Are we against ourselves?

We, or some of us, or most of us tend to try to avoid criticism from others. We can get pretty upset by such a thing. One only needs to read something negative that is not even addressed directly to him, to freak out, if he thinks that it makes him wrong. And if such a condition exists, odds are that he will limit his choices about it afterwards. He can either fight it, try to avoid it, pretend to himself it’s alright, try to forget about it, submit to it, and maybe a few more kinds of reactions that I’m ommiting.

Actually, anything that triggers a reaction on our part is a form of control. And one can predict our reactions and act accordingly. And if he is good at it, he can then shape us into becoming what he wishes us to become like.

In such a case, oneself will have been dominated by a constructed, fake self that is composed of such reactions. And this is pretty much what constitues the so called ‘ego’, the way I see it.

Ego is not self appreciation, nor is arrogance. Ego and arrogance and humility alike are self-denial. An arrogant guy who tries to humiliate another, doesn’t act for himself, he acts against himself. The mere need he feels to reduce another in order to be, is self denial. One doesn’t need to do anything to anybody in order to be. To be is maybe the most simple, and effortless thing there can be.

The more one acts against himself, the more he acts against others. What he projects out, is what he does onto himself.

We tend to grant much importance and significance to what others do to us, but it doesn’t matter. All that matters is what one does to himself. All another could do to you would beΒ to trigger a reaction on you and make you turn against yourself, and consequently against others too. Words have no value and no significance, but the value and significance that one grants to them.

Since our very early days of our lives we get conditioned into adapting to things exterior to ourselves. Actually we get flooded by such things potentially, starting from parents, friends, schools, friends, church, boyfriends/girlfriends… as long as one does not allow oneself to be oneself, that’s what he does. We seek to get love and agreement from sources outside ourselves, and we even communicate things we don’t mean to communicate, so as to get approval, or love or something. You understand that this thing pushed to an extreme can make one become something completely different than what he is. And that’s the only problem one can have about himself–that he is not being himself.

Naturally, without such a conditionΒ one simply doesn’t turn against himself. And what do you know, he also doesn’t need to do that to others, either.

And if one lets himself be, and he lets others be as well, what an easy and free life he can have.

It would be a gross mistake to doubt the way you view things, because that way is not alligned with some religion, science, your mother or other persons and groups. That could make that person or groups pat you happily on the back, but life wouldn’t do the same.

How convenient it is for a brainwasher to not even need to to brainwash somebody on a daily basis, so as to keep him under control. He just teaches him to do it to himself.

Brainwashing is not handled by sitting to analyze how wrong you are, due to past experiences. On the contrary, that would be self-brainwashing itself. It would be self-invalidation. Nor will that make one become less of a sinner.

Just quit making yourself wrong, doubting yourself, invalidating yourself, by any means–how you view things, what you want, what you like, what you agree with. And you will no longer need to do that to others, either. Let yourself be, and you will let others be too. It’s that easy and simple.


28 thoughts on “Are we against ourselves?

      1. I know. But I experienced it recently on a blog I won’t name, where I felt someone was trying to force me (with insults and make-wrong) to agree with him. From my point of view, he was the one with the big ego. Of course, he would have a slightly different viewpoint on it. πŸ˜‰

          1. I seriously thought you might have been inspired to write this post from the comments on that thread.

            Okay. Never mind. πŸ˜›

            1. I really have no idea. I only read few comments regarding what guy who wanted to recruit g back. I imagine osa behind him, and felt like poking an eyeball out–with love, of course. Prior to that I hadn’t read any related blogs in a long while.

              1. Yes, that was the thread.

                I could also imagine OSA being behind the guy. Either that or he was some kind of weirdo who gets his kicks by pulling someone’s leg. My least favored guess is that he was grossly misapplying FSM tech.

                But there’s no way I could see in his remarks that he was a “conditioned Scientologist,” and I find it hard to understand why Geir would view it that way – or even that he would carry on with the guy, regardless of his believing the guy was sincerely trying to FSM him.

                  1. I doubt he was just trying to get a message across – what he wrote was too strange. But fooling around, yes. – that was my best guess in the end. At first, I thought he was just nuts, and that’s still my second best guess.

                    You don’t fool around like that. πŸ˜›

                    1. Oh. Got it.

                      Ha ha – yes – Irrelevant. But it looks like a good article, one that I would heartily agree with.

                    2. Yes, God loves a good beating.

                      It seems we were haveing a sort of a medieval dark ages period, right after industrialization, and we’re coming out now.

                    3. “Yes, God loves a good beating.”

                      LOL – creatively put.

                      Actually, I couldn’t tell what the viewpoint was in that magazine. The Christian idea of “Spare the rod and spoil the child” has been around a long time. I was hoping the article was taking a new viewpoint on it.

                    4. No, nothing new. It seems at that timw it was both religiously and scientifically established. Then some overimaginative guy wrote that pain is no good, and that it actually results in deep brainwashing. Which is also not good.

                    5. Huh? Over-imaginative to say that pain is no good? I lost you.

                      Don’t you believe that pain sometimes does result in “brainwashing” – sometimes called having a reactive mind? πŸ˜›

                    6. Too advanced or too nebulous? πŸ˜€ But I usually get your sarcasm.

                      Where did you get that ad, and when?

                      I really dislike that world view. But Ken Wilbur puts it in perspective. He’s the guy who came up with “Integral Theory” after he researched all the major philosophies around the world and since ancient times, as well as the primary psychologists (lie Jung, etc.). He found that there’s a cycle each culture goes through – and the same cycle occurs with individuals. In the broadest terms, they go from being ego-centric (me, myself and I) to ethno-centric (my group is the only one that matters) to world-centric (granting beingness to all cultures). Early in this evolution, cultures – or individuals withing a culture – believe in force as the means to achieve one’s ends. That’s where orthodox Christianity comes in. In the New Testament of the Bible, Jesus had a different worldview, from what I know about Christianity (which isn’t a lot).

                    7. Nebulous sarcasm ads to the fun of trying to figure it out, like nebulous anecdotes πŸ˜›

                      A friend linkled me to those ads today. We just have a laugh.

                      Here is the full link:

                      I think what you described and what I described could be summed up as the dwidling spiral. Cycles, one below the other. Or kinda like a roller coaster, in the longer or shorter term. I think we’re doing well, compared to what we could be doing.

                    8. I skimmed through that link. How interesting to look back at that era.

                      Actually, what Wilbur discovered was an ascending spiral, which at every level is like the child who is only aware of self, and then the family, then the group, etc. Some people never get past a certain emotional, mental level, and spiritual level (in their current lifetime) – and some cultures are still pretty barbaric. But the direction of awareness keeps getting higher. And he says something interesting – which is that we wouldn’t expect a child of 6 to act like a 12-year-old – and it’s the same principle with adults and how they view things, and with cultures as well.

                      Hey you, it’s been fun, but I need to get some things done now. Catch you later. πŸ˜›

                    9. Yeah I had to go too. End of shift.

                      IMO there was a dwindling spiral, and now there can be an ascending one. Yes, I think we have gone through way superior (in quality) ways of life than this. And we could reach that again, or even better. Not by tomorrow though.

  1. Rods are for fishing. Hot-rods are for driving and rudy-rods are for I’m not sure what but apparently Hubbard did πŸ˜‰

    “It’s that easy and simple.”

    I agree that it is that simple. The doing is not always so easy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s