Finding the 'Child Perspective'
-
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. -
@Labyrinthus said
" 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."
My garden does not care if I spill water from a Ming Vase, or a plastic doll teacup.....it cares about what is spilling out.
In my teachings, everything has the same origin. My beloved AC taught everyman is a star. Everywoman is a star.
Truthfully, as a lady I will say I am beyond bored of listening to childish name calling.
I have been taught that life implies limitations.
To be alive, to feel, to know
there has to be **self defined **limits.Some people like little cages
some people like big cagesfight for your limiations and they surely will be yours.
the first thing I teach to the children of this world
is not the Law
but the golden rule.treat others the way you would like to be treated.
"He who expierences unity of life sees his own Self in all beings, and all beings in his own Self, and looks on everything with an impartial eye." -Siddhartha Gautama
I personally think 2x times before I write, I have been on bulletin boards for over 20 years now, and have had the immense pleasure of conversing with people all over the globe. I have been humbled on many occasions because of pride in my country. My father was military, and a history teacher to boot. Patriotism is not only ridgily taught, but enforced in schools. When I began home schooling my son, the only issue which the state wanted to know was, how am I planning on intructing my kids to be good patriots and citizens of USA. They did not care what math program, or english books......that says mouthfuls about what I concider the brainwashing of Americans.
Dont get me wrong, each day I give thanks that I am an American woman. For I think (therefore I am;) I have less limitations imposed upon me then any of my Sisters everywhere. And I embrace my freedoms and celebrate them, consciously aware that my Sisters (and Brothers) are in bondage all over the globe.
Children seem to remember the womb, the tight controlling walls of the Uterus, limititing them. They seem to know that they cannot stay with in those limits anylonger, yet to be born will hurt (we all used to have scars of birth-the bumps and cracks in our head-cessarian births do not, and I wonder if this may be an issue for somepeople, I would love to read any research on that!).
We are taught as adults in a magickal community to have a childlike wonder of the world.....what would the tree say if it talked, what does a dog think about a frog, how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootiesroll lollipop???? But I dont think as adults you can just switch on that trait. I can ask all the absurd childlike questions, I can loose myslef in play dough and crayons, I can make my dollie dance and dress her.....but I am not 100%.....I am limited, by my own self.....caged and trapped becuase of culturally held beliefs.
I have to think about what is for dinner
I have to think about washing the dishesI realize that I dont "have" to do these things. I do them because I want to, because I want to play this role.
A child doesnt have to stop having fun to throw in a load of laundry. children do not want those limits, and while fight and scream when you reduce thier cages, and install our culturally imposed limits on them.
I am one of those horrid moms who let her kids play in dirt, with bugs and toads. I let my kids explore and create and knock down these stupid civilized rules....like not questioning adults, or going off the paved trail, or any other silly restriction used to control and subdue. I do not allow my children (an this includes all my charges) to sink to name calling, insulting, or bullying. IME those sort of actions reduce, limit, and control where you can go from and to.
If my son calls my daughter a coward because she will not climb up to a certain height, he has labelled her, and reduced what she is (in his belief structure). She is now a coward and it would be a contradiction in his reality if she ever did anything that was not cowardly, or brave. My son knows that that fact is pretty much impossible, that she may be acting cowardly in this one instance, but to brand her as a coward forever is wrong, and inappropriate. What is his motive in name calling? Is it for self gratifaction, or possibly to motivate her? IDK. But I just thought about the male gorilla, beating his chest and hooting to another male.....so possibly name calling is something instinctual......
In her reality, she felt fear of going to high, and so she was smart to listen to her feelings and not attempt to do something that she knew she was not fully capable of doing at the time. In her reality she is not a coward.
The magickal implactions of this fact of name calling are profound, and IMO deserve deep contemplation.
I agree with Mary Poppins....and a spoonfull of sugar....whistle while you work...that sort of attitude is key to finding and having the child perspective.
-
@_aLL_seEIng_eYe_ said
"The Child perspective could then very well be impaction at a distance; Larger and more diverse virtual groups such as this. which could provide for both a more complete collective and greater individual freedom, its like saying that there is no initiation ultimately but self-intiation but this cant happen without the help of others..ironically I think this pretty much describes my stance at this point. "
This is something that I have wondered about for a loooong time. Shortly after I began reading about enlightenment and expanding consciousness on the inner planes I threw myself into the recommended practice, meditations, mantras, etc.
Within a few months, as I recall, I had an Inner Experience which I felt was very much like an initiation ceremony. I had not actually joined with a particular group or participated in anything like an outer initiation in a group setting. It just happened. Over the years a variety of experiences on the 'inner planes' began to filter into my worldly consciousness and daily world view. I could sense a Current that I associated with a certain 'posture' of awareness and focus and intent. This was all outside of any sort of initiation related to a formal group in an outer, physical setting. When I see groups like the Golden Dawn, Rosicrucians, Thelema, etc. I wonder about the benefit afforded by joining up and pursuing an outer, physical initiation ceremony.
The gospel teaching about: "Except ye become as little children ye shall not see the Kingdom of Heaven" and "Except that ye be born again of Water and Spirit..." really became curious scenarios that I did not feel that I had a crisp understanding of. Were these references to initiation ceremonies?
So I wonder... what is the difference between a spontaneous, inner self-initiation and a contrived, outer self-initiation and an external other/group initiation?
-
@Labyrinthus said
"Within a few months, as I recall, I had an Inner Experience which I felt was very much like an initiation ceremony. I had not actually joined with a particular group or participated in anything like an outer initiation in a group setting. It just happened. Over the years a variety of experiences on the 'inner planes' began to filter into my worldly consciousness and daily world view. I could sense a Current that I associated with a certain 'posture' of awareness and focus and intent. This was all outside of any sort of initiation related to a formal group in an outer, physical setting. When I see groups like the Golden Dawn, Rosicrucians, Thelema, etc. I wonder about the benefit afforded by joining up and pursuing an outer, physical initiation ceremony."
I would say, that there is something to be gained by finding a competent guru to initiate you in the western system. I realized that I was merely playing at magick and self-initiation when my teacher (now Neophyte) took my hands and opened the Sephiroth of the Middle Pillar. Then again every form of emancipation enslaves, I guess it all matters the gilding of your chains...
-
Labyrinthus, 93,
"So I wonder... what is the difference between a spontaneous, inner self-initiation and a contrived, outer self-initiation and an external other/group initiation?"
In a nutshell - depth and breadth. Self-initiation (been there, done that, had the sense to go further) occurs within the context of the existing personality structures. There's nobody there to help us break down those structures, and open to deeper understanding. We don't have the mirror that a proper school offers, so (to stay on thread) the Child Perspective is limited to a few degrees of arc.
Initiation taken with a group means the initiate is exposed to a curriculum of self-analysis that leads to self-criticism, in a context that erodes the more stubbornly evasive, ego-protecting parts of ourselves. The other major positive is that we get to watch other people go through the same thing. If you were in a sound group, with reasonably sane leadership, I don't think you'd have let yourself make that 'Thrice Boiled, linguini spined' remark to me in the first place. You'd have learned, as people revealed more of themselves in the group context than normally emerges in friendships, that conventional ideas such as patriotic attachment can in fact dissolve for some people, if that's in their personal dharma. For others, such a concept would remain important. Priorities for individuals vary enormously, and what works for person A is irrelevant to person B.
The Child Perspective involves accepting that in ever increasing swaths of arc. It could even make you feel okay about some liberals.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Veronica said
"Truthfully, as a lady I will say I am beyond bored of listening to childish name calling. "
There was no name calling there, Veronica.
There was a negative characterization of what I consider not just weak but dangerous viewpoint in a negative light. The linguini comment was due to my past conflicts in a group that was more European based and my positive attitude toward my country was a sticking point for them. I noticed that Europeans in general are terrified of anything remotely resembling nationalism. I believe it is related to what I called WWII shell-shock.
There is a HUGE difference between identifying an action as cowardly and calling someone a coward in direct fashion. I have noticed that many people lack the ability to discern the two.
As far as the schools go, I was educated in the 1950's and 1960's and relatively speaking, there is essentially no patriotic indoctrination going on these days that even comes close to what was being taught by 2000 or so (based on what I saw helping with homework). It is even bordering on outright negativity towards one own nation. Genocide against the natives (that never happened), Imperialistic conquest (that never happened), etc.
I believe a positive attitude towards one own nation is a good thing and has a functional place in Spiritual Unfoldment. A recognition of a nation's errors is good but many today seem to obsessed with self-flagellation to a destructive degree. A balance needs to be found.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"There was no name calling there, Veronica.
There was a negative characterization of what I consider not just weak but dangerous viewpoint in a negative light."
There seems to be a lesson to learn here: That what you call "a negative characterization," Veronica calls "name calling."
It seems to me that real communication often arises out of actually understanding what the other person is saying rather than fixating on their word choice, and that you already understood what she was saying.
"There is a HUGE difference between identifying an action as cowardly and calling someone a coward in direct fashion. I have noticed that many people lack the ability to discern the two."
That's an extraordinarily liberal perspective for you. It's what left-wing educators of the '70s and '80s called "criticizing the behavior, not the child." It was IMVHO a really fine approach that (among other fine approaches) later deteriorated into excessive "political correctness."
(In what you might regard as an extraordinarily conservative perspective for me, I should admit that, as a self-identified liberal, I've long detested "PC propriety." For example, I regret that the election of John Paul II as pope pretty much put an end to rampant Polish jokes, and (in most contexts) I'd rather use the actual "N word" than use the words "the N word." I detest people being so psychologically bound up that a couple of words or a joke can routinely trigger their reactivity - it makes them weaker. On the other hand, I'm all for exercising reasonable courtesy in conversation with people, and not unnecessarily and knowingly triggering reactivity. Etc. etc. and so forth as I ramble.)
"I believe a positive attitude towards one own nation is a good thing and has a functional place in Spiritual Unfoldment. A recognition of a nation's errors is good but many today seem to obsessed with self-flagellation to a destructive degree. A balance needs to be found."
I agree with this more or less as written, though I might use different words. For example, instead of "Spiritual Unfoldment" in this sentence I'd use "psychological health," which I regard as a prerequisite for spiritual unfoldment.
OTOH I think it important to distinguish our mortal and immortal aspects - our transient, personal, biological aspects (which, by genetics and territory, most definitely includes defense of family, community, and country) from our eternal, transpersonal, spiritual aspects (to which issues like nationality are indifferent). As long as we are spiritual beings with occasional physical experiences, we need to give play to both aspects, but not necessarily to let either of them determine the direction of the other.
I see "my country, right or wrong" not as meaning, "I will say we are right, no matter what!" but as meaning, "I own my passionate loyalty to my country [as to my friends] both when it is right and when it is wrong... and I regard it to be the highest form of patriotism to call it out publicly when I think it's wrong."
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"It seems to me that real communication often arises out of actually understanding what the other person is saying rather than fixating on their word choice, and that you already understood what she was saying."
I used to see it that way and still do to a degree but in certain situations I have found that "give 'em an inch and they take a mile" will very often set in when protracted (and especially political or emotional) disagreements are involved. The failure to use precise and disciplined rhetoric will degrade and then one is soon being held to account for not what was said but what was incorrectly paraphrased.
@Jim Eshelman said
"That's an extraordinarily liberal perspective for you. It's what left-wing educators of the '70s and '80s called "criticizing the behavior, not the child.""
Yes, I was very liberal and a registered Dem for the first half of my adult life, donating to ACLU, etc. and that is still good advice.@Jim Eshelman said
"I agree with this more or less as written, though I might use different words. For example, instead of "Spiritual Unfoldment" in this sentence I'd use "psychological health," which I regard as a prerequisite for spiritual unfoldment."
This advances my point a bit, thanks. I really meant 'Spiritual' as opposed to simple psychology there. The self respect one gains once past the early crisis stages does extend from the immediate self to family and community. To see and recognize this is a genuine step in unfoldment, IMHO.
@Jim Eshelman said
"I detest people being so psychologically bound up that a couple of words or a joke can routinely trigger their reactivity - it makes them weaker. On the other hand, I'm all for exercising reasonable courtesy in conversation with people, and not unnecessarily and knowingly triggering reactivity."
This is a good point, but the negative reaction is inevitable when certain ideas are expressed. There are things I want to say. Some or even most, especially in a Liberal community, will react negatively but I keep looking for the occult community that knows how to process an idea that conflicts with their world view. If I were to withhold the ideas that I want to express because I knew that some would react negatively, I would have to withhold 90% of what I wanted to say. On an open forum this is almost inevitable.
@Jim Eshelman said
"I see "my country, right or wrong" not as meaning, "I will say we are right, no matter what!" but as meaning, "I own my passionate loyalty to my country [as to my friends] both when it is right and when it is wrong... and I regard it to be the highest form of patriotism to call it out publicly"
Yes. As I said, it is good to recognize the error but to fixate on the negative and deny the positive is not healthy psychology.
-
I find it to be in rather bad taste for so-called Thelemites to waste such time bickering over something as arbitrary as politics.
I truly hope that this much effort is put into magically practices and the discussion of worthy topics.
Simply read this thread from beginning to this point and see how much anyone's perspective has been enhanced by this trivial discussion. I do believe the "Child Perspective," as a group of adults have reduced themselves to children shouting at each other on a playground, totally missing the point that forums ought to be fun and engaging. Instead I have found name calling and foot stomping. It is very very disheartening for a new comer to a forum such as this to see this crap.
Be adults and be magicians and try to keep the discussions relevant to topic without insulting each others beliefs, countries, or race. 
72
-
@TheSilent1 said
"I find it to be in rather bad taste for so-called Thelemites to waste such time bickering over something as arbitrary as politics. "
Silent1, politics is applied Spirituality, a good deal of the time. Not on the mundane level, of course. But it is there on a very critical level.
This idea might take a bit of getting used to for those deeply indoctrinated in the common manner of infoldment, but it is plain as day to those with sufficient experience in the consciousness expansion/growth field.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"Silent1, politics is applied Spirituality, a good deal of the time. Not on the mundane level, of course. But it is there on a very critical level."
Before you define what Politics is in relation to "Spirituality", please define the word "spirit."
Sorry for the trick question.
@Labyrinthus said
"This idea might take a bit of getting used to for those deeply indoctrinated in the common manner of infoldment, but it is plain as day to those with sufficient experience in the consciousness expansion/growth field."
I could only get used to this idea only through a tremendous effort.
Now, politics is the process by which any group of two or more make a collective decision. That is fine by me and quite easy to understand and accept. When my wife and I discuss who will do what chore and what we shall eat
, that is politics in it's most basic form.The problem occurs when one party believes that they know what is best for another. I may be well suited to eat dirt and derive nourishment thereby, and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I can go into the world and proclaim the virtues of my diet to the world and that is OK too. I become a tyrant when I try to force my dirt into the bellies of others and mock, torture, and/or murder those who will not follow my particular way of thinking.
Perhaps the missing elements is seduction. People (especially Americans... I am an American and I am married to an extremely fierce feminist who is also a linguini spined European. Trust me when I say: she would destroy you entirely for your remarks.
) rarely seduce each other anymore, or for that matter allow themselves to be seduced. Children are masters of seduction and as adults we could learn a lot from them. Success in magick (especially invocation) depends upon seduction, and if we are to make progress in our knowledge and conversation we have to allow ourselves to be seduced by the Angel.If I want someone to go along with my ideas, rather than shout someone into submission, I show them how well my way works for me. Which in itself is seduction.
That is how I "apply spirituality."
72
-
@TheSilent1 said
"Now, politics is the process by which any group of two or more make a collective decision. That is fine by me and quite easy to understand and accept. When my wife and I discuss who will do what chore and what we shall eat
, that is politics in it's most basic form."I get the usefulness of this point in your overall message, but wanted to nit-pick about definitions. I think politics requires a minimum of three people. Two people can either agree or disagree. With three people, one can forge an alliance with someone else against the third. That's politics!