4 ms·

Good advice, though in the end ot still boils down to "accept yourself", which is the kind of advice she said she found unhelpful at the beginning... I think th

Good advice, though in the end ot still boils down to "accept yourself", which is the kind of advice she said she found unhelpful at the beginning... I think this is kind of a "Monad tutorial situation", were the important part is not the words, but the intuitive understanding... And once one finally achieved some intuitive understanding, one wants to help the world and spread it, without realizing that the only way is to use the words one found unhelpful for so long... But sometimes the 101st reformulation is what makes someone's understanding make "click", so why not. Anyways, this is not a critic to the author as such, just a recognition of the phenomenon. I am actually tempted to bring in my own words there, in case my particular reformulation can help someone. I am familiar with the kind of "vision" (for the lack of a better term) the author describes, and they can be extremely healing. However, I think it is a mistake to overinterpret those: oh, ok, this village is actually the set of my personality traits, and I need to show them love to integrate them and blabla... I mean, it can be a valid interpretation, but in my experience it is not useful. Much better is to develop a sense of what feels useful in the moment, and let the image develop on its own agenda. It feels like it would fit to kneel and ask for foregiveness? Try it. Or maybe what feels good it to let the Smurf Army crawl under your skin and break you to pieces. Let it happen. But most often than not, trying too hard to interpret what is happening (or worse, what is "right" or "wrong") according to some theory just gets in the way. Good luck to all.

resonious 3y ago
Yeah classic "all the annoying stuff my parents said was right" situation. Then you start saying the same annoying stuff to your kids. When you boil down a complex spiritual solution like this to one phrase, "accept yourself" seems to be correct. But someone who hasn't gotten there yet can't "un-boil" the solution to make it work for them. The actual solution is probably very specific to that person, and nebulous to the point where they can't put it into actionable words even when they do figure it out.
- wiz21c 3y ago
  I tend to reproduce what my parent said, but usually the intent behind that is pretty different. Example: "you must have good scores at school else you'll have no future" is repeated as "you should have good scores because learning broadens your horizons and helps you to grow" It boils down to the same thing, but, hopefully, the pressure is weaker.
aftoprokrustes 3y ago
as an addedum, here is an article that I found well written about the equilibrium between formulaic and "freestyle" interaction with inner images: https://inthewilderless.substack.com/p/inner-wilds-alchemy-case-study-1 https://inthewilderless.substack.com/p/inner-wilds-alchemy-c... This does not mean that therapists offering guidance or following a particular framework are chalatans, but it is an encouragement to avoid, as much as possible, to hammer definitions on phenomena too hard. Those frameworks exist, at least in part, because they have proven useful to some people, but none of them is "the answer".
cgio 3y ago
It is a bit of a paradox. Even the title is a perfectionist’s way to see things. Who cares? Do it, even if you do it all wrong.
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
I've had same thought about a lot of Buddhist writings. One main point is to not need the writings. Understanding is beyond the writings itself. It seems like maybe a lot of the writings, are people working out their own path, their own understanding, and then wanting to share, even if the main point is not needing the writing to begin with. Same thing in philosophy. Very loos interpretation, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by Wittgenstein. You need language to communicate, but it is flawed and can't really communicate what you want, but language is all you have, but when the other person does eventually understand, they realize how incomplete the language description was.
- aftoprokrustes 3y ago
  As you mention Buddhism, there are actually a few things both in the Pali canon and modern teachings that come to mind and illuminate the present discussion: - in the Pali Canon (the oldest recollection of "discourses" attributed to the Buddha), the Buddha teaches very different things to different people. There are very technical suttas about advanced meditation practices for monks, but there are also suttas that are very down to earth and centered on "earthly" concerns. There is for instance a touching one where the Buddha teaches to an old couple how to accumulate merit in order to be reborn in a life where they could meet and mary again. - clinging and attachment are two of the "three poisons" in Buddhism. Stopping to cling to things and get attached to them is a big portion of the goal of Buddhism. This is why most teachers repeat to "let go, let go, let go". This includes letting go of concepts (such as the "three poisons") or attachment to experiences (such as calm born from meditation). This can be confusing. A Theravada Abbot named Thannisaro Bikkhu has an interesting twist: he compare the path to a ladder. Obviously, once you are at the top, you should let go of the ladder. But on your way up, you need to cling to the steps of the ladder, otherwise you fall. So he advocates "skillful clinging": cling to the teachings, cling to meditative experiences, get attached to them, this is fine. This will give you the motivation to practice and progress. Just be ready to identify when this is not useful anymore, when you can let go of that step of the ladder to reach for the next. The main take away is that teachings, in particular in psychology or spirituality, are aimed at persons who are at a particular position on a path. Part of the misunderstanding might be that one fails to see that one is not at the point of understanding that allows to actually get what is expressed. This kind of participates in the beauty of learning and teaching, but also means that one will likely never really understand deeply anything anyone communicates to us. We are just left to experiment on our side, and see if what we understand kind of fits the imperfect descriptions from others, and use those to inform back our search.
yadingus 3y ago
I think this is in fact one of the main functions of art, to "translate" your inner journey into characters and in the process you give a sort of mirror for an audience to reflect on. You're not telling them what to do, but providing a map. With a compelling narrative it becomes more palatable, and realizations can feel your own, which is a big contributor to taking action.

resonious 3y ago

Yeah classic "all the annoying stuff my parents said was right" situation. Then you start saying the same annoying stuff to your kids. When you boil down a complex spiritual solution like this to one phrase, "accept yourself" seems to be correct. But someone who hasn't gotten there yet can't "un-boil" the solution to make it work for them. The actual solution is probably very specific to that person, and nebulous to the point where they can't put it into actionable words even when they do figure it out.

wiz21c 3y ago
I tend to reproduce what my parent said, but usually the intent behind that is pretty different. Example: "you must have good scores at school else you'll have no future" is repeated as "you should have good scores because learning broadens your horizons and helps you to grow" It boils down to the same thing, but, hopefully, the pressure is weaker.

aftoprokrustes 3y ago

as an addedum, here is an article that I found well written about the equilibrium between formulaic and "freestyle" interaction with inner images: https://inthewilderless.substack.com/p/inner-wilds-alchemy-case-study-1 https://inthewilderless.substack.com/p/inner-wilds-alchemy-c... This does not mean that therapists offering guidance or following a particular framework are chalatans, but it is an encouragement to avoid, as much as possible, to hammer definitions on phenomena too hard. Those frameworks exist, at least in part, because they have proven useful to some people, but none of them is "the answer".

cgio 3y ago

It is a bit of a paradox. Even the title is a perfectionist’s way to see things. Who cares? Do it, even if you do it all wrong.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

I've had same thought about a lot of Buddhist writings. One main point is to not need the writings. Understanding is beyond the writings itself. It seems like maybe a lot of the writings, are people working out their own path, their own understanding, and then wanting to share, even if the main point is not needing the writing to begin with. Same thing in philosophy. Very loos interpretation, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by Wittgenstein. You need language to communicate, but it is flawed and can't really communicate what you want, but language is all you have, but when the other person does eventually understand, they realize how incomplete the language description was.

aftoprokrustes 3y ago
As you mention Buddhism, there are actually a few things both in the Pali canon and modern teachings that come to mind and illuminate the present discussion: - in the Pali Canon (the oldest recollection of "discourses" attributed to the Buddha), the Buddha teaches very different things to different people. There are very technical suttas about advanced meditation practices for monks, but there are also suttas that are very down to earth and centered on "earthly" concerns. There is for instance a touching one where the Buddha teaches to an old couple how to accumulate merit in order to be reborn in a life where they could meet and mary again. - clinging and attachment are two of the "three poisons" in Buddhism. Stopping to cling to things and get attached to them is a big portion of the goal of Buddhism. This is why most teachers repeat to "let go, let go, let go". This includes letting go of concepts (such as the "three poisons") or attachment to experiences (such as calm born from meditation). This can be confusing. A Theravada Abbot named Thannisaro Bikkhu has an interesting twist: he compare the path to a ladder. Obviously, once you are at the top, you should let go of the ladder. But on your way up, you need to cling to the steps of the ladder, otherwise you fall. So he advocates "skillful clinging": cling to the teachings, cling to meditative experiences, get attached to them, this is fine. This will give you the motivation to practice and progress. Just be ready to identify when this is not useful anymore, when you can let go of that step of the ladder to reach for the next. The main take away is that teachings, in particular in psychology or spirituality, are aimed at persons who are at a particular position on a path. Part of the misunderstanding might be that one fails to see that one is not at the point of understanding that allows to actually get what is expressed. This kind of participates in the beauty of learning and teaching, but also means that one will likely never really understand deeply anything anyone communicates to us. We are just left to experiment on our side, and see if what we understand kind of fits the imperfect descriptions from others, and use those to inform back our search.

yadingus 3y ago

I think this is in fact one of the main functions of art, to "translate" your inner journey into characters and in the process you give a sort of mirror for an audience to reflect on. You're not telling them what to do, but providing a map. With a compelling narrative it becomes more palatable, and realizations can feel your own, which is a big contributor to taking action.