I don't think we are really at cross-purposes here, Chris. Holding the past tight - particularly negative experiences and stories - makes us prisoners of the negative memories we are trying to control. Of course we have to let go, "loose" things, as the fortunate typo suggested. A very common reaction to psychic pain/injury/hurtful experience is to hold it tight, stroke and cherish it in the dark crevices of our personality, wallow in the feelings of injustice and self- worthlessness. The result is paralysis and a continuing acid corrosiveness eating away at sanity and mental balance.
Like you, I've been there. Alcoholism, combined with a moderate endogenic tendency to melancholia, nearly did me in. And letting it go, nearly nine years ago, while terribly painful and - in the end - spectacularly banal (Valium OD, IC Unit, stomach-pumping, etc.), was also incredibly liberating. Today, at long way further down the road, I like to think that I've been able to integrate my past into my life, embrace it ... and go on. Maybe I'm lucky in that, as a recovering addict, you can't really afford to forget - at one level, anyway. One concrete positive result is that I have no problem going to the pub with friends (although I tend to find drunks boring and no longer belong to the group who stay at the party to the bitter end), having alcohol in the house, or cooking with wine (including eating the result - the alcohol always evaporates, and you can't do something like a boef bourguignon without lots of good red wine!). Francis On 8 Mai, 18:54, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > Nonetheless, it may be an important typo...letting is one of the most > important skills I've learned. > > > > [ Angehängte Nachricht ]Von:frantheman > <[email protected]>In:"\"Minds Eye\"" > <[email protected]>Datum:Fri, 8 May 2009 09:45:35 -0700 > (PDT)Lokal:Fr. 8 Mai 2009 18:45Betreff:[Mind's Eye] Re: Is the Dream Dead? > > Sorry, Chris, typo! LOSE is what I meant to write :-) > > On 8 Mai, 18:08, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Loose or lose? The semantical difference is important...the active letting > > go of the past if often necessary. > > > [ Angehängte Nachricht ]Von:frantheman > > <[email protected]>In:"\"Minds Eye\"" > > <[email protected]>Datum:Fri, 8 May 2009 08:44:18 -0700 > > (PDT)Lokal:Fr. 8 Mai 2009 17:44Betreff:[Mind's Eye] Re: Is the Dream Dead? > > > Great post, Justin! > > > Personally. I think we loose a great deal if we try to cut ourselves > > off from the past - both from our personal histories and the history > > of our societies in general. Our existence, individual and communal is > > a vector, coming from somewhere and going ... well, that's what we'll > > find out on the ongoing journey. Still, the direction and force are > > determined by what we do now, every continuously becoming now. > > > This is one of those paradoxical truths: All that is real is NOW, the > > past is over, the future yet to be. At the same time, that NOW is the > > product of the past and sets the course for the future, in turn being > > (to some extent) determined by our hopes and expectations. To give a > > banal example, it's the cup of coffee I want to drink in five minutes > > time which results in me truning on the coffee machine ... now. > > > It's about living out of the balance, the centre, that point in which > > all that has been meets all that is yet to be ... now ... something > > completely simple, yet wonderfully dynamic, a continuing instant of > > absolute stillness which is simultaneously a turbo-kick into the > > continually becoming. > > > Traditionally, this kind of realisation has been expressed in > > "religious" language. I believe we are moving beyond this, growing out > > of our need for magical, "God"-founded explanations of and > > expressions for what life is about. There is a certain temptation to > > kick the ladder away once one has reached the top, but it's not > > necessary. We can leave it behind us, but it remains a part of the > > journey we have taken, a journey we are continuing on. Maybe, > > hopefully, others will find and use it (although it is sad when some > > remain stuck on it). > > > This is no guarantee, as you point out, that things will automatically > > get better and better, simply - speaking metaphorically - we have, as > > growing children always do , let go of the divine hand we felt we > > needed to hold us. This doesn't mean we can't fall, but it's also a > > realisation that we were falling all the time in the past too, that > > the divine hand wasn't, in fact, the surety we thought it was. > > > The dream is still there. Now we have the chance to determine it for > > ourselves. > > > Francis > > > On 8 Mai, 09:55, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > So, who’s right? Is it one out of the jumbled clusterfuck of spiritual > > > > beliefs? Or is it the Fact, that Life IS here and now. > > > > The ‘Dream of Utopia’ points at Life, not some spiritual other shit. > > > > That’s why I ask if it’s dead. > > > > Well Ok, but you are setting up a false dilemma. Above you have > > > capitalized the following words "Fact", "Life" and a double capital of > > > "IS". > > > > Basically, if you consider what something is, like "its red" or "its > > > round" you are considering its nature, or its essence. It is possible > > > however to cease to consider what is and turn your consideration to > > > the fact that it is. When you do you transcend what life is and > > > consider the fact that it is, or to use your writing, the Fact, that > > > Life IS. Now, it turns out that you can experience the fact that life > > > is in some very, what are called, "profound" ways. You can either > > > appreciate its meaning fully or not. When you no longer are > > > considering what is but the fact that it is you are going beyond the > > > physical to the metaphysical, or going beyond the natural to the > > > supernatural or going beyond the sensory to the extrasensory. That is > > > the "some spiritual other shit" because it is not what is, but rather > > > is the fact that it is. That is why it is "other" or transcendent. It > > > is also Immanent meaning roughly "here and now." That is why "the > > > Fact, that Life IS here and now" IS "some spiritual other shit"... it > > > just happens to be YOUR "some spiritual other shit". > > > > It turns out that the appreciation of the meaning of the fact that > > > life is in its fullest sense is the experience underlying all of the > > > religions. The meaning of that experience is expressed, indirectly > > > through the books and stories that constitute the religious texts and > > > genuine religious activity and mythology is about the problem of > > > knowing what it means to be and is part of the intellectual history of > > > mankind. > > > > You might think it is easy to know what it means. It is not. > > > > Now many activities and beliefs interpret these texts literally. For > > > them God is basically like any other thing capable of either being or > > > not being and they believe he "happens" to be. They interpret religion > > > not existentially but essentially. They think it is about what is not > > > the fact that it is. These people are fundamentalists. Their > > > interpretation is truly not even religious. It is just bad science. > > > > However, when the religions are not interpreted essentially then we > > > can see their value. Their value is in their appreciation of the > > > meaning of "the Fact, that Life IS here and now." So you raise a false > > > dilemma between religion and what you are saying. > > > > With respect to Utopia I recommend that you read Kierkeguard on > > > despair "The Sickness Unto Death". He analyzes what despair really is > > > and how one falls into its clutches. It is truly a very big problem. > > > Utopia is not being realized because of something that is called Maya > > > or illusion in the hindu literature. It is called original sin in the > > > christian literature. In the Hindu litterature it is noted that all > > > suffering comes from a failure to realize the true nature of life. > > > > To put as close to your terminology as I can: When "the fact, that > > > life that life is here and now" fails to become "the Fact, that Life > > > IS here and now" then there is suffering. > > > > You should be careful about prematurely cutting out the meaning of the > > > religions because you correctly realize that their literal > > > interpretation is false and even distracting. > > > > Now to the most important question: Is the dream dead. I think the > > > answer is no. Not even in the most evil would I say dead... or at > > > least not completely incapable of being resurrected. We know basically > > > that there is this problem, the problem of Maya or original sin and > > > there is this clouding of our vision but religious experience still > > > happens. The real question can be posed in terms of the myth of Lot > > > and his fleeing of his city. The dream is alive. We are like in a game > > > with the stakes doubling. The technical capabilities we have for > > > communication now are making possible a major reawakening. They also > > > make possible our destruction and these capabilities, the ones we > > > currently have are nothing compared to what is in the biological > > > design / neurology synergy. We are about to become very capable. Are > > > we responding to it is the question. > > > > Good luck. > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
