self/self-ish, and Black Heart
Nov. 14th, 2005 02:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chelidonI was just reading a friend's post on their definitions of love and friendship, loving the imperfections in others (and being loved including one's imperfections), wanting to be loved for what one is, not what one represents or signifies, the importance of treating others well, and many other lucid, well-spoken points, and I have to say, it was one of the more true, cogent, inspirational things I've read in a while. Now that I've teased you, I can't post a link because it's locked. But it's damn good, believe me.
However, it got me thinking about this recurring theme that keeps coming up lately, in a number of the communities in which I swim, and that is the tension between selfishness and empathy. One of the essential traits of being fully human, of being able to be successful in community, and have a succcessful community, is that of actively choosing to treat others well, to put the feelings, needs and well-being of others alongside one's own. But where is that line drawn between other's needs, and one's own? How far into self-denying does martyrdom happen, and when does being self-aware and attending to one's own needs become simple self-centered selfishness?
In the course of mucking around my archives, I came across some things I wrote back in 1998 or so, when I was exploring the proper place of ego in the Whole Person. How much ego is right-sized, as opposed to deflated or inflated? Why do we often expect people whom we admire to be perfect, or dead from the neck down, or not possessed of an ego? There's a brilliant essay by Ken Wilber, one of my favorites of his, touching on this, and the general messiness of being truly, fully human, which I posted back in February here. Brilliant stuff.
So, anyhow, here are some semi-random bits of conversations about self vs self-ish from seven or eight years ago. It's an issue I think we all come to deal with in our communities, and our lives, over and over again. I note that I was perhaps a bit more strident back then, but what the hey, maybe we do mellow as we age ;>
--Chelidon
L****** wrote:
>I think there's a big difference between people who have a magickal, playful attitude towards life, and people of the sort T***** described.
>I find nothing attractive or magickal about someone who throws an abusive tantrum at anyone who disagrees. I have no use for that sort of thing.
>I frequently have to deal with that sort of behavior, and I see no virtue in it.
>
>But I love people who can be playful.
The difference between child-like and child-ish is the same difference between self-aware and self-ish...
Wonder, joy, the ability to see the new and magickal in the "ordinary," ecstatic play, imagination, uninhibited behaviour...these are child-like characteristics. Tantrums, self-centeredness/egocentrism, a black-and-white worldview, action without thought, shame, alternating complete lack of control with having to be in total control, are child-ish.
The child instinctively knows that in an infinite universe, s/he is the center. The adult hopefully learns that in an infinite universe, all points, and no point, are equally the center.
Another Ken Wilber quote:
"The big Self is indeed _no small ego_, and thus, to the extent that you are stuck in your small ego, a death and transcendence is required. Narcissists are simply people whose egos are not yet big enough to embrace the entire Kosmos, and so they try to be central to the Kosmos instead." -- Ken Wilbur
[...]
A lack of compassion for others is clearly a kind of social retardation, and a lack of ability to empathize with others falls
somewhere between being just childishly selfish, and genuinely sociopathic, depending on how severe the lack is. The least
empathetic humans can torture, maim, wound at will, because they have no sense of identification with anyone around them, or at least with
certain subsets of others, i.e., Jews, women, prostitutes, Hutus,blacks, witches, or "normals." Now, it's one thing to *decide* not to
be empathetic temporarily for some reason of one's own, and that can be a useful ability, but to lack the *capacity*, to operate normally
in such a state...that's just retarded, literally, and developmentally. The plaintive cry, "but I just have to be *me* (no matter what effect
I have on others)," and the stance of willfully choosing not to take responsibility for the harm one does to others around one is at best,
mean and petty, and at worst, one of the most awful kinds of human behaviour. And that is *exactly* the kind of thing that led to
folks being abused by peers/family/etc, often as children, precisely because *they* couldn't empathize with anyone
outside the narrow space between their ears. It's appropriate to grow out of that selfish stage, ideally soon after childhood, but very
hopefully, sometime before death. Total self-centeredness is natural and normal in a 4-year-old, but a sign of a great lack of development
in an adult. There's nothing wrong with an appropriate amount of selfishness and self-interest-- altruism taken to an extreme is
martyrdom, which does no one any good, and "enlightened self-interest" is quite often a wise policy in a world which doesn't treat the
unselfish particularly well. But the word "enlightened"... is key.
The pursuit of "Self" can be the worst kind of navel-gazing, eventually becoming so self-absorbing that one completely fails to
notice that one is continually spreading hurt all about. And when all those about feel hurt and abused, they tend to become upset and strike
back, or just leave, depending on their tolerance and inclination. And that, my comrades, is the greater cause of negative reactions from
others, not some kind of cliquishness or general human hatred for those who are different. Yes, those tendencies certainly exist, but
far greater is the natural disinclination of people to stay around those who are socially clueless and/or selfish, or who uncaringly
cause harm to those around them. It's just a natural law. We like being around people who make us feel good, we don't like to be around
people who cause us pain (unless, of course, you're into that kind of thing... ;>) So the next person who complains about
being constantly misunderstood or getting persecuted by others for their personal authenticity or radical honesty...look first into
thine own mirror, deeply. Likely the person looking back will be someone who incurs their own misunderstandings.
[...]
Bah. Enough platitudes. So, what I'm left with to look at is a bunch of stuff that looks suspiciously like some leftover "classical" values:
humility, compassion, self-responsibility, honesty, and empathy for others. Definitely have to add in ecstasy, delight in
life and in one's own body, delight in other people's bodies, gleeful excess, scented oils, honeydust, whipped cream, all-night dancing,
leather, silk, velvet and lace, running naked through the trees chasing deer, radical changes in consciousness, the thirsty pursuit of
knowledge, an appropriate pride, self-knowledge, taking life (it's inevitable to survival), giving live, taking joy, giving joy, luscious
ice cream, good booze or wine, and really really good chocolate.
Drink it in, deep... :>
Ah, well, that's plenty enough ranting for one day.
I'm reminded of a line in the play Peer Gynt, about a childlike fool-figure who spends most of his time living in various fantasy worlds. He harms friend after friend, and leaves or is left by one companion after another. He carries off a smitten girl on her intended wedding night to another man, offering to take her to the
land across the stars, has his way with her, and then leaves her, betrayed, to wander home through the snow alone. Fleeing for his life from the enraged townspeople, Peer eventually comes across the daughter of the Goblin King, who sweeps him off his feet (quite literally) and takes him away to the Goblin Kingdom. So Peer Gynt
is talking to the Goblin King, and is insisting that no matter what he has done, despite whatever harm he has done to others around him,
he has at least *always* been himSelf. The King turns to Peer and slyly asks... "Is it that you have really been yourSelf, or have you
just been Self. . .ish?"
[...]
Some of this all for me comes back to the concept of Black Heart and the free flow and exchange of life-energy between people.
If I'm around people who can really "do" Black Heart, I can
be more open to and allow that wide-open exchange of energy, and that mutual construction/rebuilding of reality, to occur without having to
worry about dealing with someone who's toxic to me, or having my reality attacked or manipulated by someone maliciously.
I'm not talking about having to take any particular moral stance or have any
particular purpose for one's reality or one's Work. But if everyone around me is capable of a Black Heart level of honesty and openness, I
don't have to be as guarded, I can let that deliciously lacivious life-energy flow and do as it (and I) will, and be sure that the
resulting reality will be not only in line with what I want, but also in line with what the others I interact with want, with our will (or
True Will). What we do together will be way more powerful and far-reaching than what *any* one person could have done alone....it's
a synergistic thing, a kind of constant group magickal Working and restructuring of reality. We don't even have to all want the same
things, just be open and honest about what our intent is. Which, again, requires enough self-knowledge to know what it *is* that one
really wants, which brings me back to Intent ;>
I'm reminded of Julian May's concept of metaconcert in his various books-- the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, and what is
accomplished by a group of magickally like-minded individuals is always more significant than what can be accomplished by any single
individual alone. But there can't be a loss of individuality, either, no simple subsuming of the self to the group or the "leader" (hmm,
this is sounding like a classic "Eastern vs. Western" thing), but rather an organic focus of individual intents in a way that allows for
the creation of a reality that works for everybody involved. Neither "each man for hirself," nor "hivemind," nor "pack mentality," nor even
"monkey politics," but something new and different. Time to go back and reread Hakim Bey, maybe ;>
However, it got me thinking about this recurring theme that keeps coming up lately, in a number of the communities in which I swim, and that is the tension between selfishness and empathy. One of the essential traits of being fully human, of being able to be successful in community, and have a succcessful community, is that of actively choosing to treat others well, to put the feelings, needs and well-being of others alongside one's own. But where is that line drawn between other's needs, and one's own? How far into self-denying does martyrdom happen, and when does being self-aware and attending to one's own needs become simple self-centered selfishness?
In the course of mucking around my archives, I came across some things I wrote back in 1998 or so, when I was exploring the proper place of ego in the Whole Person. How much ego is right-sized, as opposed to deflated or inflated? Why do we often expect people whom we admire to be perfect, or dead from the neck down, or not possessed of an ego? There's a brilliant essay by Ken Wilber, one of my favorites of his, touching on this, and the general messiness of being truly, fully human, which I posted back in February here. Brilliant stuff.
So, anyhow, here are some semi-random bits of conversations about self vs self-ish from seven or eight years ago. It's an issue I think we all come to deal with in our communities, and our lives, over and over again. I note that I was perhaps a bit more strident back then, but what the hey, maybe we do mellow as we age ;>
--Chelidon
L****** wrote:
>I think there's a big difference between people who have a magickal, playful attitude towards life, and people of the sort T***** described.
>I find nothing attractive or magickal about someone who throws an abusive tantrum at anyone who disagrees. I have no use for that sort of thing.
>I frequently have to deal with that sort of behavior, and I see no virtue in it.
>
>But I love people who can be playful.
The difference between child-like and child-ish is the same difference between self-aware and self-ish...
Wonder, joy, the ability to see the new and magickal in the "ordinary," ecstatic play, imagination, uninhibited behaviour...these are child-like characteristics. Tantrums, self-centeredness/egocentrism, a black-and-white worldview, action without thought, shame, alternating complete lack of control with having to be in total control, are child-ish.
The child instinctively knows that in an infinite universe, s/he is the center. The adult hopefully learns that in an infinite universe, all points, and no point, are equally the center.
Another Ken Wilber quote:
"The big Self is indeed _no small ego_, and thus, to the extent that you are stuck in your small ego, a death and transcendence is required. Narcissists are simply people whose egos are not yet big enough to embrace the entire Kosmos, and so they try to be central to the Kosmos instead." -- Ken Wilbur
[...]
A lack of compassion for others is clearly a kind of social retardation, and a lack of ability to empathize with others falls
somewhere between being just childishly selfish, and genuinely sociopathic, depending on how severe the lack is. The least
empathetic humans can torture, maim, wound at will, because they have no sense of identification with anyone around them, or at least with
certain subsets of others, i.e., Jews, women, prostitutes, Hutus,blacks, witches, or "normals." Now, it's one thing to *decide* not to
be empathetic temporarily for some reason of one's own, and that can be a useful ability, but to lack the *capacity*, to operate normally
in such a state...that's just retarded, literally, and developmentally. The plaintive cry, "but I just have to be *me* (no matter what effect
I have on others)," and the stance of willfully choosing not to take responsibility for the harm one does to others around one is at best,
mean and petty, and at worst, one of the most awful kinds of human behaviour. And that is *exactly* the kind of thing that led to
folks being abused by peers/family/etc, often as children, precisely because *they* couldn't empathize with anyone
outside the narrow space between their ears. It's appropriate to grow out of that selfish stage, ideally soon after childhood, but very
hopefully, sometime before death. Total self-centeredness is natural and normal in a 4-year-old, but a sign of a great lack of development
in an adult. There's nothing wrong with an appropriate amount of selfishness and self-interest-- altruism taken to an extreme is
martyrdom, which does no one any good, and "enlightened self-interest" is quite often a wise policy in a world which doesn't treat the
unselfish particularly well. But the word "enlightened"... is key.
The pursuit of "Self" can be the worst kind of navel-gazing, eventually becoming so self-absorbing that one completely fails to
notice that one is continually spreading hurt all about. And when all those about feel hurt and abused, they tend to become upset and strike
back, or just leave, depending on their tolerance and inclination. And that, my comrades, is the greater cause of negative reactions from
others, not some kind of cliquishness or general human hatred for those who are different. Yes, those tendencies certainly exist, but
far greater is the natural disinclination of people to stay around those who are socially clueless and/or selfish, or who uncaringly
cause harm to those around them. It's just a natural law. We like being around people who make us feel good, we don't like to be around
people who cause us pain (unless, of course, you're into that kind of thing... ;>) So the next person who complains about
being constantly misunderstood or getting persecuted by others for their personal authenticity or radical honesty...look first into
thine own mirror, deeply. Likely the person looking back will be someone who incurs their own misunderstandings.
[...]
Bah. Enough platitudes. So, what I'm left with to look at is a bunch of stuff that looks suspiciously like some leftover "classical" values:
humility, compassion, self-responsibility, honesty, and empathy for others. Definitely have to add in ecstasy, delight in
life and in one's own body, delight in other people's bodies, gleeful excess, scented oils, honeydust, whipped cream, all-night dancing,
leather, silk, velvet and lace, running naked through the trees chasing deer, radical changes in consciousness, the thirsty pursuit of
knowledge, an appropriate pride, self-knowledge, taking life (it's inevitable to survival), giving live, taking joy, giving joy, luscious
ice cream, good booze or wine, and really really good chocolate.
Drink it in, deep... :>
Ah, well, that's plenty enough ranting for one day.
I'm reminded of a line in the play Peer Gynt, about a childlike fool-figure who spends most of his time living in various fantasy worlds. He harms friend after friend, and leaves or is left by one companion after another. He carries off a smitten girl on her intended wedding night to another man, offering to take her to the
land across the stars, has his way with her, and then leaves her, betrayed, to wander home through the snow alone. Fleeing for his life from the enraged townspeople, Peer eventually comes across the daughter of the Goblin King, who sweeps him off his feet (quite literally) and takes him away to the Goblin Kingdom. So Peer Gynt
is talking to the Goblin King, and is insisting that no matter what he has done, despite whatever harm he has done to others around him,
he has at least *always* been himSelf. The King turns to Peer and slyly asks... "Is it that you have really been yourSelf, or have you
just been Self. . .ish?"
[...]
Some of this all for me comes back to the concept of Black Heart and the free flow and exchange of life-energy between people.
If I'm around people who can really "do" Black Heart, I can
be more open to and allow that wide-open exchange of energy, and that mutual construction/rebuilding of reality, to occur without having to
worry about dealing with someone who's toxic to me, or having my reality attacked or manipulated by someone maliciously.
I'm not talking about having to take any particular moral stance or have any
particular purpose for one's reality or one's Work. But if everyone around me is capable of a Black Heart level of honesty and openness, I
don't have to be as guarded, I can let that deliciously lacivious life-energy flow and do as it (and I) will, and be sure that the
resulting reality will be not only in line with what I want, but also in line with what the others I interact with want, with our will (or
True Will). What we do together will be way more powerful and far-reaching than what *any* one person could have done alone....it's
a synergistic thing, a kind of constant group magickal Working and restructuring of reality. We don't even have to all want the same
things, just be open and honest about what our intent is. Which, again, requires enough self-knowledge to know what it *is* that one
really wants, which brings me back to Intent ;>
I'm reminded of Julian May's concept of metaconcert in his various books-- the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, and what is
accomplished by a group of magickally like-minded individuals is always more significant than what can be accomplished by any single
individual alone. But there can't be a loss of individuality, either, no simple subsuming of the self to the group or the "leader" (hmm,
this is sounding like a classic "Eastern vs. Western" thing), but rather an organic focus of individual intents in a way that allows for
the creation of a reality that works for everybody involved. Neither "each man for hirself," nor "hivemind," nor "pack mentality," nor even
"monkey politics," but something new and different. Time to go back and reread Hakim Bey, maybe ;>
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-11-15 04:01 am (UTC)