You must wear the badge of shame when you have been graciously chosen by a pod cultivator to be moderator, but then have your knuckles rapped by that very same cultivator for disrespect or ad hominem attacks. Therefore, in order to at least retain some shred of dignity, you have no choice but to relinquish your post and exit quietly.

Nevertheless, can paradigms be questioned respectfully? Is respect a relative interpretation that must be sacrificed when questioning beliefs? Should beliefs not be questioned in the retention of peace and tranquility? Is the questioning of belief-systems a demonstration of intolerance if the questioning does not seek to replace one belief for another, but merely to question all beliefs?

An ego-self is maintained through its beliefs. A ‘self' cannot exist without a ‘belief-package' to assert its reality or ‘realness.' A baby's self is tenuous and developing and will try on numerous belief systems before it resigns itself to a core system of beliefs or core-self. Aspects will be altered as an infant grows and this is referred to as "self-development," which will continue throughout life. Yet, the core-self is developed primarily in the formative years in which the growing infant realizes it is a body in a world. The ego-self not only severely restricts change of this body-world belief, but also will resist change to the cascading subordinate or subsidiary beliefs that reinforce this primary structure.

In the adult years, one paradigm that I believe competes with the primary monetary-value paradigm, but has yet to overcome it, is the religious or god paradigm.

Conceptualizations of god are paramount to a ‘self' believing it's in a mind, but knows mind only through ‘experience,' while it knows body and world through bodily sensation as processed in mind. The ego-self of the mind instinctually seeks to learn who and what it is and this understanding is primordial to egoic intellect.

We really can't refute the relevance of the god paradigm to an egoic mind, since history demonstrates that global conflicts have been fought over the predominance of specific belief systems revolving around god (religion).

Such wars are available for microcosmic view within the pods of Gaia, particularly those that focus fairly exclusively on god paradigms. Often this occurs through veiled anti-Semitism, atheist vs deist confrontations, but more often this is evident through eastern vs western paradigm conflicts or Judeo-Christian vs. Hindu-Buddhist.

Yet, try coming in without attaching to one or the other (eastern or western paradigms) but simply to question both and your deviance will be spotted by both sides and roundly excoriated. Not to attach to any conceptual interpretation by questioning all belief systems, is tantamount to deviance and it is clearly threatening to those egos whose religious beliefs are strengthened by pressing against opposing belief systems. If you do not present an opposing belief, but merely question the relevance of the predominating beliefs, you will be attacked personally. In fact, on one thread I was actually characterized as "hopeless."

Science is a continuous pattern of reductionism. Religion refuses to be reduced mainly because it can't be observed. However, I see no reason why the paradigms cannot be reduced conceptually nonetheless.

However, this becomes a tricky process since observables are not as powerful as beliefs and certainly studying and reducing our beliefs about the New Guinea tree-frog is not as all-encompassing, and thus frightening, as studying and reducing our beliefs about god.

Smashing paradigms is a risky business and if you take this on as a project, expect to be severely criticized and held in contempt. (I mean, just look at the contempt heaped on Ken Wilber. Of course I, in no way, compare myself to that bright mind, LOL!). The goal of an ego-self is to perpetuate and assert the reality of itself through attachment to beliefs. To question core beliefs is clearly discerned as attack on self and this demands counter attack strategies from the perceived victim. Try questioning all beliefs and you will be accused of "playing devils advocate" or as "abusing" others through "ridiculing" their beliefs.

But, as I've learned the hard way, fight back and you have thus indicted yourself as egoically attached as any other ego-self. In other words, you indict yourself as a ‘self' and a ‘self' is an easy target for attack. To question deeply held beliefs, with all their centuries old symbolism, analogical fantasies and metaphorical language, is to set yourself up for failure and you will not be liked, so get used to it.

However, you may come to enjoy it because, reducing the hallowed, unquestionable  belief systems of others demands that same reduction of your own system of belief. No one is immune to smashing paradigms particularly the one doing the smashing.

Some days you will question if anything is "real" and in that moment you will have an experience that can only be referred to, in the western paradigm, as sensing an approach of "insanity." This is what the existentialists considered the fall into 'nothingness.' But you must tenaciously cling to some conceptual strings, because you have a family and need to work for a living, You can't let it all go. At least not yet.

This seems to be the "awakening" of the masters and it is in NO way egoless and, in fact, engages the ego-self fully. The reported levels of awakening clearly allude to paradigm reduction or stripping of beliefs and as you free yourself from one idolized belief after another, you experience a freedom directly from that dissociation.

The western philosopher Heidegger experienced it and wrote about it (Being and Time), although few could understand since, after the dissolution of the ‘given' paradigms, the new paradigm was completely constructed from scratch making the translation almost gibberish. Many scholars have compared "Being and Time" to ancient eastern philosophies which are also gibberish to Judeo-Christian paradigms.

My attempt to perform such reductionism through others has been disastrous as many are deeply entrenched in their defining of "faith" and this steadfast adherence will only ruin the experiment or game, since battles will ensue. However, many get that the game has no rules and feel a sense of enjoyment in playing without needing a learned frame of reference as anchor. Without an anchoring belief system the ego self will react either in fear or exhilaration. The infinite game has no outcome and this takes getting used to for some egos, who have spent a lifetime invested in particular belief-systems and awaiting an outcome or reward for such allegiance.

As I read about others who have pursued such a game or experiment, it requires that you become a free-agent or independent contractor, since nobody will have YOU.

Ahhh...the loneliness of the long-distance runner.....

mikeS

Anger is a protective mechanism of the psychological ego-self and serves no other purpose. What once may have served as a prehistoric survival mechanism is now a general coping mechanism. Anger as a reflex, is easily projected outward without hesitation. We feel justified in presenting our anger. Yet, remarkably, we are more likely to express anger to a "loved one" than a stranger.

For many "love" relationships, expressing anger is more common than expressions of "love." In fact, for many relationships, anger is patterned and rather predictable. Often, the "dance of love" is completely overshadowed by the dance of anger.

To deny the underlying power differential between "loving" individuals is naïve. The ego demands control and, in fact, its only purpose is to perpetuate itself through persistent self-assertion in an uncontrollable world. The developing ego-self learns that it must engage the world by pressing itself against the world, in competition with other ego-selves also engaged in self-assertion. Parents endeavor to provide the tools necessary for success, when success is defined as ever-greater self-assertion. This is often referred to as "self-esteem" and includes 'justifiable anger' in the service of self-protection.

CONFLICT CIRCULARITY

The task for relationships is not to identify the details of this power differential, but to seek out the patterns. Conflict patterns are circular and your reaction to me is based on my reaction to you, which is from your reaction to me resulting from my reaction to you, on and on, seemingly ad infinitum. Couples miss the patterned circularity of their conflicts, in the ego's need to be absolved of guilt by projecting it upon the other in the heat of the moment.

In our never-ending ego battles you will struggle to indict my transgressions and defend against yours, while I, in turn, do the same. Never will we see the circularity of conflict and, for the ego-self, the devil is always in YOUR details and not MINE.

This is evident in the bigger, ‘more serious' world in which this circularity leads to great suffering. The Israelis indict the Palestinians who easily absolve their guilty by projecting back almost the same indictments upon the Israelis. In either case, one is victim while the other victimizer. This is true only in the episodic details of the present, while the big picture exhibits centuries of pure circularity. These ancient hatreds need be exposed so that mutual guilt can transition to a mutual innocence. If we are all guilty, then logic holds, we must really all be innocent.

Yet, the pattern in both world affairs and our 'love' relationships demands that for me to be innocent, you must be guilty. The ego-self can only sense unified oneness and never know it fully, since such a unification is perceived as death to the separate self.

IT IS NOT ATTACK BUT DEFENSE THAT YOU SUFFER FROM

This dynamic is no different for couples seeking love, but projecting anger. However, the real problem is not so much in the attack, but in the need for defending. Attacks, although patterned and often chronic, are essentially episodic or intermittently explosive. Yet, it is these episodes that prompt your need for defenses and once defenses are emplaced, they tend to wall of the ego-self that is continuously in preparation for battle. The psychological ego-self essentially becomes entombed in its own preparations against attack. This can only drain the élan vital that is the joy of living with and through others.

Certainly, we have "loving" moments, good days and even weeks, but the patterns are rigid and defenses lay in wait. The ego-self must be protected from psychological attack. This is no different than if your body demanded survival tactics in the wild thereby preparing for the body's protection from wild animals. Your senses would be acutely honed for gross incidents of physical attack. However, psychological attack requires more persistent vigilance, since the attacks can be less gross and much more subtle.

The subtleties of psychological attack require that you know my weaknesses and I know yours. Covertly, we gather ‘intelligence' over many years of sporadic incidental conflict. Early in the initial stages of our ‘love,' we exposed ourselves in the full trust of this "love" and the belief that it could never be breached. You could tell me anything.

Yet after the infatuation stage, real life weighed upon us and mistakes were made and disagreements formed. From those mistakes the ideations of the past were replaced by battle lines. You didn't even realize that gradually, over time, you were developing strategies of ego-self-protection. The old adage "the past only exists when you think about it" is the chief rule of engagement, because it is imperative that you "think about it" always. How can you not think about what I've done to you, yet conveniently you may forget your role in our circle of attack. You may forgive, but you will not forget and thus, the defenses stand fast.

Now there are limits to an intimacy, or Deep Understanding, that was supposed to be unlimited and uplifting. Now you will limit what I can know as you gradually build your fortifications. At first, this emotional embargo is barely noticeable even to your ‘self.' But eventually the mutually imposed fortifications become apparent on both sides, often too late. Rigid fortifications can be virtually impossible, and take enormous amounts of time, to dismantle and, in our busy postmodern world, who's got the time? Just start over with some 'body' else!

THE SOLUTION IS EASY

You must lay down your defenses before you surrender your arms.

This is opposite the conventional solutions that seek to reduce offensive conflict episodes, but fail to fully understand the emotional suffocation in the ego's need for constant defense. This is most likely because conflict is observable and measurable, while your defenses are known only to you. Yet, after each episode of conflict, you secretly applaud your readiness and reinforce yourself for future engagements. Although you still claim to love the other, the fact is that love has no reason for defense.

Only strangers attack and defend, since obviously, love is NOT war.

It is the constant preparation for conflict that stifles the mutual joy of intimacy and NOT the conflicts themselves. What are you defending against? What do you actually fear? In preparation for attack, intimacy is stifled and cut off. Even when conflict is visibly absent, defensive preparations lay in wait.

If intimacy is stifled, the entire ego-self concept must wither since it transforms and grows only through intimacy, or deep engagement with the loved one, others and the world. Is it any wonder why we are all so estranged from one another? This can only indicate estrangement from your 'self.' When you look at me and wonder where have I gone, don't fail to ask "but, how did I lose myself." The answer is that you lost your 'self' in your defenses.

Here is the key to letting down your defenses. The same defenses you embrace to protect yourself, you project onto the other. You cannot see my defenses, but since you have your own in place, the assumption is that I, too, am so prepared.

Therefore, the ‘me' you protect yourself from is YOU.

See me as defenseless; otherwise, you will never surrender your own fortifications. If we are both defenseless what then, can we be guilty of, since a defense presupposes guilt. Make no mistake, what you see in me, you acknowledge in yourself. What is shared can only be strengthened. Share your defenselessness and inadvertently, you will share love.

Thanks,
MikeS

You NEVER know and that's the beauty of it, because then it's a SURPRISE!!

Peace Angels,
mikeS