True Will and physical obstacles
-
"There is always a shadow aspect to a passionately sought goal. (Always!) Were there not, then one would already have the result: One’s will to its manifestation, in the absence of internal resistance, would already have prevailed.
Therefore, one must discover and explore all counter intentions within oneself. Often the best way of finding these is to ask oneself what payoff, reward, or advantage one might have from failing in the operation.
Most people, more often than being afraid of failure, are afraid of success. Success can totally disrupt one’s negative view of self and the universe! Success in a major goal often requires that we sacrifice anger, resentment, the myth of helplessness, and blameful views. Getting what you really want wrecks havoc with your excuses, and may require that you finally get on with life. Success calls for increased accountability to oneself, others, and the universe.
For some, this may seem too high a price to pay. One must get past this barrier if one expects to succeed as a magician.
Other interior barriers that often must be examined and confronted include feelings of unworthiness, guild, and doubt; an impulse to self-punishment or self-harm; and any number of other unconscious needs to fail in the operation.
Find these; know these; and conquer these as a final act of purification of oneself in preparation for the sacred operation you plan to undertake."
Jim, thanks for this, with which I can completely identify. "Finding" and "knowing" is not the difficult task and I imagine that your statement above applies to pretty much the whole of humanity, the question is how to conquer it!
From personal experience it seem that one can suppress these "shadows" for a certain amount of time but as Jung said "If you don't let it in the front door it will come through the back door" and hence long-term failure seems assured. He suggests "integration" which I have understood to mean taking conscious control of the problem. For example, let's say that I have discovered that self-sabotage is a means for me to perpetuate the patterns of "beating myself up". Do I consciously decide to "beat myself up" every Sunday so that for the rest of the week I can remain free of the problem and achieve my goals? Of course now that I've taken my dose 'consciously' the idea is that it will not bite me in the ass. But this method seems to merely be the conscious perpetuation of a negative pattern.
However it's as though this self-beating serves a purpose, that I might need to beat myself up occasionally so that I might actually achieve something rather than fall into complacency which might simply produce an aimless existence, that I might inspire movement rather than stasis. Of course, it's not particularly pleasant and it feels as though this is a far cry from "conquering" so to speak, yet in a way, I feel that I'm harnessing a "negative" for a "positive" outcome, and in that way that I'm in the driving seat rather than the Shadow. This is difficult and painful work and I'm not sure if I'm on the right track achieving only a modicum of successes.
Could you perhaps give a practical example of what you mean by "conquering".
-
@modernPrimitive said
"Could you perhaps give a practical example of what you mean by "conquering"."
Could you give an example of a real-life example that needs conquering?
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@modernPrimitive said
"Could you perhaps give a practical example of what you mean by "conquering"."Could you give an example of a real-life example that needs conquering?"
How about the example I mentioned? The tendency to self-sabotage so that one can perpetuate the pattern of "beating oneself up".
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"There is always a shadow aspect to a passionately sought goal. (Always!) Were there not, then one would already have the result: One’s will to its manifestation, in the absence of internal resistance, would already have prevailed.
... Find these; know these; and conquer these as a final act of purification of oneself in preparation for the sacred operation you plan to undertake."
Are you suggesting that there NO obstacles that can be due to the will or intentions of others? If not, could you suggest examples of obstacles that could be due to others? And how using thelemic principles they should be overcome?
Are you suggesting we are not affected in a negative way by the intentions of others?
All of this sounds a bit Buddhist.
I hope you don't take offensive as this is a genuine discussion.
I understand how we personally influence ourselves, and much of what you have written Jim is interesting, relevant and grounded in psychological theory. However, what I hope we can discuss is something of the following examples. For the purposes of the following examples we'll assume the first example is at a level where he is aware of his True Will. The second and third examples are self explanatory.
A man, who is black receives repeated racial discrimination and abuse which affects his life so badly that he feels suicidal. He makes every effort to live his True Will and the path that involves etc. but he finds that the racism means he can't even get through most days with peace in his own home and his ambitions (which because he is a ware of his True Will ARE in accordance with his True Will) are thwarted at every attempt.
A man is severely sexually, emotionally and physically abused as a child by his father and other family members. He leaves home at 18 and lives on the streets due to poverty. He has a physical disability caused by the abuse as well as being virtually completely lacking in any ability of social interaction or healthy friendship with others, he hardly speaks to anyone and is often taken advantage of due to his mental instability.
A young girl of fourteen is raped and due to religious beliefs of her family and the law in the country where she lives, she has to give birth to child and is forced to bring it up. Three years later she finds out her and her child are both HIV positive.
How do you suggest they have caused the obstacles that they would have to overcome, not only to discover their True Will but to also follow that True Will? And how could they have avoided those obstacles?
-
@Amdis Spica said
"Are you suggesting that there NO obstacles that can be due to the will or intentions of others?"
Others can will and create obstacles; but you're immune to that unless you're collaborating. It's your universe! - It's the formula of Harpocrates: In your innocent, unpurturbed going in your own way, you are invulnerable to all real harm, and the way opens before you.
"Are you suggesting we are not affected in a negative way by the intentions of others?"
Yes, often we are. But, again, that's because we permit it, as part of our collaborating with it.
"A man, who is black receives repeated racial discrimination and abuse which affects his life so badly that he feels suicidal. He makes every effort to live his True Will and the path that involves etc. but he finds that the racism means he can't even get through most days with peace in his own home and his ambitions (which because he is a ware of his True Will ARE in accordance with his True Will) are thwarted at every attempt."
Roll it back... Why did that individual incarnate as a black man in a time and place where this is the case? Until that questioln is answsered, we can't really know what his True Will is. Under the conditions you mentioned, his True Will must include the component of the struggles that he dropped himself right into the middle of.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Others can will and create obstacles; but you're immune to that unless you're collaborating. It's your universe! - ?"
Are you seriously suggesting that your universe is not shared with others? And that strength of any person(s) will (at any given time) does not vary? And that influence upon will does not exist? That is what your post is saying Jim.
Also, if it's 'your universe' where does everyone else fit in? Are they figments of 'your' imagination and if not how do they lose control over their will while in 'your' universe? Just becoming what you want them to be/do? Your argument suggests that to be true.
"It's the formula of Harpocrates: In your innocent, unpurturbed going in your own way, you are invulnerable to all real harm, and the way opens before you."
That is somewhat naive. A shared consensus of reality requires that opposing wills exist within the same experience, and influence occurs all the time and affects all those in that reality.
You're saying 'you own way' like a newborn babe, or the Fool? So how do babies (and Fools!) get harmed?
How are the two people in the second and third examples (copied below from my post above) 'collaborating' with rape and sexual, mental and physical abuse on them since they were a baby?
"A man is severely sexually, emotionally and physically abused as a child by his father and other family members. He leaves home at 18 and lives on the streets due to poverty. He has a physical disability caused by the abuse as well as being virtually completely lacking in any ability of social interaction or healthy friendship with others, he hardly speaks to anyone and is often taken advantage of due to his mental instability.
A young girl of fourteen is raped and due to religious beliefs of her family and the law in the country where she lives, she has to give birth to child and is forced to bring it up. Three years later she finds out her and her child are both HIV positive. "
"Yes, often we are. But, again, that's because we permit it, as part of our collaborating with it."
Again, what you are saying is a Buddhist idea and is basically Karma.
You can't use a theory that only applies to some contrived or convenient instances of the beliefs you are trying to argue for. In way it's ironic isn't it? You mentioned the 'coincidence' of this subject being posted here at the forum while you are writing your article. And if you believe your theory is correct you must also believe that you have brought this discussion to you at this time as there is something you need to learn from it.
You can't just apply your beliefs to the bits you find easy to explain. Or only to your life experience or a limited range of life experience of others. Otherwise your theory is the belief equivalent of claiming to have a really good relationship - but only with an imaginary friend - which obviously will always conclude with your ideal as it's not a friendship with a real person!
But here is an actual example from a real person - Baby P, with your principles and beliefs you are stating that Baby P collaborated and permitted what happened to him. How did he do that? Why did he do that? It can't be that Baby P feared success and happiness so collaborated in his terrible abuse and death!
"Roll it back... Why did that individual incarnate as a black man in a time and place where this is the case? Until that questioln is answsered, we can't really know what his True Will is. Under the conditions you mentioned, his True Will must include the component of the struggles that he dropped himself right into the middle of."
So, you're saying any problems people have, no matter how horrendous, they 'dropped themselves into'?
You're saying that racism is a collaboration between the black person (or other race) and that the black person (or other race) is actually permitting the racism. That idea would also suggest that people wanted to go into concentration camps - that they collaborated with the Nazis. And that paedophiles victims are collaborating with their abusers - how do you suggest a child 'permits' or 'collaborates' with that?
Another question I have you might be able to help with - if people collaborate and permit crimes against them (as your theory suggests) then why punish people who commit crime? Also, is committing that crime their True Will? Is being a paedophile someone's True Will? If you can't explain that in the context of your theory , how do you explain the harmful, violent and unacceptable things that some people do to others?
I did notice Jim that you avoided the second two examples. But if your argument is solid and you are sure of what you believe you don't have to avoid anything. Indeed, why would you want to?
-
@Amdis Spica said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Others can will and create obstacles; but you're immune to that unless you're collaborating. It's your universe! - ?"Are you seriously suggesting that your universe is not shared with others?"
Not at all. But I am suggesting that there is no real separation between what we call ourselves and others, and, in practice, we are responsible for all aspects of our experience.
This isn't just theory. Those who have reached the stage of full discovery of their True Wills, and have begun go to conform their choices and actions thereto, mostly report the universe reorganizing itself around them. Threats dissolve, doors open, paths clear. Life simply starts working! Of course, it isn't conflict free because there are usally residual imbalances to correct, and a different dimension of inner issues arises as a consequence of the shift... but few things so dramatically show the power of self-created reality even in terms of outer circumstances like the shift to knowing where you're going, making conscious choices, conforming yourself to your own destiny... and seeing the consequences.
" And that strength of any person(s) will (at any given time) does not vary?"
Of course it fluctuates. (But, also of course, that fluctuation is strongly influenced by the inner condition.)
"And that influence upon will does not exist?"
I don't knolw what that means.
"Also, if it's 'your universe' where does everyone else fit in?"
I'm not willing to take the time to turn this into a whole course in basic metaphysics. (This is, after all, a work day, so I have only occasional brief moments here and there.) But let's give it a brief try:
We are each centered on a fundamental, indivisible point (Hadit) which, at the same time, is an inseparable part of a single whole So... there are several ways to answer your question, but one way is to observe that, while others appear to exist in their own right, they're ultimately unknowable by you, and functionally exist only as phenomena on your own movie screen. (This doesn't deny their integrity. It just means that you can't really know anything about them except as they exist in your experience, which, however much inspired by someone else, is ultimately inside of you.)
Now, functionally we need to act like they exist, and even act like we know them. That makes life go a heck of a lot easier.
"Are they figments of 'your' imagination and if not how do they lose control over their will while in 'your' universe?"
They don't lose control over their own wills. Gosh, who said that? But their True Wills cannot (by nature of how the universe is compose) conflict with yours. Not at all. Not in the slightest. Their wants can conflict. Their choices can conflict. But not True Will.
"
"It's the formula of Harpocrates: In your innocent, unpurturbed going in your own way, you are invulnerable to all real harm, and the way opens before you."That is somewhat naive. A shared consensus of reality requires that opposing wills exist within the same experience, and influence occurs all the time and affects all those in that reality. "
Yes, but that's the lie. I don't care if everybody agrees - there's a lot of crap everybody agrees about. Part of the path is learning to step outside of that and see how things actually are.
"You're saying 'you own way' like a newborn babe, or the Fool? So how do babies (and Fools!) get harmed?"
No, I didn't say like a newborn babe or the fool. Here (as in several other places) you're making up stuff I didn't say.
"
"Yes, often we are. But, again, that's because we permit it, as part of our collaborating with it."Again, what you are saying is a Buddhist idea and is basically Karma."
Aside from the fact that there are a lot of Buddhist ideas inherent in Thelema... I don't know what you mean here by karma. If you are seeing it as some outside decision-force, some quasi-Christian punishment-reward system, then, no, that's quite different from what I'm saying. However, if you mean the understanding that there is no inherent separation between an action and its consequences then, yes. But even that isn't what I said above. I spoke of permitting things by our collaborating with them.
I'm not sure what kind of burr you have up your butt. You asked me something, I answered it, and then you shovel a lot of crap. I imagine you still have a very strong stake in believing that you aren't in control of your life. If that's where you're coming from, then I can see why it would be frightening to have someone say the opposite.
"You can't use a theory that only applies to some contrived or convenient instances of the beliefs you are trying to argue for."
You say that like this is a debate. It isn't. I have no stake in convincing you. You asked a question, I answered. You can go on living a victim's life as much as you want, as long as you don't vomit on my front lawn.
Repeat: I'm not arguing for anything. I'm answering your question by explaining the nature of reality. I don't care if you're convinced. I'm instructing you in how the universe works, and I've already spent way too much time on you today.
"In way it's ironic isn't it? You mentioned the 'coincidence' of this subject being posted here at the forum while you are writing your article. And if you believe your theory is correct you must also believe that you have brought this discussion to you at this time as there is something you need to learn from it."
Or, something that I was in a unique place to respond to, having already prewritten the answer... since that response would be exactly consonant with (an on-target expression of) my True Will.
"
"Roll it back... Why did that individual incarnate as a black man in a time and place where this is the case? Until that questioln is answsered, we can't really know what his True Will is. Under the conditions you mentioned, his True Will must include the component of the struggles that he dropped himself right into the middle of."So, you're saying any problems people have, no matter how horrendous, they 'dropped themselves into'?"
You again are distorting what I've said. But (in case this is what you mean) I am saying that, yes, we pick the essential elements of our lives in advance and enter into them as an act of choice.
"You're saying that racism is a collaboration between the black person (or other race) and that the black person (or other race) is actually permitting the racism."
I didn't say that, and it may or may not be true. But I am saying that, given the context of racism, choosing an incarnation that has you step into a suppressive situation as one of those guaranteed to be suppressed is a choice. Different beings would make that choice for different reasons, including many who would make it in order to change it.
"That idea would also suggest that people wanted to go into concentration camps - that they collaborated with the Nazis."
I knew that one was coming... you could see it on the road a mile away
Part of the problenm is that you still think that the people in the concentration camps are separate from the Nazis who imprisoned them. That is, you aren't yet ready to step and be responsible for all of it. And that's entirely understandable.
[quiote]Another question I have you might be able to help with"
Of course, you don't seem to think I've helped with anything thus far, so that's probably an ingenuous lead-in.
"if people collaborate and permit crimes against them (as your theory suggests) then why punish people who commit crime?"
That's a social question. You ask it not knowing at all what my view is on whether they should be punished or not, but your question presumes you know my thoughts.
Your obsession with pedophilia suggests at least one possible reason for your insistence on victimhood, so I'll end this ping-pong with compassion... but, also, I'm ending it. (Hey, you triggered the Nazi rule!)
" did notice Jim that you avoided the second two examples. But if your argument is solid and you are sure of what you believe you don't have to avoid anything. Indeed, why would you want to?"
Not avoiding anything, just not wasting tinme when the answer is ultimately the same as what I gave. Time is precious. You'd already understand the answer if you weren't so committed to believing yourself a victim.
-
Jim, it appears you have met an obstacle you did not want to.
And no, I don't mean me. LOL.
At all times during this 'discussion' (to which you have avoided at all costs to yourself and beliefs) I have been polite and not used any offensive language. However, I think you may want to reconsider your use of 'crap' etc. in your post.
You are obviously upset as this topic has highlighted uncomfortable issues for you which you are not ready for, or capable of resolving at this time.
However, as you are obviously not ready to deal with those issues, and you are not at the necessary level yet, I will leave you to your 'beliefs'.
-
Amdis Spica,
As often as I have to roll my eyes at the egotistical behavior of new forum members like you (asking a question, then huffing at the response), I also have to thank you for playing your role in a dialogue that I (and not just me, I'm sure!) found to be perfectly apropos to my current spiritual situation.
So... thanks!
(and thanks to you as well, Jim
) -
93,
@Jim Eshelman said
"
We are each centered on a fundamental, indivisible point (Hadit) which, at the same time, is an inseparable part of a single whole So... there are several ways to answer your question, but one way is to observe that, while others appear to exist in their own right, they're ultimately unknowable by you, and functionally exist only as phenomena on your own movie screen. (This doesn't deny their integrity. It just means that you can't really know anything about them except as they exist in your experience, which, however much inspired by someone else, is ultimately inside of you.)"I'd say that Mr. Eshelman is on par here with what Jesus's 'Sermon on the Mount' is to Christians.
93 93/93
-
I agree with everything Jim wrote, even the old Celts and Druids thought and believed along the same line, and old satanists(to some extent).
Just about any alternative religion you run to is goin to tell you to take responsibility for yourself and your life, no excuses.
P.S. Jim, are you going to have book signings?
-
All this made me consider another way of putting a similar question:
So, for this reason or that, I have developed, as I grew up, certain psychological complexes and neuroses. I feel that due to these complexes, the nature of my True Will remains obscure to me. But then I considered: if all conditions of my birth and childhood, etc are chosen by my Self... then what does that say about my resultant blockages/neuroses/complexes? Are they manifestations of my True Will, or are they restrictions/veils covering up my True Will? Obviously, I feel like they're restrictions/veils because the more I know about them, and can clear them away, the more Love I feel capable of.
If the psychological complexes etc. that one develops through life are always manifestations of one's True Will, then how is it even possible for one person to restrict the True Will of another/ thwart their Rights? The best example I can imagine of someone thwarting the Rights/restricting the True Will of another is the example of child abuse. The more severe forms of child abuse are almost guaranteed to create an adult who's psychological complexes will remain uncleared, and their True Will will remain unknown and not done for the remainder of their life.
How could it be someone's True Will to never know and do their True Will? If all the conditions of one's childhood (in this example) were the Self's choice (i.e. True Will), then this paradox seems to come into play, and there is no such thing as restriction.
-
Bryan, consider the text of the 9th Path of Wisdom, describing the nature of Yesod: It tells us that Yesod "purifies the essence of the Sephiroth, proves and adapts the design of their images (or patterns), and establishes their unity. They remain united, without diminution or division."
That is, the lunar aspect of our constitution is adaptive. It adapts behavior for survival (for example). But the nature of its adaptations do not falsify the True Will. It remains "without diminution or division."
Now, the outward symptom of these adaptation - psychological patterns of the adaptive personality - can sometimes seem exactly the opposite of the True Will. But, when traced with sufficient attention, it will be found that they lead back to it and disclose it.
To take a simple but common example: One's inherent nature is to be open to and connected to others. As a result of of the openness and vulnerability that comes from this, one becomes hurt and therefore adaptively shields oneself and withdraws. The resulting isolation is so direct a consequence of the original, innocent impulse to intimately connect that we're compelled to call it a particular manifestation of that original impulse - even though, outwardly, it seems the exct opposite. (Were it not for the original trait, the extreme compensatory behavior wouldn't have been necessary.)
-
If a child's true will is, to continue the example, to be open and vulnerable, what would be the point of choosing to incarnate in a family that would abuse that trust, and lead to the child to neuroses that would stand in the way of the True Will until they were conquered?
It seems to me that you are suggesting that the abuse, from a True Will perspective is ultimately irrelevant (alternately, in line with what you first mention as "variation 1"). Do I misunderstand?
-
@Alias55A said
"Just about any alternative religion you run to is goin to tell you to take responsibility for yourself and your life, no excuses."
That hasn't been my experience. A lot of teachers emphasize the importance of surrendering to God/Tao/the Will of the Totality, floating down the river, etc. Some suggest that choosing, doing, and trying to control your own universe perpetuates and strengthens the ego. Some say the idea that "you" are running the show, making choices etc is all an illusion.
I don't really "like" these ideas... that is, while they may be true, I don't like seeing the world that way. When I went through a phase of having that outlook, I was basically just lazy.. I had no direction and all actions seemed equally valid. Since I've taken to the idea of sailing my own ship, my life has improved - I try to do things that are "good for me".
Still, I feel there must be some harmony between these two seemingly opposing outlooks, namely "you are in control of your life, do your thing and do it well" and "every action is a manifestation of the will of the Totality, the idea that an individual has any will is an illusion of the ego". Also I worry that believing that I'm in control and acting accordingly might strengthen the ego. I have seen this from experience... some people who try to control everything just end up in this big fight with the universe... I don't want to fight, I want to float.
The better part of me is saying "who cares about all this theory, just live!"
I would be interested in others (especially Jim's) outlooks on this subject. Thanks!-Sean
-
Thanks Jim, this is very interesting.
"The resulting isolation is so direct a consequence of the original, innocent impulse to intimately connect that we're compelled to call it a particular manifestation of that original impulse "
So the original impulse in this example shoots back and curls up upon itself in response (I'm reminded of the way a slug reacts when you touch its sensitive antenna). This effectively keeps the impulse from expressing itself (when retracted, the antenna cannot do its job). This seems to say that True Will can restrict itself from further expression (part of the job of a slug's antenna is to retract and protect itself). If our personalities are sort of like pattern-shells formed by the True Will ("essence of the Sephiroth"?) adapting to this bumpy, dirty world, then the personality's "won't power" does have its roots in the True Will. If there is no such thing as conflict (when it comes to True Will), then the restriction of True Will is in accord with True Will.
If this is accurate, then I guess the next question to ask would be AvshalomBinyamin's 'now what's the point of that?'
-
@Bryan said
"This seems to say that True Will can restrict itself from further expression."
I'm not sure we should credit that to the action of True Will. Rather, I'd give the adaptive aspect of the personality the credit. (The lunar within is, not the solar.)
Good analysis, though. Another common example to think about: Fear is Will turned inward (in the same way you described here). Instead of being effective outward, it becomes "in-grown;" one hurts onself by stabbing it inward. Hence fear.
" If our personalities are sort of like pattern-shells formed by the formed by the True Will ("essence of the Sephiroth"?) adapting to this bumpy, dirty world, then the personality's "won't power" does have its roots in the True Will."
Only in the sense that everything does. But it's more like a tool of True Will (casting a metaphor to the idea of distinguishing you from your hammer).
"If there is no such thing as conflict (when it comes to True Will), then the restriction of True Will is in accord with True Will."
I don't follow that logic flow. (However, from observation I'd say that sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.)
-
Jim,
How would you respond to those who say the choice of the individual is an illusion and that you are not actually in control of your life. And that trying to control and choose strengthens the ego. I'm not advocating this stance, I'm just curious as to how these two seemingly opposite points of view could be resolved. I remember you wrote that (I'm paraphrasing) doing your True Will and surrendering to God are the same idea, except that the symbols convey something different to the reader. Doing my True Will seems much more active, and well, exciting, and that is why I'm more drawn to that phrase than to surrender. But the difference I see is that you recommend that people see life as a continuous series of choices, and advocates of surrender simply say to drop resistance to what-is.
-Sean
-
@Ever Onward said
"How would you respond to those who say the choice of the individual is an illusion and that you are not actually in control of your life."
The same way I'd respond to a child who wasn't yet able to understand some basic fact: A mixture of patience, compassion, and not worrying too much about their ignorance.
You're really asking something close to: How would I respond to someone who insists the Earth is flat and all of these round-earth pretentions are an illusion. Except, in the case you raise, it's easier to understand why people are ignorant. Most people confuse themselves with their personalities, and they aren't even in control of themselves most of the time - how can they feel they are in control of the part of reality they insist on not calling themselves? I understand. But, unless they're seeking to move past it (i.e., unless they're asking for healing), there's nothing I can do about it but be patient.
"And that trying to control and choose strengthens the ego."
Interesting point, because the answer comes from two opposite sides. First (almost a digression), we can't skip the step of strengthening the ego. It has to be strong, healthy, well-built before we can functionally move past it and still count on it to do its job for us. But the direct answer is: Actually, it does quite the opposite. This doesn't work if you come at it from there.
Which makes me think of a third thing: We may be tripping over semantics here. The "control" isn't handled from the ego side. That doesn't work. The only part of ego action there that works is ego surrender to the deeper level of oneself which is making the actual choice.
"I remember you wrote that (I'm paraphrasing) doing your True Will and surrendering to God are the same idea, except that the symbols convey something different to the reader. Doing my True Will seems much more active, and well, exciting, and that is why I'm more drawn to that phrase than to surrender. But the difference I see is that you recommend that people see life as a continuous series of choices, and advocates of surrender simply say to drop resistance to what-is."
There's value in rebalancing whichever extreme you find yourself in, as long asd they still seem like divergent extremes. But, that aside... "Drop resistance to what-is" is not incompatible with "choose."
In fact... ah, thanks for drawing this out, it's possibly the main point: You don't fight the present. You choose the future. You can't choose the future without entirely accepting the present. (And you can't get what's really true about the present without accepting it. And, when you actually "get" the present, you need to actively choose that also.)
Don't confuse choosing your path with resisting the present.
-
Thanks for the response, Jim.
-Sean