Trust the old fairy tales that taught you which is witch. At the Detroit inner city bus stop there might not be more time for back- cognition.
On 13 Feb., 16:40, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > I can feel with you on this Justin, and wish that I could have taken > part in your place of being. I have facilitated a great many groups > over the years in myriad processes. I have a real love for group work > and always come away (exhausted and) full of insight into myself and > human nature. Whether the group is together for a few hours or weeks, > there is a process that is always the same for it that includes coming > together, deconstructing, and coming back together. During the > deconstructing, we do tend to create our own categories and > alliances. If instead, the facilitator can maintain cohesion, the > coming back together can be quite inspiring. > > The most recent group that I facilitated included a guy that was in > charge of the telecommunications equipment in the Houston Astrodome > while it was used as an emergency shelter during Hurricane Katrina. > The strategic planning session was held shortly after the experience > too. During the coming together phase of the group, he mentioned > several times that the experience changed his life. During the > deconstruction phase, I was trying some new things with the group > based on James Redfield's Celestine Vision group energy ideas. I > presented a short ditty on deconstruction as a natural part of group > process, and consciously redirected and regrouped members so as to > facilitate more trust, greater comfort zones and keep that Redfield > flow of energy going. My friend from Houston, in the height of the > deconstruction phase, began personally deconstructing to the point > that he sat, eyes fixed, continually talking softly in an > incomprehensible monologue. I kept the group going in the strategic > planning and witnessed several members physically move closer to him, > as if it would help them hold the space for him better. When he was > finished, I suggested a short break and when we came back together, a > team building exercise designed to relieve stress and inspire > laughter. Afterward, the group rearranged itself in a way that broke > up alliances, and paired folks with people they had appeared to be > quite annoyed with before. > > You see, the foundation had been set for deep shadow work to be > accepted. Everyone's comfort zone had been increased to include what > previously made them uncomfortable. It was safe to work these > feelings and personal ideas out within this group now. > > I haven't ever had anything like that happen before to a member in a > group. This guy opened the flood gate to his trauma and let it flow > out like a dream, and we held the space for it. I can say that this > group, at the end, had one or two hold outs for that group cohesion. > These guys came into the group holding tight to their own resistance > to the work and the process. They left the same way. I suppose, > there is a part of me that often does this too, as I walk through > life. > > The longer I live, the more I understand that we don't need a > monastery to explore our being, because we ourselves take our shadow > everywhere we go. We can walk out the door and explore it with those > we encounter just as well if not better than a collection of folks we > admire. I have to say, I would prefer communing with this group than > the group at the bus stop in Detroit's inner city. But I think the > opportunity for the group comes up based on the possibility of > becoming, and leads us to our own infinite nature if we do not > resist. What parts of us are finite and which infinite can be > presented in a clash of light and shadow, or in the whisper of the > cool wind on our face. Recognition tells us which is which. > > On Feb 12, 12:01 pm, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Chris, > > > I guess ultimately what I mean by viable is "is true". I am concerned > > about some issues that have to due with questioning and answers and > > the effect of answers on questioning. Often "the alternative to > > fundamentalism" is expressed as an answer. I think that its not so > > simple. Why is it that one who experiences real enlightenment does not > > stay in that blessed state, or stay aware of it in the same way > > (because in fact we are always "in" it in a sense), even though the > > memory of it remains and determines ones world view? Yes I know that > > only recognition separates me from the truth... perhaps the answer is > > the foundation of ethics and what is needed most is courage. But > > intellectually I have trouble reconciling the notion of a truth that > > takes more than just knowing in a purely intellectual sense to > > realize. I have questions about the meaning of knowing in relation to > > these matters and more importantly I am afraid that I see that the > > process of asking and answering questions which is the foundation of > > philosophy itself, may be inadequate to the task. I am concerned that > > "Just In Truth" may be a distortion... that the "Just" is an unwelcome > > limitation or rather a limitation that prevents the "In Truth". > > Perhaps I need to change my name to "Hello" or something like that. > > The debates of Greece lack something. > > > I recently attempted to set up a kind of secular monastery. A place > > for Being. I had visions of those around me working together and being > > able to be alone when they felt the need to withdraw. Not a somber > > place but one full of art and culture. I envisioned beautiful private > > spaces where you could withdraw to be completely alone and public > > communal spaces that you could go to to be with those you love. Lots > > of gardens. I even bought a sizable piece of land to begin on. It was > > not a public thing. I wanted my friends to all be able to live > > together. What happened was the whole thing became a kind of clash of > > limitations. The finite aspects of everyone ... it was as if when > > confronted with each other we find we can't stand each other. Love is > > not transitive nor is it reflexive. Each wants to determine the other > > in order to determine his or her own self and their ideas conflict. I > > could not communicate well enough or maybe the whole thing was just my > > idea and not what others wanted. Why is it that we separate everyone > > into those with whom we wish to associate and those with whom we will > > refuse to have anything to do with? Why is this pecking order thing so > > big? Our finite beings can be either "pretty" or "pretty ugly" and > > when we get into a room there is such an arranging of everyone into > > those that are "in" and those that are "out". I have been so attracted > > lately to the ugly, old and infirm and so turned off by the beautiful > > lately. Where does that come from? God I sound like a whining > > teenager! Communal living can be successful but only certain forms > > have worked and even those, even in the monasteries there is trouble. > > Some day maybe we will understand better. I actually think that > > neurology may in the end help us understand although the path is so > > dangerous. > > > It seems that one of the things we do a lot of here is to "exchange > > opinions" - not just in this news group but in our whole culture. I > > wish I had a culture in which I could do more that that with people. > > We are all such porcupines but this pursuit of the truth in the > > philosophical sense ultimately needs to be.... augmented? is that the > > word? I read my own words and have a problem with them: "We have so > > little of the truth out now. How can you ask for less?" > > > The problem is that being and meaning and action and knowing all are > > beginning to loose their boundaries for me. I am tired of being > > Justintruth. I guess for me I see a kind of limitation to pure > > knowing. A lack of finitude and too much infinitude as Kierkegaard > > calls it. I bet I could find my form of despair in his book! > > > Oh well! As the Brits say... "Chin up!"... and as Galileo is reported > > to have said: "Yes!...but the world still whirls!" Form me the cure > > will almost certainly be agriculture. > > > Anyway...that's roughly what I meant by viability. > > > I am glad that you "... see no problem whatsoever with throwing out > > all fundamentalist interpretations with a healthy exhalation, and > > living (your) life completely free of them." It seems like the right > > thing to me. > > > Good Luck, > > > Justintruth > > > On Feb 11, 6:10 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Wow! > > > Nice to see you again, Justin. > > > > This is a particularly interesting point: > > > > "The real issue is not which fundamentalist interpretation is correct > > > but whether the alternative to them is viable." > > > > What do you mean by viable? I'm wondering, because I see no problem > > > whatsoever with throwing out all fundamentalist interpretations with a > > > healthy exhalation, and living my life completely free of them. This seems > > > perfectly viable to me. > > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Justintruth <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > One of the things I hear is that we are infinite in the sense that the > > > > universe is physically infinite. Whether it is infinite or finite and > > > > unbounded is a valid question but I think the infinity that > > > > Shakespeare is referring to is not infinite in that sense of the word. > > > > It's not infinite in the sense of "big without bound". > > > > > The term infinite is a negation but it is a negation of boundaries. > > > > The "finis" in the second part of the word is roughly "boundaries". > > > > Infinite then becomes without boundaries with the usual meaning a > > > > special case. In mathematics the concept of infinity has been > > > > separated from the concept of "without boundary" and there are finite > > > > and unbounded sets. But here we are speaking in the traditional - pre- > > > > topological - sense. > > > > > One then learns that the process of establishing boundaries is > > > > critical in the experience of experience as a space in which there are > > > > things. In fact "raising the object from the > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
