tendency to want" with "addiction" and "as much as I can" with "to the point of sacrificing my own health" and you're probably being a little more honest with yourself. Again, you'd do well to ask yourself why you have this particular "tendency to want", as it isn't exactly the healthiest trait to be carrying around.

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa Your insisting that I have unresolved issues could be interpreted as projection on your part, but I will refrain from making my own slycho-analysis.

Trust sister, I could write a fucking book. The only difference is only the degree of self-awareness.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam I think you're misreading this quote... I've bolded an edit into it to note how *I* comprehend the quote you've posted. I think it's just as dangerous to believe you're 100% responsible for something that's not entirely your fault as it is to believe you're 100% blameless for something that's at least partly your fault. This right here is exactly what I read the passage you quoted to mean. So I don't know what, specifically, you have against that quote. Agreed. But I think you're still misreading the quote you've used.

Hmmm, you may very well be right. It is possible that I am misreading it. I read it as:

quote:

My observation is that all parents, even the worst parents, �did the best they could.� Yet this doesn�t let any parent off the hook. A child has the right to blame his parents for their (The child's) inadequacies�because their (the parent's) inadequacies damaged him. Laying blame at the feet of perpetrators is a huge step in breaking the intergenerational cycle of trauma�and sets the stage for healing.

Your interpretation of it however, would make it more acceptable and would thus make my argument entirely moot.

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno And you're a psych major. Un-fucking-believable. Ever ask yourself why you feel for them so much? Doesn't it seem strange to you that something that you view as a positive trait cripples you (sorry, "amounts to stress") to the point that it will ultimately limit your capacity as a therapist? Replace "tendency to want" with "addiction" and "as much as I can" with "to the point of sacrificing my own health" and you're probably being a little more honest with yourself. Again, you'd do well to ask yourself why you have this particular "tendency to want", as it isn't exactly the healthiest trait to be carrying around. Trust sister, I could write a fucking book. The only difference is only the degree of self-awareness.

I wouldn't trust anything you say because 1. you think this Mackler guy is amazing, and 2. you have given absolutely no reason why anything you say holds any merit.

Also, your interpretation of what I am saying is wrong, and I think you're just stretching to find something to criticize me for because I don't like your slycho-analysis nor a person you seem to idolize.

I do not have an addiction to helping people... that assertion is beyond ridiculous. Also, to suggest that all stresses are "sacrificing health" is plain stupidity. We experience all kinds of stresses, not all of which are bad for the health. Furthermore, a tendency to want to help people is not an unhealthy trait... I would argue that it is actually quite commendable. To acknowledge that I have a capability to offer others help and have a desire to share my wealth or whatever I can to others is something I wish more people would have.

Plain and simple, I don't like listening to other peoples suffering and would rather be working with kids, whom of which are far more enjoyable company in my opinion.

Kindly re-direct your postulations on my mentality and personality elsewhere because you don't have an iota of understanding as to who I am as a person, and as such, have no authority to form any kind of opinions. Thanks

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa Hmmm, you may very well be right. It is possible that I am misreading it. I read it as: Your interpretation of it however, would make it more acceptable and would thus make my argument entirely moot.

I figured that was your interpretation, so wanted to take a moment to point out that it could be read another way.

That said, I still think the guy's a bit of a crackpot.

I can always look back at my life and point to specific instances or things that people did to me as a kid that triggered later behaviours, but at the end of the day, I'm no longer a child, and I have to take full responsibility for my current actions. Simply placing blame doesn't fix any problems, and I certainly don't think that it's a requirement for moving on. The key is taking personal responsibility for your current actions, no matter what the initial cause is, and taking any actions necessary to improve yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam I figured that was your interpretation, so wanted to take a moment to point out that it could be read another way. That said, I still think the guy's a bit of a crackpot. I can always look back at my life and point to specific instances or things that people did to me as a kid that triggered later behaviours, but at the end of the day, I'm no longer a child, and I have to take full responsibility for my current actions. Simply placing blame doesn't fix any problems, and I certainly don't think that it's a requirement for moving on. The key is taking personal responsibility for your current actions, no matter what the initial cause is, and taking any actions necessary to improve yourself.

Exactly We're totally on the same page and this is exactly what I have been trying to say.

Lol, well you guys had better get yourselves on over to Vancouver's Lower East Side and start spreadin' the good word to all the addicts that all they have to do is take the actions necessary to improve themselves!

Halle-fucking-lujah!

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno Lol, well you guys had better get yourselves on over to Vancouver's Lower East Side and start spreadin' the good word to all the addicts that all they have to do is take the actions necessary to improve themselves! Halle-fucking-lujah!

Different causes, and therefore different cures, for different addictions.

It's obviously going to be tougher to overcome a physical addiction that's permanently damaged your brain compared to overcoming an addiction to TV. Some of those addicts were probably just curious about what the drugs did, and got hooked. How do you isolate the childhood trauma, place the blame, and overcome an addiction like that?

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno Lol, well you guys had better get yourselves on over to Vancouver's Lower East Side and start spreadin' the good word to all the addicts that all they have to do is take the actions necessary to improve themselves! Halle-fucking-lujah!

You are truly beyond thick. Have you seriously not comprehended any of the conversation we have been having surrounding this?!

Stop making bullshit statements and think for a minute and come up with something logical to say or just STFU.

Angry, even!

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa You are truly beyond thick. Have you seriously not comprehended any of the conversation we have been having surrounding this?!

Right back at'cha!

quote:

Originally posted by Spam It's obviously going to be tougher to overcome a physical addiction that's permanently damaged your brain compared to overcoming an addiction to TV.

L-O-L

Certainly explains why we've gone from 3 or 4 channels to 500+ in the past 50 years.

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno Certainly explains why we've gone from 3 or 4 channels to 500+ in the past 50 years.

Funny thing about addictions.

Some people don't WANT to be cured.

You can't be cured of an addiction you're blissfully unaware of.

Say nothing and post a funny picture.

Thank you for conceding the point.

Ah, well as mentioned in passing somewhere earlier in this thread, addiction is addiction is addiction, with the only difference between these various addictions is the degree of social acceptability. Mate states so himself in the vid posted back on page two. You can argue otherwise, but you'll be incorrect.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam Some of those addicts were probably just curious about what the drugs did, and got hooked.

Yeah man...I'd just come home from putting in my volunteer time at the community garden and was about to pick up the kids from daycare, when the thought suddenly entered my mind, "I wonder what it would be like to try some nice, clean horse?" Shit went straight downhill from there, let me tell you!

Glad you thought the picture was funny. Ima go STFU now.

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno Lol, well you guys had better get yourselves on over to Vancouver's Lower East Side and start spreadin' the good word to all the addicts that all they have to do is take the actions necessary to improve themselves! Halle-fucking-lujah!

Shouldn't you be there telling them that the solution to their problem is finding out exactly when their childhood spirit was disrespected?

RTFM

Regardless of the words Mackler uses (and if you don't have any tangible translation for "spirit of a child", you've most likely forgotten what it's like to be one), both him and Mate point to childhood abuse as the root cause of addiction. So yes, suggesting to an addict (whether of heroin or TV) that they sort out when that abuse/trauma took place (as the majority of people suppress those memories as a defense mechanism against the pain they cause), then processing the emotions that come up as a result is part of the healing process.

Just how many times does this have to be repeated, exactly?

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno Just how many times does this have to be repeated, exactly?

You can repeat it as many times as you want, but it won't suddenly lose its flaws.

There is no "tangible" definition for "the spirit of a child" because you must first enter into a massive debate about what exactly the fuck a "spirit" is, and I assure you there's no nice and clean end to that debate. Then when you've come up with your subjective, ideological and controversial definition of a child's spirit you can start figuring out what exactly constitutes "disrespect" thereof, and indeed what constitutes respect in the first place. And while you're at it, you should probably figure out exactly where we place the end of childhood, the point of transition between being a child and being an adult, and then come to a nice and clean conclusion about the transitive and temporal state of childhood in the first place.

Basically, it looks very much to me as though you've got an incredibly malleable non-definition forming the bedrock of his entire theory which can conveniently encompass just about anything to justify just about anything, the kind of self-affirming begging of the question that forms the basis of many a cult, and yet because he tells you it's "simple" you don't even think about it. That's the route to enlightenment, I suppose.

And therin lies the problem. Much easier to debate concepts until your bones are brittle and nothing's been accomplished, than to work toward grasping them on a level that goes deeper than what you can view with even the most powerful atomic microscope.

And yes, you're right - the mind does love to complicate things to the point of throwing walls up around the truth. Great example is Vipassana meditation, which I mentioned earlier. The basis for this particular kind of meditation is to do away with preferences - non-duality, all things being equal, however you wish to phrase it. And yet time and time again, I've watched students go up before the course teacher and exclaim, "This morning my meditation was so good! I was so happy and blissful, and then when I sat this afternoon, I had a horrible meditation, so much pain and discomfort." Even though it's gently drilled into their heads over and over that regardless of pain or bliss there is no good or bad meditation, that it simply is, the concept is too simple for their cluttered and complicated minds to grasp and they will continue to protest to the contrary until they are blue in the face.

So yes, some things just are that simple, and both Mate and Mackler have come to the same conclusion about the abuse/addiction connection through years of careful observation of others as well as deep, honest introspection into their own condition. Can you say you have the same under your belt to back up your own conclusions, or are you just speaking off the top of your head, time and time again?

There is a difference between a simple explanation and an explanation so vague as to be devoid of any meaning.

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno So yes, some things just are that simple

Especially when you carefully ignore every complication.

And you should really lay off those appeals to authority, they don't help your argument in the slightest.

Talking about reaching enlightenment is useless except for setting up the initial path.

The only way to reach enlightenment is to reach enlightenment.

quote:

Originally posted by kadomony The only way to reach enlightenment is to reach enlightenment.

I was originally inspired to this essay and then later on I realized to share my point of view about that essay. I view the norm in our culture as being highly traumatized, and I view the average, and even above-average, childhood as being extremely traumatic and the average parent as lacking both awareness of this and deep empathy for the child.

In my children's rights course, we talk a lot about early childhood development...and there is tons of research in my text that supports the notion of childhood trauma being linked to poor functioning (social, cognitive, emotional, etc.) later in life.

I get why most of you find it hard to agree with PT, but the idea is not ludicrous.

to all the people in this thread that use the phrase 'seek enlightenment':

'enlightenment' is a mere concept presupposing a basic dualism of post-enlightenment and pre-enlightenment - it is completely dependent upon conscious, untranscendent thought to even conceive of it. the word itself relies on a basic dualism of lightness and darkness. so it's really a sham.

the truth is, there is no 'you' who can even seek enlightenment, because 'you' and 'me' are also mere concepts resulting from the basic conscious division of the world into a rampantly cascading dichotomy of objectified subjects, which is constructed by the psychosomatic/neural apparatus of the human body. there is one universal presence or consciousness, but individual bodies, glorified memory banks and thought/action machines that identify as individuals in consciousness by way of collected experience-memories and mental/sensorial stimuli. it is this identification with a body through memory and sensorial experience that creates a conceptual division of objectified subjects and their objects. ie, me, you, my 'thing', your 'thing'.

essentially 'seeking enlightenment' is like the reflection in the mirror trying to become the thing which is reflected, or a flame trying to burn itself into a candle.

there is no 'enlightenment' state that can be 'enjoyed' or 'experienced' as a conscious individual. a truly transcendent 'beingness' is one in which the seeker itself is the sought, the alpha is the omega, etc. so long as you keep 'seeking' enlightenment as a self-professed individual as a craver of experience, knowledge, and sensory stimuli, you will only find images of 'enlightenment' - temporary conceptual constructs (false idols?) to call 'enlightenment'.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.