Dear All,

Ola! Very cool that you visited, thanx!  Yes, the more we learn, the more
we're able to perceive what we don't yet know, and its vastness is larger,
though, it's not accurate to say, "the more we learn, the more we don't
know"; i.m.h.o..  Known and unknown are, as all words, paths of studies, not
objects; yet, usually are defined by their subjective sense, with the
speakers perception being described, not reality.  For, literally, there are
no such antithesis, dualities, dichotomies, etc., all being delusional
constructs of our mind's, poorly informed by our limited abilities to
perceive and our perceptions; intellectually speaking.  Admittedly, all delusions are only parts of walls of delusional constructs, yet, are made of bricks of illusions and our
subjective aspects of mind; therefore, don't exist.  Though, the commonality
of illusions lends them to their universal acceptance, and aids in our
ability to be compassionate towards those who aren't able to discern reality
from them.  Yes, those astrophysical actions occur, yet, can we say we know,
because we perceive patterns that most mistake for repetition?  Real science
states that all its laws are just variegated probabilities, to varying
degrees reality, in any moment in time, space.  Therefore, real science can
only claim to discern realisms, while supposed science claims that 'science'
is the only knowledge and is complete paridigmally; which of course is not
true, and allows us to know that they propagate those lies for greed,
market, sociological and societal imperatives.  The same can be said for
most religions, spiritualities, cosmologies, worldviews, etc..  So, the
question of known and unknown has a proprietary basis, in its common usage.
As the ever increasing supposed garnering of delusional profits and
delusional pleasures in ever increasingly more cyclical and centralizing
patterns, societies actual raison d'etre, is based on the purported better
knowing and its better 'use', even though it's actually just based on the
better access to, processing of information, and denial of the same to
others.  The mirroring of the scarcity based economic systems is evident in
it, as well.  Whereas, in reality, abundance is natural, and any systems
based on it, economic or otherwise, evolve all life towards the realization
of its potential, ones based on scarcity, don't; instead

Yes, indeed, the self we talk about to others
in various circumstances, and with varying length of knowing of the person,
and dependent on the nature of those relations, plays key roles in our
communications. Yet, while we all have that multitude of masks, isn't the
self becoming, like a snake sheds its skin, shedding those masks? To what
we've all been referring to as the more genuine, real, original self? Also,
how about the self before birth, totally non-sociological self's beginnings?
So much for the intro., here's a dialogue which can facilitate myriad
communications :)

Anna,

~Bonjour! "And yes, I think we can modify the way people perceive the
world, not from biological point of view but from therapeutical one." I
appreciate the Adlerian approach just as much as the next ..., yet, as I
counsel, I don't want to allow countertransference to be involved, to the
extent that I'm capable; and the situation allows. "You may change the way
somebody thinks or feels only when you touch somebody's heart. A revolution
may change things externally but will not solve internal problems." Yes,
one can do that, yet, for me that would be exactly when I would avoid that
countertranseferential slip and navigate the rougher waters of empowering a
clients self- actuation, natural ability to desire to change themselves.
That independence of awareness that we could foster would be preferable to
the shorterm gains a client might make knowing another's in their corner; as
there are no corners or sides, only ones of our making, intellectually
speaking.
~Diane, "We seek to change the systems and institutions that are
in place to support and promote a society of have sand have-nots, of
privilege and disenfranchisement. It's not about the individual. It's about
collective thought and action and how society shapes mores, values and
beliefs that lead individuals to believe, consciously or subconsciously,
some groups of people are more deserving  than others or that divisiveness between groups is necessary." Similarly, I  appreciate your perspective, yet, to the degree this is possible, keeping the goals of counseling and my wish to avoid countertransference, in mind.
For, as you're well aware, our society, and in all likelihood global
society, are becoming more divisive by the minute. So, we don't want to
project our thoughts, mores, morals onto our clients, especially in this
area, for, their survival, not just quality of life, may be at stake; which
is in the realm of their choice and not mine.
~Kevin, "I agree with Dianne. "Accepting ourselves and accepting
and loving others" sounds like a cliché to me. So easy to say it easily
becomes "lipservice." ". Yes, I agree with this aspect of your and her analysis
too, yet, the way accepting and loving are "used" in our field has become
cliché, as it has in society. Though, to the degree we can keep it real
with our clients, for i.e., Carl Rogers, person-centered therapy, is the
degree to which that accepting of clients can realize the space for their
desire to work on oneself and to grow, possible.
~Very good insights, thanx! So true, people don't only dislike what they
can't understand, they tend to ostracize it. This is compensatory because,
if it's not in their life, then they won't have to think or feel more to
relate to the genuine person; which makes them "feel and think" of
themselves as together. They also, thereby, hope to not "have to" actually
think about their lives, feel their feelings; the going along to get along
game they play on themselves. They also do this because, their conformity,
a mirror image of themselves, is all they allow themselves to see, which
assuages their fears that relate to acceptance and control; i.e., being
liked, surviving, succeeding, fitting in, etc.. I've had difficulty, yet,
kept struggling, the growth potential, alone, makes being more real well
worth it; i.m.h.o. Yet, I think there's, at least, a step further one can
take your line of inquiry. For, yes, the questioners have their own agendas
they want us to play into, yet, the labelers aren't the only ones. What
about ourselves and our agendas? What, with keeping Jung's analysis in mind
that 80 % of every action, thought, feeling we have is compensatory towards
our past, this would bring light to the question, why would we label
ourselves; even as "being ourselves"? It brings to mind the whole how could
we possibly say who we are, because, as we're evolving, we are no longer
that person we were, or were referring to, question. I'll address that
later. First, for e.g., I don't refer to myself as anything. Let me
explain. Since, for e.g., most people that call themselves Christians are
only make believe Christians who continually defile Jesus Christ's teachings in
his name, I won't call myself a Christian. Not to forget the abominations
done by so-called Christians, in Jesus Christ's name. As well, I won't call
myself a Buddhist or Christian because the label is usually used by the make
believe ones to garner delusional profits and delusional pleasures from
controlling that "group". They use it to differentiate in order to control,
etc; usually. Another reason I don't use the labels is because the labels
are also used to illude and delude ourselves, like the make believe students
of religion do. How could I say I'm a Hindu, Jew, or Muslim, Sufi, Buddhist, have I
encompassed all that those great teachings have to offer. Don't we tend to
do less when we think we've "accomplished" something, like being a
"Christian"? Isn't the study of Native American Spirituality, for e.g., of
such great breadth and depth that to fathom it is impossible? So, why would
I assert I'm a Christian, am I really being all that that assertion would
entail in that moment; or, even, any moment? As well, because, I was
brought up in a militaristic style household where feeling wasn't, nor any
religion, I've had a good initial course in questioning instead of
believing. This took me a time to adjust, and experientially uplift myself
and all with. For, feeling is power, and its denial or lack of insight on
can have powerfully negative effects. Yet, since I've always discarded
boxes, labels, and those who would, or do pigeon hole, experience has
enlightened much of life. I used to say, in order to believe in sides, you
have to be a square. Yet, I amended it to, not all those that believe in
sides are squares. I stopped studying any belief system since 16 years old,
choosing to study reality, instead, for the past 31 years, it serves me
well, and reality too. This is based in experience and its fathomless well
of knowledge. This is also the way I study religions, spiritualities,
sciences, arts, et al. Cool! The good thing is that square or round pegs
can fit into the one that they're not. Yet, what potential growth is lost
with this miss fitting can be calculated. So, we continue to search, seek,
grow, move, learn, teach, be, as we can; while we can. How do we even
relate? I think using evolution as a common language, as it's the thread
that links every, in the fabric of life, is a good place to start. In that
direction :) Have you also discarded the labels of, stereotypes associated
with, box of "being oneself"? For, since, if you don't exercise
responsibility, its Siamese sister, freedom, will wither as well, can we
allow ourselves the delusional pleasures of being satisfied with our
thinking that we are being ourselves; even when we endeavor to? Don't we
have to let go of the projection that we want to be ourselves in order to be
evolutionarily on the path to find out what that might be?  All, what do you think?  Lest "we" forget, if you don't exercise responsibility, its Siamese twin sister, freedom, will wither like
a muscle, as well.  Sadly, now, it first needs to be exorcized before its exercised. Viva la
evolution! Music is life's song accompanying the abundance of joy's Spring. I look forward to hearing from you.

Matutinally Yours,               james m nordlund          reality (aja)

For those interested "of or pertaining to the morning, day: relating to
or happening in the morning or in the early part of the day (formal),
(Mid-16th century, from late Latin matutinalis, from Matuta, goddess of the
dawn.)" Disabled Greens News and discussion, Group home page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisabledGreensNews/ ,
Abuse in Therapy, Group homepage:
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/AbuseinTherapy/
Diffabled, Mental Health, all related issues, advocacy, and professionals:
Invite link: http://passport.care2.net/invite.html?g=880
Homepage: http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/Diffabled_MentalHealth_Action
reality's blog   :)  http://360.yahoo.com/jamesmnordlund
"Painting is poetry which is seen and not heard, and poetry is a painting
which is heard but not seen." ~ Leonardo da Vinci   Enjoy a vernal eve' as
you can. Copy, share, as you will.  Au revoir.