Nothing in this blog can be believed. If you think that anything in this blog is true or factual, you'll need to verify it from another source. Do you understand? No? Then read it again, and repeat this process, until you understand that you cannot sue me for anything you read here. Also, having been sucked into taking part in the mass-murder of more than 3 million Vietnamese people on behalf of U.S. Big Business "interests", I'm as mad as a cut snake (and broke) so it might be a bit silly to try to sue me anyway...

Friday, May 13, 2005

on stumbling and falling....

I used to be into a thousand "new age" things: The est Training. The Forum. A Course in Miracles. Buddhism, in particular Zen and Vipassana. And 996 others. But I failed them all in spectacular fashion. I could not break out of my prison of fear and self-doubt. Then, in 1995, I totally crashed, and the Vietnam war came back to haunt me big-time. Since then, thousands have said to me "pick up thy bed and walk" and I have replied "fuck off, all of you wannabe Christs, until you can walk on water!"

But all of the "wisdoms" I've eclected over the years are still, by and large, theoretically true for me , even though I cannot apply too many of them. Here's one I found today which I thought I'd share with those of you more enlightened beings who might have a small chance in hell of applying it:
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous talented and fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn't serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us, it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.

- Marianne Williamson, A Return To Love,1992.
Of course, we agnostics and atheists will have to do something about the references to this highly debatable "God" thingie...

And another thing: There are recurrent attributions of the above quote to Nelson Mandela although, as has been pointed out to me, there is no evidence, as far as I can ascertain, which supports this.
.

8 Comments:

Blogger Gerry said...

First it was Kent, now it's bloody Deirdre... Why can't she leave perfectly good "quotes" alone... ;-)

Deirdre has sent me an email with a link to a transcript of Mandela's speech which suggests, by the absence of any reference to it, that he did not read from Williamson's book.

If this transcript, from the ANC's own website, is deemed an authoritative source, then Mandela didn't quote Williamson.

So it appears I stand corrected. I did have doubts. Originally, when skimming the 8410 references to it on the Web, I found that nearly as many people attributed it to Mandela as did to Williamson and a few suggested that Mandela quoted Williamson. Which is why I decided to attribute it the way I did.

I did at the time see the ANC's transcript but I had no way of knowing if they themselves were or were not indulging in any "creative editing", so, short of an authoritative, independent earwitness's unedited account of Mandela's speech, I have no bloody idea as to whether or not Mandela may have whipped out a copy of Williamson's book just prior to stepping down from the lecturn and saying something like "Oh, by the way dudes and dudettes, here's a little quote I'd like to share with you: ... "

BLOODY PEDANTS! :-)

May 17, 2005 4:35 AM  
Blogger Deirdre said...

"Persnickety", damn you! "Pedantic" is when I point out there were speechES, speeches: ie. two of the things. And from the one in Pretoria on 10 May 1994:
Our daily deeds as ordinary South Africans must produce an actual South African reality that will reinforce humanity's belief in justice, strengthen its confidence in the nobility of the human soul and sustain all our hopes for a glorious life for all.

Which hopefully brings this back to the point of your post: is there a nobility of the human soul? Are we only afraid of our greatness? It doesn't feel that way to me, but what do you think?

May 17, 2005 12:18 PM  
Blogger Gerry said...

"Pernickety" drat it! Do try to get it right, Deirdre...

And you did indeed refer to plural speeches, Ms Pedant... :-)

Is there a nobility of the human soul? I have no idea. I failed all that stuff, remember?

Are we only afraid of our greatness? Erich Fromm reckons we're afraid of freedom (read his book Fear of Freedom.) Me? I'm afraid of almost everything. Even my own shadow and loud noises. But that's another story, eh.

May 17, 2005 12:53 PM  
Blogger Deirdre said...

Ditto.

May 18, 2005 1:51 AM  
Blogger TeilhardD said...

I don't understand the comments thing here too well. I'm not sure who was posting what but I will say I do find this whole blog very impressive. The work of a great mind working to unravel a huge spider web of entanglement it has found itself within. I pray peace comes to whoever it is that needs it.
I did notice something about amoral people but didn't really agree with what the writer was saying in that he was saying amoral people beleive themselves to have transcended morality. That's equivalent to having transcended good and evil so until they can literally walk upon water I want to say that I do beleive that most if not all of us, we who are human, know that isn't possible. Therefore amorality is really a form of mere walking away from the higher conscience which we all seem to do in about our teen years. I'm trying to say that I don't hold such a high esteem of the inner mental workings of 'amorality' as the original work seemed to imply that amoral people had somehow managed some neat trick of the psyche by which they bestowed upon themselves freedom from morality.
On the contrary, arn't they really just sinners? In the most meaningfull definition of the term?
As in they know full well they do wrong but they choose to do it.
They choose not to have a Higher Guardian Angel or whatever you want to call it (Superego, Holy Ghost)
and that's the greatest sin of all, if I remember correctly.
;)
Personally, I think it's great to vent if you need to. I like reading a good angry venting once in a while. Helps to offset the strange 'I'm SO HAPPY' blogs I find in here
with which I have no ability to identify.

May 19, 2005 3:46 PM  
Blogger Gerry said...

Hi Teilhard de Chardin! Welcome! Of course, the first thing I will have to set you straight about is that your god is the central prop for a pavlovian myth put about by a bunch of misogyinistic, patriarchal, racist, control freaks. Other than that, I quite like what the old M. Chardin was on about. He nearly got it right...

About the comments thing: I'm the blog owner. all of the other characters drifting in and out of here are lost souls. Some for them are searching, others are sure there's nothing to search for, and the most pissant of the lot of them reckon they've already found It. Me? I'm still looking. And rejecting it as soon as I find it... I never said I was smart. Or sane...

I think we pretty much agree on the morality thing. I would have added "conscience" to the list of names for the thing which they think they don't have one of.. ;-)

As far as right and wrong (morality) is concerned? I would ask you to tell me who defines these, or do you hold them to be absolutes.

About my venting: I agree. But I'm trying to take the personal attacks out of my venting. I still find that difficult. It's so easy to rip shreds off them verbally...

God know they deserve it... :-)

May 19, 2005 4:53 PM  
Blogger TeilhardD said...

Hi Gerry,

Greetings :) thanks for the kind words about my own blog.
I understand the basis of your accusations about the Jewish God (did I get that right?) or about the Christian God (?) however I actually found Christ without the help of any one other than those who printed a copy of the bible.
I read the book and decided it contained the truth (for me).
I think I am spethial that way.
/me drools retardedly.
Seriously this has given me a faith that is deviod of the influence of others so basically I don't properly identify with the comments made about christianity in general that it is used by some for the control of the many although I can certainly see how that works.

Teilhard beleived that we are but stepping stones upon the path of evolution and my own experiences support that view. The problem is our emotions. They block our development and so we develop hatred for this part of ourselves which often betrays us, our own subconscious. We demonify it and make it the repository of all dark and evil things, which interestingly enough it actually is.

Here's an interesting thing I recently read that struck a real chord with me:
The subconscious is collective, that is, we all share it, yet the supraconscious, the uberego, this we seem to not share in common.
I wonder why that is.
This is how we are able to read the thoughts of others, through the subconscious.
Yet we cannot rise above our own 'small self' most of the time.
Personally, I would like to one day achieve that union with the Diety that I hear all these mystics speak of. I would like to be free of myself once and for all.
I do know that the Left Hand Path is not for me. I am too much of a softee for that.

May 20, 2005 10:19 AM  
Blogger Gerry said...

First up let me say that I'm not here to change your views, just to express my own and to debate.

I have no problems with Jesus as a spiritual teacher. But even there I put my own interpretation on what was really going down at the time and I take the god thing with a huge grain of salt.

The god of the Big Three (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is in my book an ego construct created by misogynistic, powercrazy, domineering patriarchs of ancient times.

I think it was nothing more than an ego the projection of nutcases. The hallucinations caused by all manner of things, not the least being severe religious rituals, gave people all sorts of experiences which they took to be proof of the Big Boy's existence. Back then they didn't know a lot about the mind's ability to create all sorts of alternative "realities". Auto-suggestion and self-hypnosis, old chap. Self delusion. The first trap a meditator falls into. In other rituals, the hypnosis is induced by external sources. But hypnosis is what it is as far as I'm concerned.

I define evil as conscious malicious intent. A lot of stuff others define as evil is in my book mere ignorance.

How do you define evil, Teilhard?

I believe that there are all sorts of higher levels of being and higher beings, but beyond that I cannot go other than to be taken in by hypnosis, psychosis or pure guesswork.

I've witnessed too much to get sucked in by the mental constructs which some call "visions", etc. There is something, but what it is, is not for the likes of me to claim know about in any absolute way. I think it may all be symbolic or subjective. I don't know.

I don't know.

May 20, 2005 1:31 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

==========
<<<<< Home
==========