Finding the 'Child Perspective'
-
Labyrinthus, 93
"When right wingers or conservatives are identified as such they will usually stare blankly back, blink once or twice and say "okay". But for some reason a large percentage of Lefties get offended. In fact they don't even like their political position to be identified at all. In the summer of 2008 nearly forty percent said they were conservative but something like only 20% admitted to being liberal. Yet election results shortly thereafter showed the numbers were actually more equal (at least!). I wonder why that is?"
My point about mud-slinging actually referred to both liberal and conservative positions, although I was directly addressing your own doctrinaire stance by making it. Thelema isn't about liberalism, conservatism, marxism, corporatism, socialism, fascism, nor even libertarianism, at least in its more doctrinaire forms, which are often just concealed conservatism. It's an all-embracing approach to life and living, on all planes.
Many of us derive a political philosophy from Thelema, but any such valid philosophy is going to emerge from exploration and expansion of what comes up in the process of uncovering the True Will. A set of a priori conclusions about a presumed 'correct' political stance is simply an obstruction to conducting that process, and a major obstruction at that. Everything gets turned upside down and inside out at some point, and excluding the possibility of adopting a position completely contrary to an existing one isn't going to help at all.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
draaaaging this back on topic:
[we already have one thread in the off-topic forum if anyone wants to play schoolboy punchups, I'd appreciate if this one doesn't join it
]@Jim Eshelman said
"A political example just came to mind from late in the last century. It was Bill Clinton's position on abortion laws.
The heavily polarized view, of course, was that one side took a stand for women's right to control their own bodies, and the other side took a stance that abortions were immoral.
Clinton took the position that, their disagreements aside, both groups shared common ground: nobody wanted there to be more abortions! He called on both sides to join, therefore, in the goal of reducing unwanted pregnancies.
This isn't a compromise. It isn't an "averaging." It's the fruit of taking the issue more within, rather than dealing with the manifest positions without. He didn't try to rearrange the pieces of the argument out on the table; instead, he took it deeper, backtracking along the perspectives until he found common ground which let each opposing position remain intact yet served both of them pretty well.
Come to think of it, this has always been part of Clinton's genius: The ability to intuit the common ground that lays under division factionalism. (Obviously he didn't always pull it off, but he was better at it than just about anybody.)"
Thanks for the example! I think I understand what you mean now. And this ties in with everything I've theorised about the Child up to this point: that it is both the marriage of the Father and the Mother while also being distinctly individual and unique; and that when we force together a 'pair of opposites' we get a product that is simultaneously 'both and neither'. As you mentioned with the example of Clinton, his final position involved neither of the two parties' policies, and yet at the same time managed to appease both of their core ideals.
Vav is spelt 'וו' (Vav-Vav) - thus "The Son is but the Son". Which is to say that although the Child is proof and product of its parents union, it is first and foremost its own being.
-
Compromise: A solution wherein both parties more or less equally fail to get what they want.
Quite often, though, in the absence of a real solution, it's usually better than the alternatives.
Usually... but not always. My favorite horror story of recent-past political compromise is the sub-prime mortgage debacle. Regrettably, both sides got what they wanted. Democrates wanted a way to provide permanent ownership housing for a particular large block of disadvantaged mothers (hence Fannie Mae etc.). Republicans objected for many reasons, but especially because they wanted less, rather than more, regulation in the real estate market. The brilliant solution (that's sarcastic BTW): Everybody gets what they want in that Congress authorized extremely high-risk ventures with no significant regulation and oversight!
Oversimplying a bit, but not much. Basically, if either side had exclusively gotten what it wanted we'd have been better off. If the Dems had gotten the risky programs introduced under very high levels of regulation, we'd have been fine. Or, if the Republicans had gotten their way, and the high-risk programs hadn't been created in the first place, we'd have been better off than it turned out. But instead, both parties more or less equally failed to get what they wanted, and shook hands on it: another day at the office for "compromise."
What we need instead are win-win solutions, which too often are confused with compromise, but are actually the opposite; because win-win solutions are those in which both parties get what they want to a fairly high level of mutual satisfaction.
In this sense, you can identify your Child Perspective as true win-win solutions.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Republicans objected for many reasons, but especially because they wanted less, rather than more, regulation in the real estate market. The brilliant solution (that's sarcastic BTW): Everybody gets what they want in that Congress authorized extremely high-risk ventures with no significant regulation and oversight!"
This is fairly typical of how the Left mis-characterizes the Right's position. It is not that Republicans wanted less oversight/regulation (recent DNC talking point, BTW), it is that the Republicans do not think ANY AMOUNT of regulation can prevent a bomb from going off once the fuse is lit. The idiot HUD program to create higher home ownership among the poor through the sub-prime loans was DESTINED TO FAIL. No amount of regulation or oversight could prevent it. A government employee watching a burning fuse will not change the inevitable outcome.
I just heard a report about how the recent government loan modification and $8000 tax-credit plan immediately began failing. After one month (1) 25% failed to make their house payment. After three months 60% missed a payment. Estimates are that over 70% will default on the restructured and new loans within the year. And guess what?... even though this idiot plan is failing miserably the dopey Congress has extended it till the end of September so it can be an even bigger failure!
When will people learn that we can not cure those who suffer from chronic money mis-management syndrome by giving them free money.
There is no such thing as a "government solution" for these types of problems. There is NO win-win solution when the government is involved. The child produced by government compromise in these matters results only in some sort of macabre "child of Frankenstein" abomination.
Another example is the Bernie Madoff ponzi scandal. The SEC went in to audit them and spent a week or so going over the books first hand, right there on the premises. Then they walk out and hand the operation a clean bill of health... !? !!!? A few months later the whole scam implodes. The government regulation and oversight didn't help a thing! So what is the first thing the Liberals clamor for? MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATION!!!
How is doing MORE of something that doesn't work make anything work better?
It is just mind boggling.
-
Mr. Eshelman said
"What we need instead are win-win solutions, which too often are confused with compromise, but are actually the opposite; because win-win solutions are those in which both parties get what they want to a fairly high level of mutual satisfaction."in looking for real life examples....
go to a playground or park and observe children at unstructured play.
If you want to see win win in action, I can think of no ground more fertile.Adults seem to have distortions and baggage that disallows most win win, and go for compromises which IME denotes that there is a loss.
Young children in social settings (espically semi-perminant, ie day care, or neighborhood groups- settings in which the child seems to understand that there will be regular interaction, as compared to the child who is taken once to a playground of strangers, in which case self preservation asserts) will suprise us in how they interact and treat each other. They will wait for a turn, they will participate in a game they dont want to-understanding that they will be rewarded with an activity they will like, they will be helpful to others and encourage, they go with the flow, they create, and solve......
But what they do, is nothing compared to what they dont do. (in most cases) they dont mistreat each other, and they dont exclude with out just cause. They dont compromise.
It seems to me that when adults "interfer" or police the interactions of children we dump our baggage so to speak on them, and create compromises. I caught myself doing this once, and even said out loud "life isnt fair" to my son, who claimed my compromise wasnt fair. I had to spend the next half hour eating my words, and trying to fix my inappropriate response.
I believe going to the source of the child perspective maybe helpful.
Now I know that there are many exceptions to this, and many can claim...."I saw kids doing the exact opposite of what you are claiming....." "Children are selfish" "Children are mean" and I am sure much more......
All I am trying to say, from my personal expierence working with children, and adults in educational and recreational situations......I have witnessed more beautiful examples of children creating win win situations. I have personally been able to apply to my personal life ideas I saw in action from children getting along. Wereas in adult situations dominance seemed to apply.
-
93,
"Veronica wrote:
I have witnessed more beautiful examples of children creating win win situations. I have personally been able to apply to my personal life ideas I saw in action from children getting along. Wereas in adult situations dominance seemed to apply."The key fact about childhood is that it includes a sense of wonder. A child's perspective is the opposite of dogmatism.
Conventionally, from childhood we navigate our way towards a fixed identity through which to manage our relationships with society, and then on to fixed ideas about what we think is 'reality.' But this Aeon seems to be about being far more flexible. The passages in Liber L about "Take your fill of love...." and "Eat rich foods and drink sweet wines..." or even "Fear not to undergo the curses" call for constant opening, not the firming up of opinions.
The process of working the Tree of Life echoes this. Can a person be conventionally liberal dealing with Geburah? Or conventionally conservative negotiating Netzach? We need to uncover all sides of our own picture to be able to express the Child Perspective. And this isn't a done-and-forget-about-it event, but a constant unveiling.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Edward Mason said
"The key fact about childhood is that it includes a sense of wonder. A child's perspective is the opposite of dogmatism. "
Yes!
-
93 Mr. Mason
Thank you for sharing that, I espically liked this part (as I was eating a most scrumptious Italian cookie;)
"The passages in Liber L about "Take your fill of love...." and "Eat rich foods and drink sweet wines..." or even "Fear not to undergo the curses" call for constant opening, not the firming up of opinions."
I recall my gymnastics teacher explaining how being flexible was the key to avoiding injury, and allows us to perform.
I believe that Lovelock, in his book the Gaian hypothesis talked about how life is classified, or what the scientific definitions of life would be if they had to define it, the parameters for space explorations....He spoke about entrophy, and ridigidity.....things not being capable of moving, or fluid. Being fluid, and allowing movement is key to survival. When we loose our fluid (ie in womb we are almost 100% fluid, but upon 70 y.o we are almost 50%) we loose our life.
On another note I just thought about the Mer Ka Ba meditation. In the breath work and visualization that it entails, you have the masculine star tetrahedron spinning in one direction (at its own speed) and "superimposed" over that you have the female star tetrahedron spinning in the opposite direction (at "her" speed) and this combined action.......
well I think it would be safe to say that the end result of this meditation the me-ka-ba itself is the union, the product, the child of, so to speak. I say this as this meditation is used to physically alter the dna, and bring into being/ manifestion certain things.
So I guess that excersize could be considered another example, in a way.
-
93 Mr. Mason
Thank you for sharing that, I espically liked this part (as I was eating a most scrumptious Italian cookie;)
"The passages in Liber L about "Take your fill of love...." and "Eat rich foods and drink sweet wines..." or even "Fear not to undergo the curses" call for constant opening, not the firming up of opinions."
I recall my gymnastics teacher explaining how being flexible was the key to avoiding injury, and allows us to perform.
I believe that Lovelock, in his book the Gaian hypothesis talked about how life is classified, or what the scientific definitions of life would be if they had to define it, the parameters for space explorations....He spoke about entrophy, and ridigidity.....things not being capable of moving, or fluid. Being fluid, and allowing movement is key to survival. When we loose our fluid (ie in womb we are almost 100% fluid, but upon 70 y.o we are almost 50%) we loose our life.
On another note I just thought about the Mer Ka Ba meditation. In the breath work and visualization that it entails, you have the masculine star tetrahedron spinning in one direction (at its own speed) and "superimposed" over that you have the female star tetrahedron spinning in the opposite direction (at "her" speed) and this combined action.......
well I think it would be safe to say that the end result of this meditation the me-ka-ba itself is the union, the product, the child of, so to speak. I say this as this meditation is used to physically alter the dna, and bring into being/ manifestion certain things.
So I guess that excersize could be considered another example, in a way.
-
I like the examples of childhood interaction.
I remember observing a couple of barbecues with different groups of people, where large numbers of children attended with my wife.
The first was a barbecue where most of the people were of an upper middle class socio-economic background (some liberal, some conservative, politically). Grownups were talking in terms of "my seat" "your seat" "my plate", and were hovering over the children to protect them from dirt and bumps. Children were constantly getting into fights with each other about "my toy" "my turn" etc. There were over 6 big tantrums in just a couple hours.
The second, had a similar number of people, children, and age groups. It was a barbecue where most of the people were aging punk rockers, of lower to middle socio-economic background (some liberal, some conservative, politically). I didn't hear anyone mention "my seat" or "my plate", and while they kept an eye on the kids from a distance, they didn't rush in if a child tripped. During the entire barbecue, there was ONE incident of a kid crying, because her popsicle had melted while she was playing. Kids shared, and took turns.
Politics had nothing to do with the difference. Socio-economic background, personal history may have, but it was a small sample size, so it's hard to say. Attitude definitely made a difference.
The second group seemed to typify the ideal balance of a Nuit-Hadit combined perspective: Teach and demonstrate a belief in the idea that we are all connected, and then give people freedom and trust. The first group had it backword. They taught each other that everyone was separate, and then they hovered over each other to enforce rules of safety and conformity.
-
@Edward Mason said
"93,
Conventionally, from childhood we navigate our way towards a fixed identity through which to manage our relationships with society, and then on to fixed ideas about what we think is 'reality.' But this Aeon seems to be about being far more flexible. The passages in Liber L about "Take your fill of love...." and "Eat rich foods and drink sweet wines..." or even "Fear not to undergo the curses" call for constant opening, not the firming up of opinions.
The process of working the Tree of Life echoes this. Can a person be conventionally liberal dealing with Geburah? Or conventionally conservative negotiating Netzach? We need to uncover all sides of our own picture to be able to express the Child Perspective. And this isn't a done-and-forget-about-it event, but a constant unveiling.
93 93/93,
Edward"
To be honest I find quite the opposite here, i see some individuals tending to hide behind a group identity[misery loves company] which is more contrived than actual, and this to me is more indicative of cowardice.it is apparent someone having a high self-esteem seems repulsive to some here who while claiming to be concerned with the collective, hypocritically do not seem to hesitate to use patronizing and derogatory language towards others,[ like the dog you must keep outside lest he poop in the master's bedroom and infect the whole house with his stench] while simultaneously avoiding answering any questions that might hint at the truth of their own inner conflicts and personal shortcomings. Acknowledging one's present inclinations/position has nothing to do with an unwillingness to change; conservative or liberal leanings may have little to do with conventionality,[For example Ron Paul is a far from a conventional Conservative/Republican] however personal honesty offers a starting point and hence methodology by which one assimilates and integrates into the external already existing world outsoide of the esoteric world, which as Jim mentioned earlier is the Western dharma: hence a mind that can seamlessly transition between the exoteric and esoteric worlds with the least complications and convolutions seems both the more balanced individual and the greater magician to me. If i was unwilling to change i would never admit to conservative leanings[which i did in spite of myself] when a few months ago i started of a thread practically as a Freudo-Marxist!! I have not seen any other example of ANYBODY changing a previous political stance here on this board.. so much for open-mindedness!!!! Much is apparent and contrived not actual, and BTW i have not abandoned my quest for a new political model entirely, but rather am taking my time to go through all the necessary steps organically. objectively i think I represent one of the most Child-like attitudes here, because I do not put a limit to what i can or cannot do or become, despite what others say or think or how they wish to limit me to their own mediocre self-image e.g. self-initiation, I have never lost my Child-like wonder of the world despite nay-sayers and pessimists.
-
In rereading the original topic, (trying my part to stay on topic:) and thinking politically.....(not something I am naturally inclinded to do) I thought about the political structure of the First People, specifically the Eastern Woodlands, and the Iroquios Nation. From my understanding of this system they had the masculine elders, the Chiefs of the Tribes but also the Clan Mothers. In this system of structure they had a definate marriage the two.
It has been taught that the "American" founding fathers we very familiar with this system and may have modeled parts of our american gov. on thier teachings. Ihave heard that the League of women voters (which was created as a model of the Clan Mothers) used to have much more sway over our government, but apparently this role was removed.There may be new ideas to be found in these old ways.....
-
All Seeing Eye, 93,
"To be honest I find quite the opposite here, i see some individuals tending to hide behind a group identity[misery loves company] which is more contrived than actual, and this to me is more indicative of cowardice.it is apparent someone having a high self-esteem seems repulsive to some here who while claiming to be concerned with the collective, hypocritically do not seem to hesitate to use patronizing and derogatory language towards others,[ like the dog you must keep outside lest he poop in the master's bedroom and infect the whole house with his stench] while simultaneously avoiding answering any questions that might hint at the truth of their own inner conflicts and personal shortcomings. "
Fair enough. But most people would keep their personal changes off a publicly accessible board like this. What goes into my diary doesn't get onto this site, for example. And I do see politics as being one of the less fruitful areas for discussion on things Thelemic. Crowley's own primary area of activity was changing consciousness, with changing social and politcial opinions being a secondary concern. if you think that statement is provocative, look at the list of his book-titles. They're almost exclusively about magick and mysticism.
I've kept a blog for over five years, and when I read some of what I wrote three or four years ago, I don't recognise the person who came up with the material. I'm more conservative than I was then, even though I react with bafflement at the bitterly dismissive tone of what often passes for conservatism in the U.S. today. But addressing politics as politics strikes me as a futile, zero-sum game.
This might be a digression that needs a separate thread, but I see two general communities using this site. As someone who only lived in the U.S. for three months, and that a long time ago (though I visit two or three times a year), I often see what appears to be an internal American discourse going on here, loosely based around the polarizing nature of the two political parties. No other country I've ever lived in on visited has that paradigm to deal with, and it strikes me as deeply harmful to the U.S. itself because it deadlocks so easily. A third political force would volatilize the log-jammed political process. All the democracies are in some degree of crisis right now, but the U.S. seems to be paralyzed around implementing new ideas more than others.
The problem I have as someone who isn't a U.S. citizen is that I can't see the U.S. as the sole standard-bearer on things Thelemic, whereas many people who post here do so. The U.S. is a major force for open dialogue, but it also looks (to me as an outsider) excessively solipsistic. Its Thelemic community is often stuck on seeing its own debates about what constitutes freedom as the foundation of all Thelemic discourse. There seems no irony, no detachment, about this. The 'other' community(ies) would recognize important discussions happening here, while not finding much meaning or usefulness in the liberal/conservative slug-fest that has recently consumed so much bandwidth.
I recoiled from Labyrinthus' comment, where he said of Crowley (July 15, 11.27 pm):
"He was a patriot because that is the psychologically healthy attitude of a Spiritually advanced being. "
The idea of attachment to a national identity being part of the psychology of "a Spiritually advanced being" struck me as bizarre, since increasing non-attachment to such things would be a sign that Spirit was taking over from more mundane factors. Ask any Messiah or Bodhisattva. We all have roots in one country or another, but for me, the U.K., where I lived my first 20 years, is increasingly a part of history. I chose to go elsewhere, and the 'country' I identify with doesn't have geographical borders.The Child Perspective looked for in this thread can't be defined solely within the socio-political parameters of the U.S. Those parameters form a good jumping-off point, but if the discussion keeps veering back into a tiresome liberal-conservative contest, it becomes lost. I can only see Thelema making any sense as a planet-wide shift.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Frater LA said
"Labyrinthus, my post to you had nothing to do with liberals or conservatives.
"But my reply to your perceived request for clarification of my prior comment did. If you say,
"Sheesh, man. At least admit that you really want to be challenged to express your defense of statements like that. Otherwise, you are simply embodying ..."It sounded like you were simply begging for clarification -- which I gave... (a simple 'thank you' will do). You may not like politics when it isn't your brand but ... then you had to further obfuscate with the following;
@Frater LA said
"...of your own ego-positions and defend it with nothing but indignity that your opinion be challenged by those so apparently inferior to you that they do not agree with you"
indignity?...how so? and "so apparently inferior to you"?? where did you get that?... How did I identify anyone as inferior to me? ... what are you talking about?
Or are you just making stuff up?
?
-
@Edward Mason said
"The problem I have as someone who isn't a U.S. citizen is that I can't see the U.S. as the sole standard-bearer on things Thelemic, whereas many people who post here do so."
"many people who post here do so" ? Please show how that has been done.
Where has anyone other than you "done" that?
-
Labyrinthus, 93,
""many people who post here do so" ? Please show how that has been done.
Where has anyone other than you "done" that?"
The majority of contributors here are based in the U.S. If you look over the posts from the past half-decade since this site opened up, you'll see huge numbers from people arguing Thelemic subjects, especially socio-political ones, from a U.S. perspective. As a moderator, I've read or skimmed several thousand posts over the years, and I think it's a completely fair statement.
I wouldn't expect it to be otherwise, but my point was that we need to step beyond nationally based positions. In Thelema, we embrace the world as it is, but we accept that its arrangement into sovereign states reorganizes itself every few decades. Taking the U.S. political paradigm as the basis for discussion of how to find the Child Perspective of this thread gives, as I noted, a good place from which to start, but not necessarily a good one at which to finish.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Edward Mason said
"The majority of contributors here are based in the U.S. If you look over the posts from the past half-decade since this site opened up, you'll see huge numbers from people arguing Thelemic subjects, especially socio-political ones, from a U.S. perspective."
Well... I think "perspective" is a prerequisite for anything that one might want to express on an internet forum ....
All who pour or spill from a vessel pour from a cup of some sort, like it or not. At some point the honest spiller will wise up and belly up and admit the reality of the cup from which he spilleth.From the Thrice Boiled, linguini spined declaration of "I have no country" (except that ethereal realm way up there somewhere...)... to the, 'Unto Death "God &Country" zealot', there is likely some reasonable middle ground for sincere seekers. But all this bullshpit about ignoring one's nation of origin is pure baloney.
And... you still didn't answer the question.
-
@Edward Mason said
"I wouldn't expect it to be otherwise, but my point was that we need to step beyond nationally based positions."
I got busy and left this part out. This is one of the really big cracks in the collective European insanity presently unfolding.
What a bunch of looney tunes half twits....
like cuttin' off their balls to spite their WWII shell-shocked asses...
get over it
-
Labyrinthus, 93
"And... you still didn't answer the question."
I wrote two paragraphs explicitly responding to your question. I think you're just enjoying playing games, as exemplified by your odd rant over Europe above, which is a non sequitur in relation to the quote from me at the top of it.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Edward Mason said
"I wrote two paragraphs explicitly responding to your question."
Yes, I realize that you responded. I was pointing out that you did not "answer".
And the following was hardly a non sequitur but a directly relevant reply to the quote that it followed.
edit
[] sorry... it is time to call it a day ... the whole 'be a man' routine generally pukes me out... that line was a little outta line... if only a little, still, please pardon me and
g'nite.