BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

THE PURPOSE OF MAGIC (The great work)

  
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
illmatic
14:09 / 15.06.06
That has always seemed to me kind of the point ....

but wait! Why then did you make this statement:

Why should Buddha or Crowley dictate what I do?

Unless you actually, don't, uh, understand that much about what he wrote?

Or more elaborately – the doctrine of the fall isn’t as prevalent as you’re assuming, in a variety of systems.
 
 
Ticker
14:25 / 15.06.06
JR,

from this:

Cool. I'm allready star. Don't have to bother with Thelema then.

I can only assume you either didn't read what I posted or you dismissed it outright.
 
 
Professor Silly
14:30 / 15.06.06
This conversation is heading into an area that I feel very comfortable with: the psychology behind the urge to do magick.

One of the books I read before actively getting involved with the A.'.A.'. system was William James' "Varieties of the Religious Experience." James was a fascinating figure in the early development of psychology. Long story short he wrote the first text book on the subject and predicted the next several decades (including Freud) before changing posts at his university to philosophy.

In this book (based on a series of lectures) he describes "first-born" people and "twice-born" people. The latter feel something in them that need fixing, and set out to make those changes. The former do not perceive anything "wrong" with themselves per se and choose their own path accordingly. He makes no judgements as to which is better, or more useful to humanity, etc.

I've known a few "first-born" types in my life--they generally seem happy and content with most aspects of their lives and never even ask the deeper questions that moved me toward magick. I'm almost envious of them.

It sounds to me like jihad may be one of these "first-born" types. This isn't bad, and it doesn't make hir less of a magician per se. But it does mean we may find it impossible to explain why us "twice-borns" need systems that include spiritual evolution.
 
 
Anthony
14:31 / 15.06.06
you go upwards & you come back down. you cross the abyss many times. i wouldn't want to remain indefinitely in some of the states across the abyss and couldn't possibly achieve it either. i keep being thrown back into Binah quite often and then there's a potential pitfall of falling back into the abyss. it's constant challenges really. well for me it is anyway. you don't necessarily remember the higher stuff with oneself continually and nor should you need to. your concentration shifts from point to point in the normal course of things. i guess it's harder for me though in a way because i have bipolar disorder on top of spiritual things happening; that creates often a very strong Binah-Chockmah polarity with one of the two being lost or appearing to be.

you know what i'm trying to say is that we can achieve heightened states and such but some days are just totally normal. "every day is not nirvana" as my teacher said, and couldn't possibly be, in this world of ... sorrow, chaos, whatever you want to call it. a bliss-head would be the most unrealistic of creatures, the buddha renounced nirvana to serve others, there is universe A as well as universe B, all needs maintainance, however you want to see it, whatever you want to call it. Don Juan talks about the nagual and the tonal and there are times we leave the nagual naturally to come back to the tonal where we are men, not magickal beings, and the challenge being to live effectively as men and to be able to "die" to the spiritual in turn. as i remember antero alli put it.
 
 
jihadreflection
14:31 / 15.06.06
Because you know. there is an AA. There is an OTO. They do have a set of techniques that one can follow to reach a result.
Otherwise Crowleys whole work would have been that one sentence would it not?
We can only meaningfully talk about magic as set of techniques and the intent behind those techniques can't we?

I use specific techniques from magic. Like healing, aquiring wealth. etctera.

I use specific techniques where there could be cross over. Like summoning spirits, talking with gods, hanging out on the astral.

Sometimes for fun, sometimes to change a part of my self.

The thing that's allways put me off about Thelema is the morality behind it. If you don;t accept the law then you're a black brother. Thelema as constituting specific tecchniques for change would be more useful to me without the cosmology. Yet it seems the cosmology is a vital and intricate part of the system. You can't do Thelema without invoking certain principles framed in a Hermetic way.

Same with traditonal Buddhism. 'desire is suffering.'
Escape desire and escape suffering.
It's a valid path. Thelema is a valid path.
Yet I pefer not to follow them.

A spiritual path takes considerable time and effort to intergrate if you wish to do it properly. A lot of the people who play around with the Kabbalah seem a bit silly to me because to fully intergrate with it is to take on the hard work of incorporating its symbol set. As people like Gypsy appear to be doing. I have nothing but respect if that is the path they follow.
 
 
Anthony
14:33 / 15.06.06
yes, i believe magick is ultimately tricking one's awareness into the Nagual, as Don Juan would have said. whatever the means it doesn't particularly matter as long as those means are sustained.

the nagual is vastly powerful and drains the body and we couldn't possibly live there permanently otherwise we would die. and god knows i've come close a few times. finding my way back out is always a challenge and to be totally upfront about it has sometimes taken medical intervention.
 
 
jihadreflection
14:36 / 15.06.06
silly: that's an interesting explanation. i might have to check that book out.

xk: I read what you wrote. But me and illmatic are just playing with each other. It's fun.
 
 
jihadreflection
14:43 / 15.06.06
In fact Prof Silly. Thinking about it. You hit the nail on the head.
It’s about the ‘why’ of following a spiritual path. Maybe that’s what this threads about.
That and the flame wars.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
14:43 / 15.06.06
I was maybe out of order that time.

No shit.

Do you honestly think that any of this is new to me though? That these are new ideas that you are exposing me to for the first time? It's all pretty basic rudimentary stuff, I just think there are some holes in the conclusions you draw from it.

So to do that you must first accept the theory that you are not whole. That you are somehow sick. Ignorant. I refuse to do this.

This is one of the problem I have with your perspective though. Systems of attainment, like the ones that you have made reference to, don't necessarily presuppose that you are sick, ignorant or not whole at all, not any more than a martial arts class or a cookery lesson might. Nature is about growth. You start as a baby and you grow. I think magic is about growth in the same sense. I don't see that there is any sinister doctrine of original sin involved in that. You grow, within your magical practice and as a human being. You just do. You develop over time as a creature within nature and the time stream.

Systems of attainment are just models for getting to grips with that process and a language for being able to talk about it. The process of growth goes on continually whether you apply these imported frameworks onto it or not. Whether you find them to be a useful metaphor or not. I can look at my history of magical practice and point to about ten pivotal incidents or narratives from which I learned stuff, from which I walked away different, from which I have developed as a human being and as a magician. I'm just not the same guy that I was a couple of years ago in a lot of ways. I'm nothing like the person I was when I first got into magic, and the magic I have lived has been integral to that process of becoming. More than anything, I think my magic is all about this continual process of growth and becoming.

Is this some violation of my perfect self? Is my personal growth through magic a perversion of what I was before I started? Have I bought into a belief system that tells me I am rubbish as I am, and I need to strive to make myself better? Not really, no. It's just about natural growth and becoming. I'm a lot more "myself" than I was before I started practicing magic. I have a lot more courage to be myself. A lot more confidence to be myself, as I would like to be. I've untangled a lot of the knots within myself. Some of which I didn't know were there until they became undone and I breathed a sigh of relief.

The Thelemic True Will, since you don't really seem to understand it, is not some secret, elusive special "other" thing that you find. It's just you. You living according to your own nature without obstruction or hinderance. The tree growing in perfect harmony. The knots of yourself undone. You becoming the happiest and the most fulfilled organism that you can possibly be, during your time on the planet. Are you that already? Have you got it all sussed out? Nothing left to learn? No room for growth or development at all? Blimey. I don't believe you. Convince me.
 
 
jihadreflection
14:52 / 15.06.06
I liked that post Gypsy. It seems what you’re doing is working out for you.
I think I do understand the doctrine of ‘true will’. That is my problem with it.
It postulates an unknotted self. It postulates a true nature. It postulate a will that is unveiled.
Yet this isn’t me. I am me as I am ‘right now at this moment.’
Will I change. Sure. Will I grow. No. Growth is towards something. It denotes values.
I allready am perfect. Can I Convince you. No. Why would I? How could I?
I’m perfect now. In a year, a day, a few seconds. I’ll be perfect then. A different kind of perfect maybe but still perfect.
 
 
Professor Silly
14:56 / 15.06.06
Upon looking it up, I see that James borrowed the terms from one Francis W. Newman, who I'll quote in regards to the once-born:

"They see God, not as a strict Judge, not as a Glorious Potentate, but as the animating Spirit of a beautiful harmonious world, Beneficent and Kind, Merciful as well as Pure. The same charaters generally have no metaphyisal tendencies: they do not look back into themselves. Hence they are not distressed by their own inmperfections: yet it would be absurd to call them self-righteous; for they hardly think of themselves at all."

I would suggest that most people don't fall into one category or the other absolutely; instead it seems more likely to me that different people feel angst more accutely than others, and that the stronger such existential angst becomes in an individual, the more that individual will work on fixing the perceived flaw.

I also take slight issue at the repeated accusation (not here, but historically) that the A.'.A.'. and other systems of attainment use brainwashing techniques. I can see why those outside the system would come to the conclusion that "thought-control" is taking place, but the difference is this: within a system such as A.'.A.'. one learns to control one's own thoughts rather than submitting to some authority. Crowley was always the first to tell people to not trust him and to try the experiments themselves.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
14:59 / 15.06.06
You can't do Thelema without invoking certain principles framed in a Hermetic way.

I'd dispute that actually. I don't really practice western ceremonial magic at all, that's an assumption that you've made about me. It's actually eclectic Voodoo witchcraft all the way in my house. But I see value in the underlying ideas of Thelema and the various things that Crowley was bringing to the table. I've tried to understand his work and contributions to magical literature from my own perspective and in the context of my own experience, and I can see the beauty in it. I haven't swallowed anything wholeheartedly without intervening thought. My approach to the A.'.A.'. is very, very different from the orthodox version of it. Hugely heretical, in a lot of ways. But it's real living magic, and it hits all of the important notes of the system according to my own particular aesthetic, and that's all that matter to me. I'm doing the work according to my own nature, my own True Will, if you like. Which is radically different from Crowley's interpretation of it or anybody else's, but - for me - is rather the point of Thelema in the first place.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
15:08 / 15.06.06
It postulates an unknotted self. It postulates a true nature. It postulate a will that is unveiled. Yet this isn’t me. I am me as I am ‘right now at this moment.’

But that is what I'm finding so infuriating about your argument. The whole point of the notion of a True Will is that it IS you, right now, this moment. It's not something other than you, as you are, right now. Thelema is just a process of trying to live more in accordance with that and not letting anything else interfere with it. Remaining true to your self and the core of your being. Your whole position seems to stem from a basic misunderstanding of what True Will and Thelema are supposed to be about.

This, for instance, is probably the most important Thelemic text written in the last decade: http://www.geoffthompson.com/formula/the_formula.htm
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
15:10 / 15.06.06
Bugger! Geoff Thompson is making you pay £3:99 for it now. It used to be free on his website. Worth reading. Pure Thelema in motion, by a former bouncer and hardman who has probably never even heard of Crowley.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
15:16 / 15.06.06
Will I grow. No.

Yes, you will. You are a creature within time and therefore you will grow. You are growing all of the time. Everything is growing all of the time. Including you. Right now. As you have been since the day of your birth.

Growth is towards something. It denotes values.

No it doesn't. Does the growth of a tree denote values?
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
15:20 / 15.06.06
I’m perfect now. In a year, a day, a few seconds. I’ll be perfect then. A different kind of perfect maybe but still perfect.

Does this state of eternal perfection preclude any ability or inclination to learn anything new about the universe or yourself, that you do not think you know already?
 
 
Professor Silly
15:23 / 15.06.06
Bare in mind that most systems of attainment I've looked at suggest the ego is a childish invention of the soul that likes to think it's in charge. The whole "crossing the abyss" strives to destroy the ego once and for all.

Within the Jewish tradition the soul is considered unchangable and perfect--the things in us that change and grow over time is therefore not the soul and instead a distraction of incarnation.
 
 
grant
15:31 / 15.06.06
"Flameworthy Arhat" would be a great kung-fu name.

As well as a statement about that whole impervious-to-all-changes thing with regards to the actual goal of for-real sages.
 
 
Quantum
16:01 / 15.06.06
JR, what do you use instead of a moral system, an aesthetic system? Rather than 'ought' what do you have?
 
 
EvskiG
16:46 / 15.06.06
>I'm perfect now.

>In a year, a day, a few seconds. I'll be perfect then. A different kind of perfect maybe but still perfect.

It's cool to meet someone perfect.

Are you more perfect than me, or are we both equally perfect? Because for some reason I don't yet feel perfect. At least not in every sense of the word.

JR, maybe you can help me understand your perfection.

How's your health? Robust and fit, right?

And how's your love life? Good, right?

Good relationship with your family?

Know everything you want to know?

Good career, good friends?

Happy with where you live?

Feeling fulfilled in your everyday life?

No?


Crowley used to discuss something he called "confusion of levels."

As I'm sure you understand, recognizing (at least intellectually) that you -- and everything else in the entire universe -- may be "perfect" in some cosmic sense doesn't necessarily mean that you're "perfect" in every possible sense, or that there's nothing you might want to aspire to.
 
 
Princess
17:47 / 15.06.06
Ok, so what you are is perfect, but what you could be is perfect and more fun to boot. Just because your already perfect doesn't mean you can't get better.
 
 
LVX23
20:12 / 15.06.06
We can only meaningfully talk about magic as set of techniques and the intent behind those techniques can't we?

I disagree. The techniques are certainly of value and worthy of discussion but what of where the techniques lead us and the tidbits of holy writ we manage to return with?

To me the real meat of the matter lies in the personal experience of the domain of magick. The records and maps of the space, the results of the techniques, and the witnessing of the aspirant. I find great value in those regions where subjective personal experience suddenly reveals itself as shared and somewhat objective (like the Enochian landscape that seems consistent for most who enter it, in spite of arguably being highly subjective).

To suggest that magic(k) is only a set of techniques driven by the will of the mage is, to my mind, really missing the point. It's like saying we can only discuss quantum mechanics in terms of the formulae and any exposition on the application of those forumulae or what they may mean to our understanding of "reality" is unwarranted.
 
 
jihadreflection
21:37 / 15.06.06
Maybe I get you Gypsy. I’ll explain what I do so you can see, hopefully I’ll explain it well enough. I’m in process and these are things that I use to direct that process. Maybe that’s a little like Thelema then?

Mythology: I created my own mythology about the world and then set about believing in it. The first few weeks I had to say ‘ahh that happens because of this. That means this’. Then after a while these thoughts became more natural and less forced. I see the workings of my gods in some of the things that occur.

Zazen: I practice zazen. Observing my thoughts. I sometimes do this only a few minutes a day. Some times an hour or more. I do this to gain power over my stories. I would prefer that I controlled them rather than they controlled me.

NLP: I found this useful for making changes to myself. I use anchors sometimes and have eliminated phobias. I also combine anchors with parts of my personal mythology to tie them together. I haven’t personally found nlp to be super effective. Some changes take more work than others. Some things don’t do much for me at all.

Spirits: I talk with spirits just because it’s cool. Often they disappear when I stop believing in them. Sometimes they persist and we chat. Sometimes they tell me something useful. Sometimes they don’t. I talk to people. They tend to hang around even when I stop believing in them.

Enchantment: Sometimes for fun I try and cause effects in the world through ‘paranormal means’. Sometimes it works and I’ve healed sick friends, had lucky coincidences and even seen some quite strange things. A lot of the time it doesn’t and I use that time to look at how to improve this ability.

I guess the difference between my system and some others is the lack of progression. In my system there is nothing to progress to. There is change for sure, but it’s just different, not better or worse. In some things I fail. In some things I succeed. If I fail I try to learn why I fail.

I make heavy use of stories. To me the world is a story. My concept of myself is a story I tell myself (though it’s not myself. – if that makes sense-)
There is no rhyme or reason in this flux of stories. No better or worse. Just preference and preference itself can change. Maybe there are a storm of preferences conflicting and fighting. Sometimes this storm appears to coming together and propelling me.
Of course. The storm doesn’t exist.
Even this story of preferences is just that ‘ a story’. It works for me. It helps me to communicate. I don’t think it’s a truth though.

I’ve hoped I’ve explained my own system. My own story. I’m sorry I can’t reason it through but I do not think reason works (for me) as a path to discovering what you must do. I just do. I just am. Not being. But continually in process. Not static, but changing.
Totally focussed on my own wants and desires. I don't know if they include growth. But I guess maybe I grow then in the process of pursuing my goals. I mean I certainly use the tech listed above to help me achieve them.
 
 
jihadreflection
21:38 / 15.06.06
yeah exactly that Quantum. An aesthetic system.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:38 / 15.06.06
Etyymology corner: "perfect" means that something has been completed - done through, like a steak. The perfect tense is the tense to describe complete actions in the past. If you are perfect, there is nothing more to be done to you. So, if you were perfect a year ago, and are perfect now, it means that you have not changed at all in the intervening year. Stick a fork in you, you're done, sort of thing.
 
 
EvskiG
00:38 / 16.06.06
(Of course, there's the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union . . .")
 
 
illmatic
08:04 / 16.06.06
I'd just like to point out something that's just occured to me. Some of Jihadreflection's statements about magick are the equivalent to me turning up on an NLP forum and saying "well, you're all stuck in slavish worship of John Bandler - I'm going to invent my own system, and I refuse to use any NLP techniques because of that". Babies and bathwater and all that.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:17 / 16.06.06
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union . . .")

Exactly. A perfect Union is one that no longer requires alteration, because it has reached its final and complete form. The constitution recognises that this is an ideal state - that all you can do is move towards it, to make something more perfect in the sense of containing a greater amount of the final form, rather than in the sense of more perfect than the Union you have, which is already perfect. Bright fellows, they.

Sorry, we were talking about magic, weren't we?
 
 
trouser the trouserian
08:24 / 16.06.06
Back to "the Great Work"

Although there's a great deal more that could be said about eighteenth-century occultist and its relationship to its cultural milieu - the age of Enlightenment, I'll now present some thoughts on the concept of the "Great Work" as viewed by the Theosophical Society, which is at once, both an individual commitment and a social project.

The Theosophical worldview can be summarised in three points:
1. The Universe and all that exists within it are one interrelated and interdependent whole.
2. Reality is all-pervasive, but cannot be summed up in its parts, since it transcends all expressions. It reveals itself in the purposeful and ordered processes of nature as well as in the deepest recesses of the mind and spirit.
3. Recognition of the unique value of every living being finds expression in reverence for life, compassion for all, a sympathy with the need of individuals to find truth for themselves, and respect for all religious traditions.

The central 'mission statement' for Theosophists (often referred to in the voluminous writings of its leading members as its "Great Work") is the desire to promote understanding and brotherhood amongst people of all races, nationalities, philosophies and religions.

For Theosophists, intellectual commitment to the movement's ideals was not sufficient - their "Great Work" could only be brought about by action. In India for example, the TS played a key role in the creation of the Indian National Congress, Henry Olcott (the TS's co-founder) was one of the first Europeans to convert to Theravada Buddhism, and is honoured by the Sinhalese for promoting the revival of Buddhism as a legitimate religion in Sri Lanka, at a time when missionaries were pushing hard to 'Christianise' the island. Both Gandhi and Nehru, in their writings, acknowledged a debt to Theosophy. Annie Besant (a second-generation Theosophist) was interned by the British authorities in India because of her promotion of Indian Home Rule. Before joining the TS, she was a promoter of Irish Independence, women's rights, labour reform and birth control (she narrowly escaped a prison sentence in the UK for publishing a book advocating birth control). Another notable Theosophist is Anna Kingsford, founder of the Hermetic Society, of whom Crowley later wrote: "She was doubtless the head of the battering-ram that broke in the gates of the materialist philosophy of the Victorian Age."
 
 
Anthony
14:34 / 16.06.06
there is more to spirituality than Thelema and the "end result" of the thelemic black pilgramage (sp?) as parsons called it, isn't even a desirable state to be in.
 
 
Unconditional Love
16:15 / 16.06.06
I think the 'great work' is about recognising that which many people worldwide call god. That all of creation is inseprable from god,because it is god. I dont think it requires work so much as awareness, yet i think working upon the idea of the 'great work' can bring awareness of god.

The great work is working towards awareness of god and being unified with god, perhaps.
 
 
LVX23
18:07 / 16.06.06
Trouser wrote, summarizing Theosophy:

...their "Great Work" could only be brought about by action.

This resonates with me quite a bit as I've come to feel that the greatest task and result of magick is to actually do things.
 
 
Bruno
20:41 / 23.06.06
Re the Great Work. I like the trouserian's approach, looking at it in a historical context. I don't have the books with me to check and I am not a big scholar so anyone please correct mistakes.
I will mention some basics:

(a)From what I have read I remember the term having originated in alchemy, although I'm not sure if it was Arabic, Greek or medieval European. The idea I believe is that the 'base' is transmuted to the 'noble' (e.g. lead to gold) and taken metaphorically this means purifying the self, transmuting the self into a higher state of being.
In kabalistic terms it occurs in Tiphareth (whose metal is gold) where the 4 lower sephira are brought to equilibrium with the 5 higher ones. The balancing of the 4 elements around the 5th element of spirit also had its origins in alchemy I think. This is implied in a lot of cross symbolism including the LBRP.

(b)It seems that the Great Work is linked closely to the concept of Will. But Will in magic has (at least) two meanings. On the one hand Will can be an attribute one cultivates basically the same as motivation or willpower. On the other hand it is the True Will, similar to one's 'destiny', the purpose of the Higher Self or HGA. 'Doing thy Will' in this sense is the same as 'Doing the Great Work'.

The Thelemic concept of Will is very influenced by Nietzsche's. Nietzsche was a follower and then rejector of Schopenhauer.
Schopenhauer saw Will as a force to be kept in check since it was the cause of sorrow (he was one of the first Europeans influenced by Buddhism although I am not sure which kind).
Nietzsche thought that rejecting the Will was sick, he called it a slave morality and instead advocated accepting the Will and fighting hard to attain its object; he admired might and despised the self-imposed weakness he saw in Schopenhauer and Christianity.
Will in this sense is very similar to Desire, and interestingly Freud's concept of libido is influenced by both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.

(c)The True Will has also been identified with the Daimon and the Genius.
Daimon is a greek word approximately meaning a spirit. According to Plato, Socrates claimed to have had established communication with his daimon, which spoke to him. Interestingly enough it didn't tell him what to do, but did the opposite, warning him what he shouldn't do.
Genius I am not so sure about; I think it was used by some of the latin Neoplatonists? But part of its meaning, which is kept in English, is that of inspiration, intellectual/creative ability to create something of great worth, e.g. Shakespeare or Newton are considered 'geniuses'.

What is interesting to me is that, like a lot of magic terms, Will can be formulated as something external to the self (the daimon or Holy Guardian Angel) or as something coming from within one's own nature (the secularized form).

(d)Anyone know the earliest uses of the term 'Higher Self'?
Holy Guardian Angel I assume came into use with Abramelin? It's interesting that many people who have never heard of this stuff believe in a 'guardian angel'. Origins of this?

-bruno
 
 
Z. deScathach
09:08 / 24.06.06
Ultimately, magick is about moving toward a state of existence that enriches life, otherwise, why would anyone do it? It's true that enrichment can mean the material, and often, it does, but there's a greater form of enrichment as well. If magick were a changing toward suffering and misery, only an enormously self abusive person would practice it. Each technique has it's own rewards, arising from it's practice.

Let's say for instance, that I practice a technique aimed at the stilling of my mind. Perhaps that stillness that I have gained makes my sense of separation with my surroundings "weaken", makes my bundaries more permeable. Perhaps this increased permeability makes me more able to communicate with certain aspects of my surroundings. I may call this talking to the spirits, or I may call it experiencing the consciousness of the universe, or any number of things, based upon my particular slant on cosmology. Such a communication is bound to trigger changes in my life. Perhaps I learn things, or if nothing else, I come to realize that I am not an isolated island. This lessens my feelings of loneliness. Perhaps through this, I may discover that I can influence things to happen, because, after all, I am not a helpless island. Of course realizing that I can do such things may cause me to examine my motives, and examine which actions may be the correct ones, in my own personal view. This brings me to an awareness that my life effects others. Perhaps this viewpoint causes me to behave in a way that makes my life a smoother experience, because I've learned that when I get along more with others, life goes more smoothly. All of this brings an even greater sense of connection. Eventually, I start to think about where we are going as a species, what can I do to make both my life and others more pleasant, and what type of social structure may enhance that. All of a sudden, something hits. I become aware of this process, and in doing so realize that others are going through the same processes. This causes me to realize that everyone has different points of view, based upon their process. Now what? Do I choose to accept their point of view or not? Whether I do or not isn't as important as the fact that I'm thinking about those points of view, and just what they mean, and if their points of view are impacting the world, then mine must as well. So what kind of world did I want again?
 
 
Bruno
11:17 / 24.06.06
I liked your post Z, very wise way of perceiving things.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply