|
|
Point of View (POV)
Curious to hear what my fellow masters of compassion have to say about the following article (sent to me by another). RL THE ROAD TO TREASON [Most of article edited out: The article concerned the so called
American Taliban, John Walker Lindh] _______________ ___NOEL___ ___RED_LION___ Isn't "propaganda" just as much a pejorative as "Devil"? Why look closely when the entire piece can generalized (judged) as Devil making Propaganda? What's the collateral damage from this approach? Any other takes on this? RL _______________ Just saw a Dennis Miller special last night in regards to this.... He
mentions all the leadups to this and says: Kevin What's the collateral damage from this approach? Red Lion - you ask some very pithy questions. If we look closely we might see something we don't want to see. The damage you speak of is continuing the same patterns that we see daily. Also it helps to ask where the list responders are coming from. From Noel's comment - hey, I thought you were on vacation - one gets the idea that we are using poor little Johnny W.L. as a scapegoat. The damage you speak of, Red Lion is that by dismissing points of view we disagree with we limit our own expansion. We pass by an experience that might lead to further understanding. What is revealed is that (ivory) towers exist in abundance. Perhaps we should ask little Johnny why he went to war. Perhaps he was moved by suffering - his own or someone else's? When the news of John W.L. broke, I thought of the civil war tune....when Johnny comes marching home. We need to ask what part of us is in little Johnny. And vice versa. A Catholic friend of mine stated that we are all responsible when news broke of Susan Smith (?) drowning her 2 little boys. If we look too close, we might see ourselves. Namaste, Paula _______________ One can take all these supposed "facts" and turn them into WHATEVER one wishes to promote. Hate-speak has this primary character. To try to justify hating someone or something by vilifying it and using our most deep archetypal patterns as the core "fuel" for the hatred. "How dare he call his MOTHER (archetype of purity, goodness, decency, etc. - our very life sustenance) a Whore?" God forbid that one American should question the hate campaign against Islam and Afghanistan and/or the Taliban (who we created by the way!, financed even up to the last two years - witness the Taliban support from the Oil Companies......am I treading on too sacred a ground? Yesterday's "friends" as today's' enemies??? He's easily as likely an American plant as a traitor. We'll never know, and the easily led will be whipped up into a hate campaign with all this hate-generating nasty-speak to foment the ugliness to come out of sleeping into wakefulness in the hearts of those who read it. To even pass it on is a grave error. I believe this is why Noel spoke so little, and me just riding his coattails. May we see through each and every instance of a "cause" attempting to rouse the ugliness in our own nature. Lastly, I have layers and layers of "concern" over this article. A layer of concern for a young man possibly fomented into action via hate, a powerful and often used (sadly) tool to rouse energy. A layer of concern for the press who would knowingly use this young man symbolically to foment another more generalized rousing of hate. A layer of concern for the individuals reading it who do not recognize it as what it is - a crafted piece of hate-inducement. A layer of concern for those with magical aspirations who do not recognize the power of the archetypes, and their own resonance with material of this type. I'm sure my position will be far from unpopular. A view of history will show that all "movements" which induced terror and ugliness had to rely on a campaign of hate-speak and fermenting ugliness in order to achieve their goals. What we fail to see is that radical Islamists preaching hate are very, very, close indeed to our own positions when we fail to recognize this type of hate seduction for what it is even in our everyday social banter. I do not know this man/child, these parents, I do not know what their suffering is. I don't know the truth. I know that hatred and ugliness towards others leads only to sorrow. May we all cease to practice this hatred in the disguise of righteousness. May we use this article, and this opportunity, to see the ways we fall into instinctual patterns of hatred and ugliness, how we fall, and how we are "pushed", and resolve to anchor our hearts in love for all our sisters and brothers. May we all react with "I'm not going to buy in" when we hear hate-speak, and resolve to instead transmute it. Love to all my brothers and sisters. L. _______________ L, Could you quote the "hate speak" your referring to from the article ? I'm unable to locate it. Adam _______________ Dear brother adam, the entire article which Red Lion shared with us, itself, is hate-speak. I am very busy today, but if you in your heart are seriously interested in seeing the "hate-speak" for what it is, and becoming a vehicle for the transmutation of this type of sorrow into critical discernment and love, I would be happy to make this the object of my day. Perhaps in that regard, others on the list would also like to help. But, for myself, only if you have a true and sincere desire to abandon "falling for it" and are ready to love your enemies as yourself, am I willing to focus upon it. with love, awaiting your reply, L. _______________ [this response uses Ken Wilber's description of the different types of Point of View] L., This is a good start, but I also wish to encourage you to take your analysis a step further: From Orange to Green and into Yellow (at least), or as seen in the magic square for K15 - it sums to 45 which sums to 9 => using our reason and intuition to find the overarching unity behind the appearances of things. You've deconstructed this author's style to show how he's rhetorically supporting a particular Point of View (or bias). In the realm of probability its the enthymeme and not the syllogism which is used to influence. In other words, in rhetorical prose, all associations, correlations, judgments and conclusions are a matter of relative probability, not absolute proof. The presuppositions reveal one's world-view (POV) or what Ken Wilber calls a wave or meme (red, blue, green, yellow, etc...) and thus also reveal which audience bias (POV) the author is appealing to. So L., are all "Points of View" equally valid within their own contexts, or are some POV's wrong while others are right? Is there a POV which can encompass all other POV's, validating them within their space, but providing a context where these more limited POV's can be transmuted (and not oppressed, denied, labeled, denigrated, etc...)? If you are being intolerant of another's point of view, then you are coming from a Tower of a limited point of view. One needs to rise to a higher plane, if there is to be any true solution to this problem of POV. BUT, in order to do so, one must release attachment to their own limited point of view! You want to swing the sword of discrimination against another's point of view, but to TRULY discriminate, one must apply the sword to themselves to release their own attachments to their own limited "truths" and "desires" so that they may have eyes to see and ears to hear. Where we thought to slay another, we must learn to apply the sword to our self - LOVINGLY, thus turning the Adversary (within and without) into our ALLY. Discriminating elimination is the key. Then perhaps we can see that our enemy is not our enemy, but our Self. The discovery that my enemy is in fact my brother & my Self is a K16 Tower Awakening - a state of Grace. Can you see how Jeff Jacoby is yourself? Quite a K12 REVERSAL if you can see this. I am John Walker And I cry tears of Joy, for I have found my Beloved! This is the DIVINE PARADOX, which relates to the problem of Point of View. Otherwise, if we cannot expand our POV, we just continue to play the role of half-wise fools, engaged in "Spy Vs. Spy" types of value conflicts. Sad and funny at the same time. RL __________________ Excellently put, Red Lion! And it applies almost always. There are two times when tolerance, rising above, encompassing, and tears of joy are not the correct point of view, and we must deny and label instead: (a) when self-referential argument is being used (e.g. "but total tolerance means not tolerating the intolerant people") (b) at the moment when someone is using power against another (e.g. "what do you do when you respect and love the police but at this moment they are beating you up or telling the other prisoners to rape you" or "shooting those who are running out from the building they set on fire" or "firing at you" or "marching the dark horde against you") I do not mean that, in general, we would hate those police or hordes. I mean that AT THE SPECIFIC MOMENT when they are beating you to death, you have to face your ultimate choice. AT THE SPECIFIC MOMENT when we are making that choice (whichever way we choose to react to our very painful and needless death), we are not engaging in an encompassing POV. Instead, we are then engaging in a doubly painful POV: both physically and philosophically. And that painful POV is not the goal of the ONE SELF. The way of the ONE SELF is to experience the universe by concentrating on the joy, peace, healing, love, and service, not on the pain. Pain is just a warning, the destination is total happiness. Mike __________________ Mike, Your hypothesis that "under certain circumstances one must abandon the higher POV (Point of View) in order to take action" is one which I cannot agree with. If, in practice, one finds themselves abandoning their POV, then either their POV is limited (and in need of some revision) OR they're still struggling to understand and make solid this higher POV. This is the testing of our foundation depicted in Tarot Key 14, Temperance. You state: "There are two times when tolerance, rising above, encompassing, and tears of joy are not the correct point of view, and we must deny and label instead:" This is EXACTLY the same situation described in the Bahavagad Gita. How does one ACT in the world, doing what is required with all our might, but without losing the higher POV which we're struggling for? (Assuming that we are desiring the higher POV.) This problem is POV is also the classic question "Do the ends justify the means?" In other words, does some specific required action justify assuming a lower POV? Or in the specific case you mentioned, does showing where others are in error, justify an intolerant POV? Does defending yourself justify an intolerant POV ? No. How does one resolve this? From my previous email where I was quoting from Ken Wilber's summation of the Bahavagad Gita: ==== http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/boomeritis/wtc/part1.cfm "[The] basic problem is that the injunction to not have violence in your heart is confused with not using violence in the real world [...] "If [one] wants a spiritual sanction for this, then try reading the Bhagavad Gita . The warrior Arjuna is about to go into battle; concerned with killing, he invokes the Lord Krishna to help him decide what to do. Krishna, who is so post-green it's wild, tells him two things: you must do your duty in the real world, and therefore, you must fight and possibly kill, because that is the way of the world at this time; but when doing your duty, keep your mind in Spirit, not as a way to justify the killing, but as a way to rise above it. 'Remember me, and fight,' is what Krishna tells Arjuna. He does not tell him to avoid fighting (typical green), NOR does he tell him to fight in the name of the Lord (typical blue). He tells him to fight and remember the Lord, for there alone is your salvation in the real world of unavoidable karma. " ==== The higher, compassionate, all encompassing Point of View does not prevent one from doing what is required, in RESPONSE (K9) to the One Will. In fact, it's just the opposite. One responds with all their might, but from a center of "poise in action", and without attachment to the results. Our POV is revealed in not just what we do, but how we do it. We are all being tempered in how we respond (emotionally & intellectually as well as physically) and we learn from the experience. Being tempered in Fire and Water can help us develop more flexibility and strength in our POV, thus enabling the personality to better respond to what the SELF asks of it. RL
____________________________________________ Taking the opposing side helps expand POV 4/3/02: Why I will often take the opposing side whenever someone expresses a "Truth". All human truth is but half-truth. What we must do therefore, is to learn to rise to a more all encompassing POV (point of view) where we can see and accept both opposing viewpoints - reconciling the pairs of opposites (K7), by expanding our POV, thus finding the Unity behind the pairs of opposites (K6). We therefore embrace the paradox by finding the Unity - by looking for the "face of the beloved" behind the mask. Tarot Key 6 (The Lovers) symbolizes true discrimination - finding the Unity behind the pairs of opposites leads to peace and victory, where the play of the pairs of opposites within the field of human personality are brought to rest (K7). RL Here is an example: Someone recently said to me: My response was: She replied: My reply:
In practice, however, a dynamic balancing of positive doing and positive being is to be sought. In this case, the quest to achieve a direct experience of God goes hand in hand with a growing awareness and acceptance of wherever we are at NOW. Being requires doing and doing requires being aware and accepting ALL manifestation (all being and doing) as coming ultimately from "God", from the "ONE", from the "I AM". Being and Doing at the same time. Here is a table showing these points of view:
_____________________________
RE: Truth or Opinion? K. writes: I remain unconvinced and unmoved by your arguments. I suppose we need to be clearer on what we mean by point of view. If we are talking about opinion, "personal thoughts", conception. Then I stand by the bulk of my last email. If we mean the act of seeing then maybe I do have a point of view in that sense. __________ But that has nothing to do with all the spiritual nonsense and discussion. Or
all the teaching, whether it be B., Kristamurti, A Course in Miracles,
Christianity. K. All these teachings help us to change our point of view. Whether this change is for the "better" or not, depends on what one wants. You see something "attractive", you eat of the fruit, you gain experience and find that you've developed a new point of view. The Great Work is achieved by Evolution, not Revolution. I know that you disagree with me on this, but hey, we've got differing points of view! jc See also Discernment
|