19. nov. 2008

An Incomplete Manifesto for Growth

Play can only happen when people feel they have control over their lives. We can't be free agents if we’re not free.

From "The Incomplete Manifesto", an articulation of statements exemplifying Bruce Mau’s beliefs, strategies and motivations.
Written in 1998.

14. nov. 2008

Eastern vs. Western Metaphysics

The Bhagavad-Gitā uses this account of personal identity as a grounds for an analysis of freedom. The vehicle for this analysis is a dialogue between the warrior-prince, Arjuna, and the incarnate deity, Krsna. Arjuna is about to fight a war against his “own people” . He is troubled that it is wrong for him to kill his own teachers and kinsmen to serve the “greed” of his superiors. Eventually, after asking Krsna’s advice, he refuses to fight. Krsna’s response is that Arjuna misunderstands the true nature of ātman. All of the persons that Arjuna is worried about destroying are physical vessels carrying a spark of the ultimate reality. When the body perishes, the self persists, as it is a part of the immortal divine. Bodies are destined to perish, and souls to be reborn, so death should not concern Arjuna. Arjuna should instead be concerned with his own duty, without regard for possible consequences. Desires and concerns for consequences drive the lower states of consciousness. A consciousness that is at one with ātman is freed from these concerns. That sort of consciousness will be motivated by duty, and will be free to focus all of its attention on the performance of duty.

“Do thou become free, Arjuna, from this threefold nature ; be free from the dualities; be firmly fixed in purity, not caring for acquisition and preservation; and be possessed of the Self.”

Freedom, for the Hindu, is elevating consciousness to a level where it is directed by ātman, and motivated by duty. It is a freedom from concern for one’s actions. Arjuna should fight because, as he is a warrior-prince, it is his duty. If he was at one with ātman, then he would not be concerned with anything else.

By: Nesta Smith

13. nov. 2008


by Author Unknown

To laugh is to risk appearing the fool.
To weep is to risk appearing sentimental.
To reach for another is to risk involvement.
To expose your ideas, your dreams,
before a crowd is to risk their loss.
To love is to risk not being loved in return.
To live is to risk dying.
To believe is to risk despair.
To try is to risk failure.
But risks must be taken, because the
greatest hazard in life is to risk nothing.
The people who risk nothing, do nothing,
have nothing, are nothing.
They may avoid suffering and sorrow,
but they cannot learn, feel, change,
grow, love, live.
Chained by their attitudes they are slaves;
they have forfeited their freedom.
Only a person who risks is free.

Taken from the book Addiction by Prescription by Joan E. Gadsby

12. nov. 2008

The Mystery Behind Love-Hate Relationships

“Those low in self-esteem are chronically concerned about whether or not their close relationship partners will or will not accept them,” Clark said. “In good times, those low in self-esteem tend to idealize partners, rendering those partners safe for approach and likely to reflect positively upon them. At the first sign of a partner not being perfect, however, they switch to focusing on all possible negatives about the partner so as to justify withdrawing from that partner and not risking vulnerability.”

From Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90: 652-665 (May 2006), Margaret Clark


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...