Many, many, many years ago now, I desired to change an aspect of my personality, after many years trying I found I had succeded.
I think for practical perposes, begin by living as the being you want to be, try to say or do those things you envisage this 'new you' saying and doing, after some time I found that I was no longer trying to become the man I wanted to be, but I just was. This prayer is actualy a big part of my life although of course I had not known about it when I formulated the little lifes motto that governes this aspect of life for me. I put it this way. 'There are things in life that you should get angry over, and there are things in life where such anger is nowt but wasted energy. So only get angry when your anger can change the situation' Hah yes at one point I was a very anger person indeed. On 19 Jan, 11:42, Twirlip <[email protected]> wrote: > Someone recently mentioned this well-known prayer attributed to > Reinhold Niebuhr (although this version is possibly slightly altered > from the form in which he wrote it): > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhold_Niebuhr > > "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, > Courage to change the things I can change, > And wisdom to know the difference." > > In respect of one's own self, how in practice does one recognise the > difference between those two kinds of "thing"? > > Assume that a person wishes to change whatever about themselves should > be changed. (Without that wish, there is nothing much to discuss.) If > something about that person can be changed, will they come to have an > understanding of that particular fault as if from a viewpoint higher > or other than their own, at the same time as retaining their original > point of view in a modified form? On the other hand, if something > about themselves cannot be changed, will they merely feel an opaque > sense of irremediable guilt and despair, and no awareness of the fault > as if from outside themselves, however hard and however long they try? > And on the /other/ other hand, if something about a person genuinely > cannot be changed, then can anything be said in general terms as to > whether that defect might be a truly bad thing, or whether it can > always be accepted as a part of that person, rather than a moral > fault? And finally, does belief in an omnipotent judgemental God tend > to force all of a person's defects to be regarded as belonging to the > second category, even when in fact they belong to the first category? > > (Of course, a person may feel opaque guilt and despair even about > something that can in fact be changed, because they are clinging to > their fault and failing or refusing to recognise it, but I am assuming > that they have "the best will in the world", and know from experience > that they are capable of recognising some things about themselves that > can be changed.)
-- 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.
