More is Required

Good to meet you. I don't remember your name/face so either you're newish or my memory is defective. I know the later to be true for sure. 

This is prolly one of my most disorganized pieces of writing that I've ever put up here. And I hesitated to put it up. But finally, I decided to do it. Know why? Because I want to see if the community will help me think about it without making me a pariah. I care alot about this community and I know there are some here who would easily see me hang, while some hold me lovingly. Cohesion is important to me personally as well as transpersonally. Thank you for starting us off.

---oOo---

You start off repeating what seemed to be two opposing statements of mine without actually quoting. This is helpful in one way as it shows how you interpreted my words. So, you are out in the open now too. 

But it is also helpful in exposing one of the holes I left which was the undeveloped concept of the non-monolithic self. I dropped a hint up front, but then left it sitting there without following up. 

The monolithic self only exists in a Court of Law. It is a necessary fiction. Or, at least it was.

The Court was supposed to open up a space between two individuals where more intelligence could exist than there would be if the two were combined. In so doing, they could determine who was in the wrong and therefore would be exiled. This worked fairly well in the Olden Days when that's what was real. In an enlightened world, this won't work either because it relies on the Good Guy vs. Bad Guy idea which is too simplistic for most people now. But this is the hand we're dealt. 

What's real now is that each individual is made up of multiples. And it is generally true that the agenda of each set of multiples are trying to co-ordinate themselves in such as way as to get along with each other within and with others without. Some sets of multiples are more tyrannized by regressive energies than others, but all more or less contain progressive energies in there somewhere as well.

One of the lesser considered variables is that since we all start at the beginning, the regressive energies are guaranteed to be present. They have to be. It's as if the party is at their house, so they have to be there. But it is a toss up as to wether the most progressive energies are there or not. Some of the middle-higher ones will prolly be there (unless your dealing with the developmentally disabled) but not everyone has achieved even the Orange level of development yet in any way. This has drastic implications. 

One of the first things it will imply is that they don't yet understand respect towards other Subjects. They understand Rules. People from Purple/Magenta on up can "fall in love". But they won't necessarily see the Object of their Love as another Subject worthy of respect. Think about that for a moment. This is why some aspects of Middle Eastern Culture baffle us. 

Now, in this Culture there is a Dominant Mode of Discourse which says that every human is created equal and is endowed with rights that cannot be taken away or transfered to another person. This literally and actually frustrates the impulses of someone who is dominated by Blue/Amber and lower energies. This is made obvious by how long it took for people to understand that it included black men and women. 

But this Mode of Discourse does not say we have the right to respect. It says we have the rights to:

• Life
• Liberty
• The Pursuit of Happiness

Respect is not in there. For many of the Founding Fathers, it was implicit. They were looking out from inside of respect for others, but they were not yet looking at it. Some of the Founding Fathers were not even looking out from inside of it. Some were crotchety old men who, like my Egg-Donor, believe that "people are generally no good". There is room for this "outlook" in our Mode of Discourse still because it is being stabilized by certain Institutions, Documents, Leaders, etc. even tho, I believe, most of us want it to be squeezed out. 

But how do we do that? 

---oOo---

Now look again at my conflicting statements and tell me if you can see how they connect. 

It is clear that I grew up in an atmosphere sterilized of respect. And yet, early on, I developed the capacity to both give and receive it. It is an emergent. As KW has said many times, every time a higher pattern of being emerges or is reached, the possibility for new and baffling pathologies emerges along side. In the case of a new emergent finding itself completely isolated inside a Dominant Mode of Discourse that is beneath it, it is practically guaranteed to develop pathologies. Violent splitting is a likely candidate, esp. if one is under 6-8 years old. 

Unless one looks at the idea (or some similar one) that everyone should have the right to respect simply because they exist, I seem to be merely hypocritical.

A few times in my young adolescence I whipped up the courage to ask my Egg-Donor for respect and even unconditional love. Once, she even agreed do go to family-counseling with me to "work this out". But it was clear that what I was asking for was totally foreign and she would have to memorize a list of behaviors that felt totally fake and inauthentic to her in order to comply. Regarding unconditional love she said, "I don't believe in it." as if it were some kind of religious doctrine that one had the "right" to not believe in. Basic Childhood Development didn't show up on her radar, but even worse, simple Maternal Instinct didn't either. She never changed. So I had to. I had to split away my need for respect and love and act as if it wasn't there. 

I have never successfully navigated relationships because of that. Any relationships. Last year sometime something snapped inside to where I could no longer hide my need. But with it came all the vulnerability and terror. Marc Gafni calls it "Death Terror" because it is tied to survival. It is so bad that I am agoraphobic now and cannot leave the house without medication. 

This need is tied to survival which means it was surrounded by Protectors of various sorts and degrees of social acceptability. The least socially acceptable was the one who could and would be violent if it came down to that. Until I was married, it had never come down that far. 

---oOo---

Okay. I have to stop now. I'm feeling totally vulnerable and unprotected. The next move is yours. What are you going to do with this? How are we going to integrate this very real event into the Mode of Discourse because I guarantee you that I am not alone? 

--

For just $14.95 a month, YOU TOO can offset your Karma Footprint by becoming a Member of Integral Life!

[has that already been done?]