Worth a Thought

[joang]

Dharma, now brace yourself, cuz here come da Judge.

I don't think it's quite true to say, "When you deem some parts of yourself "bad", you automatically go into repressive mode." My understanding is that repression is not automatic; it happens when we cannot or will not admit that the bad part exists. If we admit it to ourselves, we can modify it or change it.

We all have faults, and we cannot pretend that they are all OK; if they were OK, we wouldn't call them faults, right? The struggle, or tension between the opposites good/bad, light/dark, etc., is an archetype which has existed since the Big Bang, and exists within us now. I believe it is the struggle that gives meaning to our lives.

The I Ching teaches that if we have faults, we should rid ourselves of them. It's one thing to say you're OK, I'm OK; but it's quite another to say everything you do is OK and everything I do is OK. What if we applied that rule to everyone, including vicious criminals and war mongering politicians? Could we say everything they do is OK, and not take sides against them? I don't think so. I think we, as a species, have to set limits as to what is or is not acceptable. By doing so, we take part in defining what a human being is, imo. Maybe, just maybe, that's what we're here for.

Namaste,
Joan

 

[heylise]

The two 'wolves' are very identical because they are dogs . .
A man called Saarloos loved wolves, but wolves cannot be happy with people, they are too shy. So he mated his shepherd with a wolf, and chose the sturdy puppies to go on breeding. After his death, others took over, put very severe rules to the breeding, and succeeded in making a 'breed', called "Saarloos Wolfdog". they all have a recognized pedigree now.
It is not possible to teach them to be aggressive. Wolves don't like to fight, they run away. And they don't bark, although they are able to.

The bad wolf is probably a dog . . one who was trained by humans. With a lot of severity and a lot of love, he may unlearn aggressivity, maybe?

LiSe

 

[joang]

"The two 'wolves' are very identical because they are dogs . ."

Yeah, I knew that, Lise, but all dogs are descended from wolves, and these two, though handsomer, closely resemble their ancestors. I didn't know wolves don't like to fight. That is interesting.

Namaste,
Joan

 

[dharma]

Joan,
I don't think that you are understanding me the way that I intend. But I'll try again

Any badness/faults that exist within the personality are the distortions that occur as a result of denying important parts of ourselves expression (from participating in our lives).

These are the good parts of ourselves that we have deemed unacceptable at some point in our lives (usually childhood). If we did not deny parts of ourselves expression, then we would not act out with negative behavior.

The only way to stop ourselves from behaving badly and to rid ourselves of our individual faults is to discover and bring to light all those aspects of ourselves that are trying desperately to be noticed.

Again, it is our old simmering resentments at not being able to find avenues of expression for certain parts of ourselves that is at the bottom of all our bad behaviors.

Anger occurs when some part of us is stifled or squelched. So I'm not saying that negative faults are okay. Just that they are the symptom of the real problem which is repression of critical and vital aspects of what constitutes our WHOLE personhood.

I hope this make more sense. D

 

[davidl]

JoangQuote:
"The I Ching teaches that if we have faults, we should rid ourselves of them. It's one thing to say you're OK, I'm OK; but it's quite another to say everything you do is OK and everything I do is OK. What if we applied that rule to everyone, including vicious criminals and war mongering politicians? Could we say everything they do is OK, and not take sides against them? I don't think so. I think we, as a species, have to set limits as to what is or is not acceptable. By doing so, we take part in defining what a human being is, imo. Maybe, just maybe, that's what we're here for.

I agree with you strongly here, Joan.

I remember seeing an interview once with an entertainer (don't worry about who) he was asked the question, what is the biggest problem in the world today?
His answer, 'middle class inertia'.
This seemed a strange answer, but on contemplation, I feel is so true.

Sitting around with friends, 'philosophying' it became clear that the 'nothing was wrong', 'nothing bad' , 'everythings perfect' ideology has become another excuse for well off westerners to sit back and focus on themselves and their 'enlightenment' while millions of those in poorer countries suffer under the hands of cruelty and starvation.

The western middle class have the real political and financial power to identify what is wrong and do something about it. If they are blinded by an ideology that suggests all behaviour is acceptable and should not be questioned, we have failed as humans and move further from any true 'enlightenment'.

 

[chrislofting]

Too add my 2c, we will often see in others we intuitively 'dislike' aspects of our ourselves that we have 'issues' with - the behaviour of another brings-out a 'resonance' with our own versions of that behaviour and if that is negative then we will project that onto the other(s).

We are all PARTS of the WHOLE that is the structure of personality, each of us resonates with a particular trigram/hexagram over all others. The benefit of consciousness is to (a) differentiate all of the possible expressions and (b) work on the 'bad' as well as the 'good' to refine expressions and make us more context sensitive.

Anger has its roots in REPLACEMENT, to erradicate a perceived 'threat' to expression (sexual love does the same thing but through diluting the 'other' through flooding the context with copies of, clones of, oneself. Mentally this is in the 'selling' of perspectives, belief systems etc)

Martin - we have not failed as humans, we are an ongoing development and the I Ching/IDM material gives us access to 'refining' ourselves.

We are still 'children' and have a lot to learn - we have material to aid in that learning.

Chris.

 

[pedro]

Chris said,
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

Too add my 2c, we will often see in others we intuitively 'dislike' aspects of our ourselves that we have 'issues' with - the behaviour of another brings-out a 'resonance' with our own versions of that behaviour and if that is negative then we will project that onto the other(s).<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes indeed, if it troubles us, its probably because we're like that as well but wouldnt like to face it.
This reminds me of the Shen Shu thread where I think its Harmen that says he doesnt believe in universal symbols. Well, I think the tarot for instance can act as one of those universal symbols. Even if one doesnt know the tarot, the symbols on the cards will evoke a reaction quite universal. For instance, if one goes through the cards and chooses those that one likes and dislikes (just beacuse), one will find on the disliked deck the facets of oneself one hasnt yet dealt with or chooses to ignore, and on the good deck the facets that we already integrated into our being and feel confortable with.
One very interesting thing is to have the questioner (unfamiliar with the tarot) just lay the cards anyway he sees fit in front of him. Then there's sort of a map of his own mind, cards on the left for past, right for future, away or near, clusters of cards, etc

 

[joang]

Chris, I agree about projection. I often recall what one of my teachers used to say:

Always remember that when you point a finger of accusation at another, the other three are pointing back at you.

I think projection is most often an unconscious defense mechanism that is on the lookout for an appropriate hook, or target. It seems to lie in wait until some unfortunate person comes along and exhibits a single instance of the dreaded trait that the other has in abundance, but has repressed. Then whammo! It lets go with both barrels. Very insidious and very damaging.

Namaste,
Joan

 

[joang]

Thank you, David.
I often agree with what you write also. Next time, I'll say so.

Namaste,
Joan

 

[joang]

Candid, you asked:

"How does one not compromise with the "bad wolf" and still appease him?
thoughts?"

That bothers me too. My thought is that this may be one of those instances Brad refers to when he says that if the words don't make sense, the translation is wrong.

Namaste,
Joan

 

[candid]

Hi Joan,

Let?s consider that the root of appease is from the French word: a paiser (peace)

To make peace with a bad wolf, it helps to have an offering (benign), a bone, a treat... and a kind voice can sooth even a savage beast. This isn?t a compromise, just a gift, or call it a bribe if you wish. But an offering with kindness has better results than an offering with intent. Either works though. Here we are not appeasing the ?badness? of the wolf, only his natural hunger, even for a kind voice.

Applied practically, we can pick something in ourselves which sometimes behaves like a bad wolf. Not that it is a bad wolf, it just acts like it sometimes. Let?s call it a hungry wolf. The wolf isn?t being mean so much as he/she is really hungry. What hungers come to mind for you?

We are now managing the hungry wolf.

Anger. How to manage anger?

Fear. How to manage fear?

If one were to tame just these two things, imagine the increase!

The cool thing is ? its your wolf and you get to train him/her anyway you choose. And that makes up half of who you are.

Then maybe it?s the ?good? wolf you?d have to keep an eye on. Polarities shift.. constantly. Yin to Yang to Yin to Yang. Even white sheep, or goats, can get themselves into steep trouble.

My answer on this is? Develop your strengths and manage your weaknesses. Ability is limited where aptitude is lacking. Develop what is naturally strong, and manage what doesn?t come naturally. Let what is great in you become great, and let the bad dog out to play once in awhile.