nature

How My Perspective Affects Fairness

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

I need life to be fair! My need is so strong in this regard that I seek the rewards life owes me and avoid punishments that rob me of the fairness I deserve.

Fairness means meeting my needs

There are, of course, natural laws that regulate the interactions of the physical world and that so often seem unfair to me. Then there are my laws, based on need, against which I judge everything’s fairness. My laws say natural laws are unfair – and should be corrected accordingly! THEN life would be fair.

How can I get my needs met unless I act upon my world with the kind of unfairness nature uses? Fair is fair so unfair must be unfair and I must met it with unfairness. My ego believes I must upset the apple cart, so to speak, to get my needs met. I use equations of my own making to accomplish this task.

Fair = Satisfied need = Reward = Good
Unfair = Unmet Need = Punishment = Bad

Read more How My Perspective Affects Fairness ›

4 Aspects of My Value-Defined Defensive Process

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

In my defensive process, I breathe life into everything I give attention to by assigning values to those things based on bias. My bias sets the baseline value of whatever fear and trust I place on things.

When it comes to value judgements…

Bias = assigned value

In order to identify present threats and benefits, I refer to past biases that give validation to those in my present experience to increase the value to any biases I defend.

4 Aspects of My Value-Defined Defensive Process

There are four aspects to my value-defined defensive process –

  1. What is “it”? I assign a name symbolizing what I observe with my senses. Ex – I see a cat. My cat symbol represents most forms resembling cat. The name for “it” = cat and includes some identifying sub-symbols, such as size, speed, agility, fur, color, patterns, sharp teeth and sharp claws, sounds, diet preference for meat and etc. Objective observation of form.
  2. How is “it”? I assign a nature symbolizing how “it” behaves. Ex – a cat’s nature is to chase, kill, and eat other animals, etc. Objective observation of behavior.
  3. Why is “it”? Through imagination and emotion, I assign a causality, a relationship that identifies threats in my observations. Ex – a cat killed and ate another animal, therefore, it COULD do the same to me. Subjective interpretation.
  4. Who is “it”? I assign an identity – a label that identifies who I am compared to “it” – a perceived causal relationship between observed behavior and personal identity. Ex – I am afraid because a dangerous cat entered the room. Who combines the previous aspects and characteristics, turning objective observation into active subjective projection through labeling, reacting and blame! Externalization!

To protect my precious values, I circle the wagons, so to speak, by assigning “Who” to “What” through blame and projection. By automating the process, I strengthen my biases. Over time, I become the four-aspect, value-defined defense process – “It’s just who I am…”

This circular defense distracts my attention away from who I really am, keeping me in a chronic state of fear that I experience as suffering.

The solution to this stuck state of thinking is to simply change the answer to the last question. Who is “it”? When I get honest with myself, I must answer in first person – “it” is I.

Defending My Interpretations

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

My interpretations link with other interpretations to help me feel consistent, validated and safe.

When I experience suffering, I link to previous interpretations of suffering that have defended my story and which validate my current reality of suffering.

No matter how I struggle to change my yet unregulated responses to experience, as long as I believe my core program is consistent, that suffering is “real.” I will continue to interpret my experiences as suffering. It’s a positive feedback loop that sustains and strengthens my resolve to defend the reality of suffering over time.

Read more Defending My Interpretations ›

Balance and Nature

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

No matter how “bad” or “destructive” humanity behaves, we are still part of nature. It’s not “we” vs “nature” – it’s always just “nature”. Nature is the condition of things as they are right now.

Let’s say humanity nukes the planet’s surface, destroying all life on it, then THAT will be the nature of nature at that time. Everything affects the balance of nature as it was, but now is always in balance – it just is. “Imbalance” is a human invention intended to promote someone’s agenda (“shoulds”).

For example, there is no doubt in my mind that humanity is changing the climate of the planet – when/if that eventually kills off all the homo sapiens, there will be another era without humans. THAT will be the nature of things then – in perfect balance just as it is now.

Read more Balance and Nature ›