Conference hydra::dejavu

    
Joe, this is where I was trying to get in 652, except you are using "they" 
and I was using "when".

However, please define "they" - thank you...
    
    >>>>  ....early in our evolution....
    
    Are you speaking of evolution as in this life (embryotic) or in 
    as pre-existance?
                     
*************************
A thought or feeling is very difficult to verbalize or to write down and
we find ourselves tip-toeing around and appearing to be argumentative about
a specific discussion, especially one as complex as this:
                     
"If we are responsible to recognize that we are creating our reality(ies), 
and are willing to be responsible for it's outcome, this then we must 
realize as a TODAY issue and will always be a TODAY issue, even as we 
enter TOMORROW.  But what about the YESTERDAYS and beyond.  Would we then 
consider the creation of our reality(ies) to be our destination.  And at 
what point in "time" did this occur."
           
One day we "wake" up and discover where we are and search to find how we
got here and then we take charge and begin to realize it CAN be changed.  
But where were we before we woke up?
           
Cheryl     
           

                       
    	Hi Cheryl,
    
    	"They" corresponds to your parent, guardian or whoever took
    care of you during your form-a-tive years, i.e. the first ten years
    of your life. It is known that, for optimal development, a young
    person has certain needs that are specific and depend on age. This
    becomes complex because it's a function of time; what is appropriate
    for a 3 year old is no longer so for a 9 year old. 
    
    	To positively meet every legitimate need a child has in it's
    proper time is a feat rarely achieved in parenting, I believe. Not to
    say that it does not happen or is impossible, it's just certainly 
    difficult, considering what one must in terms of practicality and of 
    themselves. It's a whole different ball game however when "the parent" 
    is dis-eased, due to the fact that they somehow missed out on the 
    fullfillment of their own childhood's needs. Now, "the rare feat" just 
    might be beyond the realm of possibility... 
    
    	My "claim" is that any person's perception of reality is first
    and foremost created by this process of development. The subconscious
    is microcoded - operational paramaters defined - at this time in
    life. Whatever observations and experiences get put in stays in,
    whether they meet the time-implicate need or whether they are the
    worst thing that could possibly have been done in that instance. 
    Until the conscious mind realizes: "I dont have to be this way",
    we remain among the un-enlightened, chained to our subconscious
    reactions.
     
    	This realization does not make the programming dissappear, BTW.
    As an example, a common program in people's subconscious is derived
    from the "Nice people dont call attention to themselves" message,
    which I assume is given to children as a behavorial modifier. Once
    "blasted" into the subconscious, the child will feel badly (not
    nice) about her/himself should s/he start soliciting attention in
    church, or in school, or perhaps when the neighbors stop by. 
    
    	As the child becomes an adult, the person realizes "I dont have to 
    be this way - I can stand up for and present myself and my opinion". 
    Nevertheless, the *feeling* still persists and even though the
    conscious will may force a presentation of the self, it is not without 
    some accompanying dis-ease, such as a trembling voice. It is this part 
    of our perception, that of the subconscious, that I claim is likely
    still the most deterministic part of anyone's perception of reality. 
    It was a *given*. 
                                             
    	Joe Jas

    re: .2 Joe
    
          Good example!  I like that...and it's apparently true on
    virtually all levels.  *UNTIL* we consciously decide, we *are*
    deciding anyway.  What is being left out, however, is that we can
    consciously give our power to the sub-conscious or the unconscious.
    What may be a poor example might be...I look around at my reality
    as closely as I know how and decide that there is an optimum time
    for me to defecate.  So, I then *consciously* tell my sub-conscious
    that that time is the one I wish to use for that purpose.  So, from
    that point onwards, I no longer have to consciously decide *when*
    I want to go (*That* I have to go is a function, I believe, of
    the unconscious.)  I let the sub-conscious do it for me.  You know
    what?  It works.  And I cannot then be victimized by my reality...
    I am in charge.
    
    Frederick
    

                      
                      
    What is the definition of Reality (no fair looking into Webster's,
    etc.)?            
                      
    Is it pre-destination (before this incarnation)?      
                                                          
    Is it the evidence of our free-will (this incarnation)?           
                                                                      
    Is it what happens, as "life" flows around us (destined free-will)?  
      	                                                              
                                                                      
                                                                      
    Cheryl
                                      

    reality is a crutch for people who can't take drugs.
    
    
    /b

    
    
    re: 5
    
    Fine - I'll play and then re-play....
    
    On the other side:  How about drugs is the reality for people who
    can't eat chili!
    
    Now may we get back to my original question.........thank you!
    
    
    Cheryl

    Since this discussion gets increasingly subjective, I'm going to
    "cheat" and use Webster's, although some may want to debate it's
    objectivity.
    
    REALITY:(just the definitions) 1.The quality or state of being real
    2. A real event, entity, or state of affairs. 3. The totality of
    of real things and events. 4. Something that is neither dependent
    nor derivative but exists necessarily.
      
    REAL:(just the relevent definition) Not artificial, fraudulent,
    illusory, or apparent.
    
    ILLUSION: 1. the state or fact of being intellectually deceived
    or misled. 2. a perception of something objectively existing in
    such a way  as to cause misinterpetation of its actual nature.
    
    These definitions recognize an objective existence that is
    independent of our perception of that existence. I agree with
    these definitions.
                               
    I also agree with Jos Jas. 
    
    -roger
    
    

    Re. .2 (Joe)
    
    I think that the recognition that we have been 'programmed' is the
    first step in over-riding that programming. I do Not believe that
    this is impossible, though I admit it is extremely difficult (even
    if only for reasons of recursion!) Most philosophies/religions that
    I have related to have had this task as a priority item on their
    'To Do' list. My knee-jerk reactions are fading fast as I work on
    them and the consequent freedom is well worth the effort.
    
    Brian 

    Unfulfilled needs leftover from childhood are carried within us
    for the rest of our lives.  Most people, unconsciously, frequently
    act on these unmet needs.  This results in inappropriate
    behavior--behavior that is ineffective or that causes problems rather
    than resolving them.
    
    It is possible to change, but it takes an enormous amount of work.
     There are a number of therapies that give positive results.  My
    personal feeling is that not all therapies are helpful to everybody
    and that a truly good counselor will have integrated several different
    types of therapies to be able to customize work to the individual's
    needs.
    
    Basically, what needs to happen is that a person needs to recognize
    what needs were unmet, they may need to diffuse (de-fuse) the emotions 
    tiedto the unmet needs, they must understand how these unmet needs are
    affecting their thinking and behavior now, and then (and I think
    this is the key)-- they must take care of the inner child that is
    ruling them and, at the same time, find alternate behaviors that
    are successful.  The effect of the last 2 steps is two-fold.  First,
    they are learning to control the inappropriate behavior and second,
    when the substitute behaviors are successful they are reinforced
    via conditioning.
    
    Example:  I was taken off the bottle at something like 3 months,
    therefore my "sucking" needs were unmet.  I responded by becoming
    addicted to sucking my thumb until a late age.  Unfortunately, my
    parents compounded the problem by punishing me for sucking my thumb
    as a means to try to stop me from meeting my unmet sucking need.
    They could not punish me into giving up an oral fixation, however,
    so I became addicted to certain foods (especially sugar).
    
    To overcome this as an adult, I needed to understand why I couldn't
    help myself (that's just the way I am) and find a healthy substitute
    for the candy.  And forgive the child within, and *occasionally*
    indulge the child, for the craving.
    
    One thing that helps when you are resolving an unmet need is to
    visualize yourself as a child when you are providing the substitution.
     It is a phenomenally powerful exercise.
    

    Hi Mary,
    
    One of the best books I have read for healing that child within
    is You Can Heal Your Life by Louise Hay.  I believe she also
    has meditation tapes that work too.
    
    Ro
    

    
    I'm glad you brought this up, Joe, because I think this finally
    brought some balance to the YCYOR concept.  A balance, by the way,
    evidenced by the lack of flames to your idea.

    Guy
    

                                 
    	I believe there exists an indirected challenge to the idea
    nevertheless. It's the belief that a particularly troubled childhood
    was somehow "chosen" for one's self, reason being that the soul
    had a lesson to learn and would in this way benefit from an incarnation
    into a dysfunctional family.
    
    	I challenge the necessity of this; that this is the "only way" for
    the soul's lesson to be had. Guess it opens up the idea that perhaps
    one has to be well_learned how to hate one's self before one can
    learn how to love one's self. This is because love cannot exist without
    respecting hate; "yin/yang", all things in balance, etc. I dont
    believe this, it sounds too close to a rationalization for the "poisonous
    pedagogy" parenting rule set, one that proclaims that breaking a child's
    will - using force and violence if necessary - leads to a "stronger 
    character" and "better prepares one for later life".
    	
    	I believe that one can be taught to love one's self an an explicit
    effort, and that "lessons" of pain or hate can be left as an acedemic 
    consideration! That is, you can know of and respect hate's existance,
    but there is no certain reason that it must be personally endured,
    for you to "come to know it well enough" to *be able to choose* to
    move beyond it, or whatever. 
    
    	Please correct me if I'm wrong!!!
                                            
    	Joe Jas

    re: .12
       
          Sounds good.  "No pain, no gain."  Ah, the nobilization
    of struggle!  From ancient times to the present our realities
    seem to be telling us that if we haven't paid for it, we don't
    deserve it.  That the more you work, struggle, make efforts,
    sacrifice, and on and on, the more "God" will reward us (and so
    in imitation do we also reward.)  To "balance it out" as you
    implied.  Somehow, though, this seems anathema to all the
    "New Age" mumbo-jumbo.  "Just be open and it will happen."
    "Just love, and you will be loved", etc. etc.  And what about
    all the quantum physics and all that stuff?  How does that
    all fit in?  Something's not right here.  
         Let's put it all together.  First off, we've created this
    massively intricate game.  Coming from pure love or whatever,
    we created other emotions.  To experience them?  Perhaps.  But
    maybe also to just "KNOW" them.  Do we have to experience them
    to know them?  No, all we have to do is have a WILLINGNESS to
    experience them to know them.  After all, if we believe in all
    the reincarnational activities of our entire beingness, then it
    is almost safe to assume that we have already experienced plenty
    of pain, struggle, sacrifice in many other realities on our 
    path along the physical plane.  If we further believe that all
    time is simultaneous (this is where we get to quanta...) then
    we *should* have access to those lifetimes, n'est-ce pas?  So,
    meditationally we can do so, we can access those lifetimes and
    experience those emotions.  In so doing, we can eliminate any
    needs for this lifetime to experience them.  Moreover, we can
    deal with the emotions in some other than hurtful manner and
    go on to experience the totality of love that we will allow.
         What am I saying?  I'm saying that you're correct but not
    completely correct.  You can create a balance but not by "direct"
    experience.  That the balance can come from the WILLINGNESS to
    have that balance.  That the more willing you are to experience
    pain, the more pleasure you can have.  NOT the more pain you
    experience, but just the willingness of it.  Check it out...
    we all know people (maybe even ourselves) who want to have
    someone love them but seem to be unwilling to love that person,
    at least very much.  When pressed, they always admit that it's
    because they've been hurt before and don't want to be hurt again.
    So they shut down.  Do they ever experience love in the fullest
    possible way?  Of course not...they cannot.  For it is only when
    we can make ourselves as vulnerable as we can allow that we
    can experience the most love that we can have.  Is "God" vulnerable?
    Yes, beyond our ability to understand.  Do we (or "God") have
    to experience pain in that vulnerability?  No, we only have to
    be WILLING to experience the pain.  So, as I am attempting to
    illustrate, you are only partially correct.  Yes, there is a 
    balance, but it doesn't have to come in the direct fashion
    you suggest.  It may be enough to just conceptualize it.  And
    then, to act on it (to take that feminine energy to its completion
    by applying masculine energy to it), then it can be done by
    transmuting the energy with equal intensity but in a more
    helpful direction.  Yes, the universe is abundant and no, you
    don't have to do *anything* more than love to have it.
                      
    Frederick
    

    Frederick (.13),
    
    Intellectually I understand your point.  It just gets real
    tough when it comes down to applying it.  What happens when
    the WILLINGNESS to be vulnerable turns into actually 
    experiencing the pain?  
    
    Ro
    

>What happens when the WILLINGNESS to be vulnerable turns into actually 
>experiencing the pain?  

let it happen; feel it; let the idea behind it that needs to crumble, crumble 
away, and remember; "this, too, shall pass".

    re: .14
    
         Though I may not think it exactly the same way, I agree with
    Meredith (.15).  Actually, I don't always remember to be willing
    and too often deal with the "real" thing, myself.  There are lots
    of ways with dealing with the emotion itself and much of what many
    have been writing in this conference lately is valid for me.
    But in those instances where we make conscious efforts to plan out
    our reality, then I simply do it (and I'm not certain this is the
    most appropriate way) by telling myself that I am willing to experience
    [whatever I consider the opposite of the desired outcome] this
    but I want whatever it is I want with harm to none.  Focusing on
    the negative is not wise if one wishes to avoid it...but acknowledging
    it and indicating a willingness to experience it allows for more energy
    available for the desired outcome.
                                                     
    
    Frederick
    

    
    Re.14 (Flaherty)
    
    Ro,
    
    Peck talks about this willingness to become vulnerable at length
    in "The Different Drum".  Chapter 11 is devoted to Vulnerability.
    
    As people and as a society, we are not willing to risk becoming
    vulnerable.  It's scary, so we hide behind the masks, stockpile
    our weapons, and hence a very unreal world of invulnerability and
    macho invincibility exists.
    
    A personal example - back in the YCYOR note, I chose to make a part
    of myself vulnerable (by talking about my childhood) to illustrate 
    the point I was trying to make.  I was, and still am, willing to
    become vulnerable to illustrate various points.  The pain comes when 
    one becomes vulnerable and someone begins to take pot shots at you
    where you are the most vulnerable.  Here in DEJAVU though, this did 
    not happen, nor would I have expected it to happen.  Such is not the 
    case in other conferences though (sadly).  Why?  Because I believe 
    here in DEJAVU, we are a community - a true community.
    
    Similarly, the US and the USSR in the past have also not been willing
    to become vulnerable, and instead hide behind the facades of
    invincibility.  Fortunately this has changed for the better in recent
    times (since Gorbachev came into power), however we still have a
    long way to go.
    
    Cindy

    Is it the quality of vulnerability that is important, or is it the
    qualities of honesty and openness? To me, if one is willing to share
    part of oneself in an honest matter, and is at peace with
    himself/herself on the subject, then one is not vulnerable to harm,
    even though they may be attacked.
        
    The concept of honesty is all-important in looking at oneself, too,
    I believe.
                             
    I've been very moved by your willingness to share with us as much
    as you have, Cindy. I was curious to know, however, in your reading
    of 50 psychology books last year, if you had touched upon literature
    about co-dependency? This was one area that has been of enourmous
    value to me in the past six months, and led me to many similar
    answers as others in this conference have found, although the path
    has been completely different.
    
    -roger
    
    different means.

    Re.18 (CSR209)
    
    Hi Roger,     
    
    >...then one is not vulnerable to harm, even though they may be
    >attacked.
     
    Very true.  I believe that everything I've shared up to now, I've
    come to terms with in my own life.  This isn't to say I've come
    to terms with _everything_ because I know there are still areas
    to deal with.  The good thing is though that now I have the process
    in place to effectively deal with them, and have already uncovered
    the biggies.  Peck mentions in "The Road Less Traveled" that when 
    patients ask him when they can terminate professional therapy, his 
    response is, "When you are able to become your own therapist."
                                              
    The next step - and the next book (of course) to talk about is "People
    Of The Lie - The Hope For Healing Human Evil", by Peck.  In it he
    talks about how to identify and attempt to heal the evil which exists
    on Earth today.  First, get to know yourself.  Then, get to know
    others.  In the case of evil, know your enemy.  Then use Love to
    heal.  Ending quote from the book:
    
    	"The healing of evil - scientifically or otherwise - can 
         only be accomplished by the love of individuals.  .....
         Then what prevents the descruction of that soul?  If one
         takes evil itself into one's heart, like a spear, how can
         one's goodness still survive?  Even if the evil is vanquished
         thereby, will not the good be also?  .....
         I do not know how this occurs.  But I know that it does. I
         know that the good people can deliberately allow themselves
         to be pierced by the evil of others - to be broken thereby
         yet somehow not be broken - to even be killed in some sense
         and yet still survive and not succumb.  Whenever this happens
         there is a slight shift in the balance of power in the world.
    
    From your (handy) Bible, you may also recognize "Be ye not overcome
    of evil, but overcome evil with good." (or something close to this).
    
    As for co-dependency - I have read just a little bit on this, mainly
    in the ACOA notes conference (restricted) and just little snippets
    in other books on ACOA's.  It does apply - it all applies, however 
    not as directly in my situation as in others.  It's been a while,
    so I don't recall right now exactly why I chose to only touch on
    this area just a little.
                                                                        
    Cindy

    I believe that the capacity for great good and the capacity for
    great evil lies within us all; that good and evil represent the
    two opposite end points of what is possible in human behavior. I
    also believe good and evil are human concepts, and will always
    be with us in the sense that our capacity for evil will never
    disappear.
    
    -roger