|New Civilization News: Establishing truth by intimidation|
Category: Counseling, Psychology
2 comments7 Aug 2002 @ 23:53 by scottj : Why would you be taken to the cleaners?
Value is something we discern, it is some-thing. The musician performing judges the performance independent of the audience's reaction because he is able to discern the value of his performance. An open mind, seeing the glass rather than contents, would then be able to fast track to musicianship using the positive feedback loop you described.
The negotiation of value in a rational civilised society would come through honesty (in stating the value of ones own performance) and trust (an intuitive understanding of the other person's value) but this would rapidly become redundant as everyone fast tracks to musicianship. Really this is a problem of distribution and can only be resolved by seeing the others' needs as ones own.
Finally maybe we already do live in that civilised society in the sense that there are people who intuitively live by these values. The only problem is that they perhaps find themselves relating to people who have not reached that awareness and are therefore defined (valued) according to an aggressive competitive model. Theoretically if all those who now live with a civilised mental paradigm started to relate to each other exclusively they would draw energy to themselves while denying it to A/C model. Solidarity and commitment seem to be the keys here.
Thanks for your excellent piece, very positively thought provoking.
RD Laing had a very radical collaborator at one point, they co-authored 2 books at least, can't remember his name but as I recall the socially impoverished - domination thing sounds right up his street.
beginning of a reply:
The whole thing of the performer's assessing the expression ... can it be entirely without reference to how it is received? I don't believe so ... there's something about "art for art's sake" that doesn't seem to capture the best of it. And yet it can't be /determined/ by how it is received; that would be more like commercial craft (or worse). In conversation with some musicians tonight, talking about something very much like this, we talked about the integrity that we try to preserve by attending to the audience without pandering: not necessarily "doing as we are told" or anything like that, to respond to and incorporate the audience's response so as to in some way include them ... perhaps not as participants, but allowing their perspective to contribute in some way. I suppose this is rather idealistic, and yet I think it can be an ideal that's reached for each time. If I can see the other's needs and respond to that authentically, I will necessarily respond as my self, in my own way, through my own being and experience, and I think that's what I'd like to actualize: informed by my appreciation of another person who is not a conceptual abstraction, and then tapping into the universal, I might then express myself personally in a way that the other will find resonant for their own reasons. But, given a corrupt situation, that could give rise to defensiveness (and aggression) combined with confusion or even bewilderment (something like uncertainty) and that is likely to come back at me in a way that leaves me flabbergasted, especially if it's wrapped up in denial. The best I can do in that situation, from what I see, is to be stable and honest so that I don't get sucked into the maelstrom; hardly a warm and comfortable situation of affection and acknowledgement!
I'm "taken to the cleaners" each time I end up with just barely what I need to survive ... "another day older and deeper in debt"; it's a perverse sort of community where individuals strive to cut each other to the bone at each opportunity, but increasingly what I experience seems more like that. [If I go back over this and start editing I'm likely to muck it up and deleting it, so I'll let this stand for the moment.]
blessing to all!
8 Aug 2002 @ 02:59 by jazzolog : PACO
Wow, what an amazing---and, may I say, authentic---Log entry! Truly a voyage through what you were thinking last night. I'm still way back at the beginning though---and the workshop on authenticity and passive/aggressive ("passion/aggression"?) and the ins and outs stuff. I like to tell people I'm in a new support group called PACO. Or maybe it's COPA. We can't decide. Anyway, it stands for passive/aggressive/compulsive/obsessive. We feel we need to assert our rights to run everything. We have a list of scheduled meetings, but we never get around to having them. Nevertheless, we do spend time emailing each other to blame the situation on the others in the program. Wanna join? ;-)
short reply: Noooooooooooooooooooo! D'wanna join! heh heh heh
Have you come across Asanga's ''slogans''? `The two that come to mind just now are "Don't bring things to a painful point" and "Don't talk with a twist". I love the way that combination covers the ground: if I could manage to be at once forthright and gentle, oh yes that would be accomplishment indeed!
Other entries in Counseling, Psychology
19 May 2008 @ 06:40: Guided Meditation Project.
15 May 2008 @ 03:03: Relationship between Spirit, Mind and Substance.
18 Sep 2007 @ 17:55: Beware of Medical Treatment and Prescription Drugs
27 Apr 2007 @ 19:17: The truth about Autism
16 Feb 2006 @ 20:39: Stubborn Love
15 Jul 2005 @ 19:52: Jewish "Self-Hatred"
25 Jan 2005 @ 11:04: First Memories
19 Oct 2004 @ 12:16: Lies,
7 Oct 2004 @ 11:06: Damaged Men I have known
29 Sep 2004 @ 19:28: What is Evil?