Sunday, June 10, 2012
Lessons from Emerson--which he would smirk at...
In a gloomier hour, I found an essay by Ralph Waldo Emerson entitled "Self-Reliance." I found it to be just what I needed to read, and, even though his essay mocks my moodiness by attributing it to my weak will (and yes, it is, at times) and I found some of his essay a bit Machiavellian, it hit the spot. I've pulled a few of my favorite quotations, including the last one--which, I'd like to point out, is rather humorous--since he began the essay with an inspiration from an artist. :)
"Envy is ignorance... imitation is suicide"
"Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string."
"For nonconformity the world whips you with its displeasure. And therefore a man must know how to estimate a sour face. The by-standers look askance on him in the public street or in the friend's parlor. If this aversion had its origin in contempt and resistance like his own he might well go home with a sad countenance; but the sour faces of the multitude, like their sweet faces, have no deep cause, but are put on and off as the wind blows and a newspaper directs. Yet is the discontent of the multitude more formidable than that of the senate and the college. It is easy enough for a firm man who knows the world to brook the rage of the cultivated classes. Their rage is decorous and prudent, for they are timid, as being very vulnerable themselves. But when to their feminine rage the indignation of the people is added, when the ignorant and the poor are aroused, when the unintelligent brute force that lies at the bottom of society is made to growl and mow, it needs the habit of magnanimity and religion to treat it godlike as a trifle of no concernment."
"The other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency; a reverence for our past act or word because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them.
But why should you keep your head over your shoulder? Why drag about this corpse of your memory, lest you contradict somewhat you have stated in this or that public place? Suppose you should contradict yourself; what then? …
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.— 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' —Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood."
"If you are noble, I will love you; if you are not, I will not hurt you and myself by hypocritical attentions. If you are true, but not in the same truth with me, cleave to your companions; I will seek my own. I do this not selfishly, but humbly and truly. It is alike your interest, and mine, and all men's, however long we have dwelt in lies, to live in truth. Does this sound harsh to-day? You will soon love what is dictated by your nature as well as mine, and, if we follow the truth, it will bring us out safe at last. —But so you may give these friends pain. Yes, but I cannot sell my liberty and my power, to save their sensibility."
"Man is timid and apologetic; he is no longer upright; he dares not say `I think,' `I am,' but quotes some saint or sage."
Monday, June 4, 2012
The Best in the Moment--and Agreements to Promote Peace Within
My keyword in this here blog seems to be 'balance', doesn't it? I was inspired to write as I contemplated another brilliant sermon delivered yesterday--by Reverend Amy, who also made attributions for her inspirations--some of her thoughts were derived from Miguel Ruiz, who has written The Four Agreements: A Toltec Wisdom Book.
So, I loved the whole sermon, but one suggestion gripped me the most strongly--not one of the 'four agreements', just a sidenote, really. She suggested that we should assume that people are always doing the best they can do in that moment. That sort of thinking would be a profound shift for me, actually, as I tend to have high expectations of people.
Actually, my reasoning goes something along the lines of, 'folks need to be held to high standards, or they will treat you no better than you expect to be treated, generally'. It's a 180 degree difference from the suggestion that Reverend Amy made, and, since writing often helps me to process, I thought I'd explore these notions here--and, as I sat down to write, I had the sneaky suspicion (maybe from years of experience?) that my endpoint would be something about 'balance'--though I suppose I need to think about whether a true dichotomy even exists, so here goes.
Okay, I LOVE this concept because it is a magical solution for draining away anger. If someone misbehaves, you can take a deep breath and remind yourself, "We all have issues, and that's the best they can manage in this moment." So nice and kind and understanding, really. It does sound like a great place to be in order to deal with them and not further discord.
I suppose what doesn't sit right with me is that it seems a little bit contemptuous, really. Disrespectful of the choices that they make--disrespectful of their potential and their capacity for appropriate behavior. (Hmm...can you feel the 'balance' statement approaching already?)
Alright then, is there a take-home message for me, then? Everyone DOES have their issues, and sometimes, despite potential, folks are just where they are and immovable. They don't want to move, they don't want to change, and they are just who they are. Their bad behavior is something they fully intend to pursue and perpetuate, and they have no desire to improve.
Perhaps this is where the big breath should enter the picture. Despite potential, perhaps some other problems and issues are insurmountable, for whatever psychological or other reason. So, the REALITY is that perhaps that is, actually, the best they can manage in that moment, even if only due to their own faulty logic.
Taking that breath, and trying to remember that folks do have BIG issues and we can't change them, may be a very helpful 'pause' in my normal process, which is to contrast their behavior with my expectations of them (which, as I've said, are generally very high). While I have always struggled to be understanding of them, my expectations do not lower, and, if their behavior still doesn't meet my comprehension after exertions to understand, I am at a loss and become angry--when that behavior affects me, especially.
I don't think I have incorporated, really, the idea that sometimes their own self-limitations or other perceived obstacles are simply insurmountable by them in that moment. Even if their choices aren't logical, fair, or reasonable, that perhaps it is TRULY the best they can manage in that moment. They simply can't surmount their issues, and that's that. Simply put, a little bit more acceptance of 'how it is' might go a long way for me.
Not to say that at some point they won't be in a better space, but perhaps it's just too much to expect reason or logic or fairness at times. That suicide bomber may be so engrossed with the fantasy of becoming a martyr for a cause that he couldn't face reason--yes, an extreme example, but perhaps that's just the reality of it. People are always 'people with issues', and perfection is actually an impossibility for any of us.
So, perhaps what I can gain from Reverend Amy's suggestion is an important, conscious modification of my gut reaction to disappointment and anger, after attempts at understanding have failed. Simple 'acceptance of what is' in the guise of assuming that the person simply couldn't manage any better at the time. That should still drain anger, right?
How does my previous assertion that this assumption is demeaning fit in here? I suppose it's important to let go of judgment a bit. Getting angry serves no one any purpose--even if it is 'respectful' of the other party's capacity for decency. Perhaps it's actually not even respectful, as perhaps I've misread that capacity. I CAN'T know what that person's reality is like--what they've been through, what they've experienced. Even if I'm trying my utmost to understand them--and I do think I have a knack for 'getting' folks, in general--it's always going to come through the filter of my own experiences, not theirs. So then, perhaps I'm simply wrong that it's demeaning or disrespectful to assume they can't do any better, since I don't live in their reality and don't know what they're experiencing. Perhaps, truly it's more RESPECTFUL to realize that I don't necessarily know how they feel, what they're thinking, where they are coming from.
Wow...that is actually resonating. Simply put, if I don't take that pause, that IMPORTANT pause, then I may end up very quickly at the point of suggesting, if only to myself, that they 'GO STRAIGHT TO JAIL' (or other rhyming bit). Actually, in certain cases, jail would be very appropriate, regardless of their mental state--not as punishment (which I'm not really a fan of), but simply to prevent further harm to oneself and others. But, again, anger doesn't really help matters.
Detachment from their behaviors may be the best thing we can do, at times.
Actually, that statement leads into a discussion of the 'four agreements' per Ruiz that Rev. Amy discussed. I'd love to briefly review them through my take-home-message filter. To get the real deal, you might want to get his book, which I've never read.
Hmm, the above discussion might actually fit in agreement #3, which is to avoid making assumptions. Assumptions can lead to anger and discontent, simply, and the expanded discussion is above.
Agreement #1 is a soapbox for me, and therefore easy enough for me to rattle off. Be impeccable with your word. Of course none of us is perfect, so it's important to keep this as the first and most important principle in our interactions. Rev. Amy (and perhaps Ruiz) extended this beyond simple truth-telling to include intentions. She was very cute as she urged us to bite back the urges we have to offer assistance, help, etc. to folks if we don't truly intend to follow through with our promises.
Agreement #2 is much, much harder for me. Don't take things personally. Wow, I take practically everything personally. The truth is, though, that both insults and compliments are more about the person delivering them than about you. There's an element here that is flattering, actually, though the distaste in my initial struggle with this agreement is the converse. Not to take it personally if someone tells me I'm brilliant or beautiful is very difficult--and seems a bit sad, doesn't it? However, I think it's key to release from the inevitable backlash--to being attached to insults as well. In truth, I doubt that any of us can achieve absolute indifference to compliments and insults, but letting go a bit, realizing that those are simply reflections of feelings that another person is having, can be liberating. In fact, strangely enough, releasing our attachment to others' opinions is actually quite self-empowering, as what then becomes important is what we think--our OWN opinions and feelings. Sure, validate others' feelings, show caring about them--that's the whole point! When we love someone else, needing their compliments or attention is dis-empowering. Our admiration, our love is not about them, it's about us. Their love, their admiration is not about us, it's about them.
When something about a person sparks that feeling of admiration, we can look at which traits we are admiring. Someone said, 'you are who/what you love' and I'm still trying to wrap my mind around that. I'm not sure if it's true, but I think that it does speak a bit about who you are, so, in a sense, it helps define who you are, so to speak.
In admiring Reverend Amy, I am defining myself by embracing expansive, eloquent, poetic depth of thought. I love that about her. She's humorous and expressive, as well--so I love humor and expressiveness.
This doesn't detract from Reverend Amy, in asserting that I admire her for these traits that draw me. My admiration of these traits are not about her, really, beyond the fact that she represents those things to me. So, she shouldn't take my admiration personally. She has also received criticism for the same sermons that I've admired. That criticism says more about the person criticizing than about her, really. In fact, look at any very popular book and you'll see both negative and positive reviews. These speak volumes about the folks who have critiqued them, and perhaps in doing so they've helped outline some of the general traits of the books for the rest of us--as people do tend to agree on so much, to begin with, as a basic premise of functioning in this world.
Hmm, I feel a bit like I'm talking in circles. Perhaps I've given--or passed on--something for you to chew on for a bit, though. There are a couple of more points that I'll go ahead and throw in as I wrap up all the take-home messages from her best-sermon-of-all-time (as I see it, of course).
Agreement #4 is simply 'do your best'. Simply? Well, given the first bit that we discussed, I guess it is 'simply', but perhaps if we think about it, we can raise that bar a bit, and then our best is now a new level. I don't have a lot to add to Rev. Amy's message, but I will relate two key points that she made. The first is that 'hanging on to past mistakes inhibits growth'. Absolutely. On a sometimes-related note, 'inaction is how we deny life'. Wow, right? Life is meant to be lived.
Kudos to Reverend Amy on a fabulous sermon, and I hope that I did it some modicum of justice here, though you might want to get her podcast to get the full message. I think that's available via the UU Savannah website, perhaps. You know, I took notes on this sermon--not generally something I do, but I didn't want to forget all the great thoughts. For me personally, I think the single most important idea is to assume that others are doing the best they can in that moment, for whatever reason. This doesn't excuse them, but it should help me with my anger management issues! :)
May we all have peace and kindness in our hearts, and may we strive to raise the bar on 'the best we can manage in the moment'.
So, I loved the whole sermon, but one suggestion gripped me the most strongly--not one of the 'four agreements', just a sidenote, really. She suggested that we should assume that people are always doing the best they can do in that moment. That sort of thinking would be a profound shift for me, actually, as I tend to have high expectations of people.
Actually, my reasoning goes something along the lines of, 'folks need to be held to high standards, or they will treat you no better than you expect to be treated, generally'. It's a 180 degree difference from the suggestion that Reverend Amy made, and, since writing often helps me to process, I thought I'd explore these notions here--and, as I sat down to write, I had the sneaky suspicion (maybe from years of experience?) that my endpoint would be something about 'balance'--though I suppose I need to think about whether a true dichotomy even exists, so here goes.
Okay, I LOVE this concept because it is a magical solution for draining away anger. If someone misbehaves, you can take a deep breath and remind yourself, "We all have issues, and that's the best they can manage in this moment." So nice and kind and understanding, really. It does sound like a great place to be in order to deal with them and not further discord.
I suppose what doesn't sit right with me is that it seems a little bit contemptuous, really. Disrespectful of the choices that they make--disrespectful of their potential and their capacity for appropriate behavior. (Hmm...can you feel the 'balance' statement approaching already?)
Alright then, is there a take-home message for me, then? Everyone DOES have their issues, and sometimes, despite potential, folks are just where they are and immovable. They don't want to move, they don't want to change, and they are just who they are. Their bad behavior is something they fully intend to pursue and perpetuate, and they have no desire to improve.
Perhaps this is where the big breath should enter the picture. Despite potential, perhaps some other problems and issues are insurmountable, for whatever psychological or other reason. So, the REALITY is that perhaps that is, actually, the best they can manage in that moment, even if only due to their own faulty logic.
Taking that breath, and trying to remember that folks do have BIG issues and we can't change them, may be a very helpful 'pause' in my normal process, which is to contrast their behavior with my expectations of them (which, as I've said, are generally very high). While I have always struggled to be understanding of them, my expectations do not lower, and, if their behavior still doesn't meet my comprehension after exertions to understand, I am at a loss and become angry--when that behavior affects me, especially.
I don't think I have incorporated, really, the idea that sometimes their own self-limitations or other perceived obstacles are simply insurmountable by them in that moment. Even if their choices aren't logical, fair, or reasonable, that perhaps it is TRULY the best they can manage in that moment. They simply can't surmount their issues, and that's that. Simply put, a little bit more acceptance of 'how it is' might go a long way for me.
Not to say that at some point they won't be in a better space, but perhaps it's just too much to expect reason or logic or fairness at times. That suicide bomber may be so engrossed with the fantasy of becoming a martyr for a cause that he couldn't face reason--yes, an extreme example, but perhaps that's just the reality of it. People are always 'people with issues', and perfection is actually an impossibility for any of us.
So, perhaps what I can gain from Reverend Amy's suggestion is an important, conscious modification of my gut reaction to disappointment and anger, after attempts at understanding have failed. Simple 'acceptance of what is' in the guise of assuming that the person simply couldn't manage any better at the time. That should still drain anger, right?
How does my previous assertion that this assumption is demeaning fit in here? I suppose it's important to let go of judgment a bit. Getting angry serves no one any purpose--even if it is 'respectful' of the other party's capacity for decency. Perhaps it's actually not even respectful, as perhaps I've misread that capacity. I CAN'T know what that person's reality is like--what they've been through, what they've experienced. Even if I'm trying my utmost to understand them--and I do think I have a knack for 'getting' folks, in general--it's always going to come through the filter of my own experiences, not theirs. So then, perhaps I'm simply wrong that it's demeaning or disrespectful to assume they can't do any better, since I don't live in their reality and don't know what they're experiencing. Perhaps, truly it's more RESPECTFUL to realize that I don't necessarily know how they feel, what they're thinking, where they are coming from.
Wow...that is actually resonating. Simply put, if I don't take that pause, that IMPORTANT pause, then I may end up very quickly at the point of suggesting, if only to myself, that they 'GO STRAIGHT TO JAIL' (or other rhyming bit). Actually, in certain cases, jail would be very appropriate, regardless of their mental state--not as punishment (which I'm not really a fan of), but simply to prevent further harm to oneself and others. But, again, anger doesn't really help matters.
Detachment from their behaviors may be the best thing we can do, at times.
Actually, that statement leads into a discussion of the 'four agreements' per Ruiz that Rev. Amy discussed. I'd love to briefly review them through my take-home-message filter. To get the real deal, you might want to get his book, which I've never read.
Hmm, the above discussion might actually fit in agreement #3, which is to avoid making assumptions. Assumptions can lead to anger and discontent, simply, and the expanded discussion is above.
Agreement #1 is a soapbox for me, and therefore easy enough for me to rattle off. Be impeccable with your word. Of course none of us is perfect, so it's important to keep this as the first and most important principle in our interactions. Rev. Amy (and perhaps Ruiz) extended this beyond simple truth-telling to include intentions. She was very cute as she urged us to bite back the urges we have to offer assistance, help, etc. to folks if we don't truly intend to follow through with our promises.
Agreement #2 is much, much harder for me. Don't take things personally. Wow, I take practically everything personally. The truth is, though, that both insults and compliments are more about the person delivering them than about you. There's an element here that is flattering, actually, though the distaste in my initial struggle with this agreement is the converse. Not to take it personally if someone tells me I'm brilliant or beautiful is very difficult--and seems a bit sad, doesn't it? However, I think it's key to release from the inevitable backlash--to being attached to insults as well. In truth, I doubt that any of us can achieve absolute indifference to compliments and insults, but letting go a bit, realizing that those are simply reflections of feelings that another person is having, can be liberating. In fact, strangely enough, releasing our attachment to others' opinions is actually quite self-empowering, as what then becomes important is what we think--our OWN opinions and feelings. Sure, validate others' feelings, show caring about them--that's the whole point! When we love someone else, needing their compliments or attention is dis-empowering. Our admiration, our love is not about them, it's about us. Their love, their admiration is not about us, it's about them.
When something about a person sparks that feeling of admiration, we can look at which traits we are admiring. Someone said, 'you are who/what you love' and I'm still trying to wrap my mind around that. I'm not sure if it's true, but I think that it does speak a bit about who you are, so, in a sense, it helps define who you are, so to speak.
In admiring Reverend Amy, I am defining myself by embracing expansive, eloquent, poetic depth of thought. I love that about her. She's humorous and expressive, as well--so I love humor and expressiveness.
This doesn't detract from Reverend Amy, in asserting that I admire her for these traits that draw me. My admiration of these traits are not about her, really, beyond the fact that she represents those things to me. So, she shouldn't take my admiration personally. She has also received criticism for the same sermons that I've admired. That criticism says more about the person criticizing than about her, really. In fact, look at any very popular book and you'll see both negative and positive reviews. These speak volumes about the folks who have critiqued them, and perhaps in doing so they've helped outline some of the general traits of the books for the rest of us--as people do tend to agree on so much, to begin with, as a basic premise of functioning in this world.
Hmm, I feel a bit like I'm talking in circles. Perhaps I've given--or passed on--something for you to chew on for a bit, though. There are a couple of more points that I'll go ahead and throw in as I wrap up all the take-home messages from her best-sermon-of-all-time (as I see it, of course).
Agreement #4 is simply 'do your best'. Simply? Well, given the first bit that we discussed, I guess it is 'simply', but perhaps if we think about it, we can raise that bar a bit, and then our best is now a new level. I don't have a lot to add to Rev. Amy's message, but I will relate two key points that she made. The first is that 'hanging on to past mistakes inhibits growth'. Absolutely. On a sometimes-related note, 'inaction is how we deny life'. Wow, right? Life is meant to be lived.
Kudos to Reverend Amy on a fabulous sermon, and I hope that I did it some modicum of justice here, though you might want to get her podcast to get the full message. I think that's available via the UU Savannah website, perhaps. You know, I took notes on this sermon--not generally something I do, but I didn't want to forget all the great thoughts. For me personally, I think the single most important idea is to assume that others are doing the best they can in that moment, for whatever reason. This doesn't excuse them, but it should help me with my anger management issues! :)
May we all have peace and kindness in our hearts, and may we strive to raise the bar on 'the best we can manage in the moment'.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)