Well, after much deep consideration, I have taken the advice of a few and started a pod.

Fully Engaged in the Games of Life


I'm only now considering structural ideas in terms of focus or theme. However, the idea of "awakening" through others as opposed to 'self,' tends to be a priority focus for me as of the last few years. This is also in relation to my own experiences, as well as my current spiritual 'path.'

Nevertheless, we will be deeply engaged in all renditions of  reality, self and others.

Anyway, hope folks will find the discussions interesting and feel moved to participate. I especially wish to invite those whom I've sparred with in previous discussions in other pods. I certainly hold no grudges and you can be certain that if we did engage in a deep and heated discussion, my interest was there and so was my respect for the engagement and all participants (regardless of my posting demeanor).

Much Thanks,
mikeS

 In reading Robert Master's "Meeting the Dragon: Ending Our Suffering by Entering Our Pain," pain and suffering is the dragon and we must face it.

I've read several of his essays and found them quite good. Unfortunately, I found nothing new and revelatory in this book. But then again, I'm somewhat biased, since I'm always looking for something new, but rarely find it.

He tells us that pain and suffering are different experiences. "pain is unpleasant sensation. Suffering, on the other hand is something we are doing with our pain."(page 7) "The more intimate we are with our pain, the less we suffer."(pg 9). 

Makes sense to me.

But why do we suffer?

Because pain is personally owned and not shared. Pain is solely yours and in that aloneness suffering is acute. Pain is an individual experience that intensifies your separation from others and that is the cause of suffering, not your pain. Pain intensifies your separation because no one feels your pain like you and from that individual perspective you are truly alone in the world and suffering will attend to that experience.

Note that we share love and joy, but tend to believe pain and suffering must be experienced alone.

Why is that?

Masters wants you to become intimate with your pain and the chapter names reveal that process, "Naming our Pain," Turning Toward Our Pain," Entering Our Pain" and "Emerging from Our Pain."

Now your pain is no longer stranger to you, even though the world may still be.

He tends to focus exclusively on emotional pain, which is interpreted as caused by another. But then, why not seek intimacy with another, if another is perceived as cause. If intimacy was present would suffering exist in the first place?

Masters wants you to objectify your pain by analyzing the data and "name you pain". He does want you to engage with others who will not "let you off the hook." Yet, other than that, others have no real tangible part in his theory.

But how can that be when others are the hook?

Why not share you pain because, like compassion we all experience it. Yet, in the feeling of absolute solitude that suffering brings, we withhold from others and suffer accordingly. All pain and suffering is an individual affair that needs be shared, just like any other positive experience.

My feeling is that Masters techniques of facing your pain merely reinforces you as apart from your experience of ‘others' and the ‘world.' But isn't this the cause of suffering and is there really such a 'separation'? Your pain is the product of engagement, just as your love is and therefore, the solution is found at the source because detachment from the source means love is denied and suffering substituted

Master's has us dancing with our pain, rather than dancing with the source to cure it. However, it does seem that all we ever do is dance with pain and that's called suffering. But it is failing to dance intimately with the others that is the source of suffering.

Suffering is really nothing more than disconnection and the more you engage with it, the more is persists. We disconnect and thus inflict suffering upon each other and Masters seems to miss this crucial equation in his desire for you to become "intimate with your pain." But why not engage intimately with its cause. The very techniques he advocates, seem to avoid cause, by demanding your pain be faced alone. But facing life alone without the depth of engagement that you're here for, is what you suffer from. No?

He writes:

"Evolving from me centered to we centered is not just a progression in intimate relationship, but in every relationship that matters, including with our pain. (and being centeredness does not do away with me-centeredness and we-centeredness, but instead simultaneously transcends and includes them)." (pg 25 pdf)

There is that confounded "transcend and include" concept of integral theory. However, I wonder if that's the experience or merely another theoretical generalization that has no bearing on the intensity of our actual experience.

Nevertheless, Chapter 6 then informs, "to emerge from our pain we have to enter it, to do otherwise is to suffer. And emerging from our pain, we will, sooner or later have to reenter it."

But make no mistake, for Masters, this is an individual endeavor. Of course, he attempts to define pain objectively so we can get a better handle on naming and entering it and these descriptions are abstractly poetic, (with a few I had never heard before). But do describing what you feel, aid in alleviating what you feel?

Still, you are alone in your pain and that's why you suffer. He seems to miss that shame, fear, jealousy, embarrassment, anger, sadness, all these emotions he identifies, are experienced in direct correlation with OTHERS.

I think the problem has been this concept of "within." Within is not about being with your ‘self' in some type of analytical absorption or dwelling in the mind and all its contexts and contents.

How was the conditioned mind shaped and formed?

In connection with an ‘outside' world that is noexistent without 'others.' Yet, we often do this in opposition, rather than in intimate engagement with, an ‘external' world. Seeking within does not exclude an outside, but converges the two in a synthesis.

For masters it seems the outside world is composed of "distractions" that you must then distract yourself from in order to enter your pain and finally slay the dragon.

Much of this reminds me of Bradshaw's "wounded child" work in his "Healing the Shame that Binds You." Although Masters take us much deeper into the emotions, with chapters on "Pain's Directionality." "Pain's Texture," "Pain's Temperature," Pain's Color," Pain's Density and Intensity" and finally "Pain's Shape." Quite an unusual and valuable analysis of pain.

Yet, this is 'science' and science has yet to demonstrate value in alleviating ‘man's inhumanity to man.'

Chapter 15 deals with "undressing the inner critic." But fails to address the fact that this critic was formed in relation to others, and the world, and makes us pull away from that correlation. Here is an interesting quote:

"She may have a flatter-than-flat belly, and still stuck in it, as if leaning toward invisibility-she not only aches to be seen as an immaculate beauty incarnate, but also aches to disappear, knowing that she can not ever really measure up. She is starving, eaten alive by her shame. See me, she silently implores, but also don't see me.

She is dying to be loved. Perfectionism is eating her up, and doesn't give a damn about her screams and suicidal urges. She is almost always in perfectionism's cold mirror, having not yet learned to hold up a mirror to her perfectionism itself. But once she does she is on her way out of hell." (pg 72)

I tend to agree with Jean Paul Sartre in that "hell is other people." All these painful impressions or emotions are in direct relation to other people, because other people are our world. Your experience of the world is barren without intimately sharing that world. But Master's prefers the inner skills of the ancient practices of secluded self introspection toward enlightened insight. Face your fears and alleviate your symptoms is fine. But the cure is in, with and through, others.

Masters wants us to face our fears, but his theory fails to incorporate the relationships that create our fears. The cure is in intimacy with others which naturally creates intimacy with yourself. The fears that define you, based on others, do not seem to be involved in his theory. Again we have appeasement of the inner critic without fully examining where those critical views coame from. Go there and become intimate with that instead.

I agree with Master's chief theoretical premise that "to emerge from pain we have to enter it." Yet, pain and suffering assert a separate individuality from the world and thus intensifies our lonely and separate existing. To enter and emerge from pain you need to face it with others because, make no mistake you have defined it through others.

Master's also adds that "the more intimate we are with our pain, the less we suffer." I would only reframe that to read -  the more intimate we are with others, the less we suffer.

However, I understand how individual ego's will resist alleviation of suffering through intimacy with others. But I think they cannot deny that this is why they suffer.

But I'm just saying...

Thanks,
mikeS

Serious Cat don't like no funny business...

ego: Uh...Mike, what are you laughing at?

Mike: Haha! What I just wrote! Teehee. LOL!

ego: Mike, don't you think you should be taking our spirituality a little more seriously?

Mike: Huh? Why? And what do you mean "our" spirituality?

ego: Mike, you know we're in this together and nobody's gonna take what you write seriously if you act as if this is all a big joke. Besides, "enlightenment" is serious business!

Mike: Well, maybe it is a "big joke." In fact, maybe God's laughing his ass off with all our serious spiritual-religious bullshit!

ego: Mike! We cannot have this! Spirituality is serious business and you gotta stop fooling around. There's important work to be done!

Mike: Says who? You! You take everything so damn serious, no wonder most days I'm a mental case!

ego: I am truly shocked by your attitude! The world's ancient spiritual paths and religions are based on centuries of serious teachings, taught by serious "masters." You can't just disrespect the teachings with your lame comedy bits.

Mike: I thought we were trying to break from the past.

ego: Uh...well, yes... we are, but keep in mind that I am a product of your past. Therefore, for you to exist you must accept the past in me.

Mike: Well, maybe by no longer taking spirituality so serious, I no longer have to take you serious and life might become a bit more enjoyable around here.

ego: Enjoyable! Mike, the spiritual path requires suffering and sacrifice and you know that, since we've spent years learning it. How could you forget? Now mike...you need to keep in mind that I assisted you in acquiring all the important stuff you now know. You need to take this seriously, dammit!

Mike: Hmmm...maybe what you fear is that, if spirituality becomes a big joke to me, you'll also become a big joke, since you seem to thrive on my taking everything seriously, especially the so-called "important stuff."

ego: Mike! Stop this now! You need to get with the program like everybody else and stop this foolishness.

Mike: See ya...

ego: Mike... wait... Mike! Don't do this...........Mike?

 

ego: Oh good grief! Now you've gone and done it.

Mike: Done what!

ego: I told you not to start that "pod" thing. Why won't you listen to me! Don't we have enough problems in our current relationships? I don't get it, aren't you happy with our spiritual path, the meditating, the practices and techniques, the reading books and listening to tapes? Why do you have to go and create more problems in our life?

Mike: Uh...well, I'm not so sure I need to define conflicts in my life as "problems" and besides, I thought we agreed that ‘engagement' was important to my spiritual path?

ego: Yes! Of course engagement is important. But on our terms!
Don't you understand, you'll have little, if any, control of the direction things may take in this "pod" you started. If you start "engaging" all over creation you will no doubt expose all your idiosyncrasies, defects of character, shadow zones, and who knows what else. Do we really need to air out all our dirty laundry, Mike? Huh!

Mike: Seems to me it's more about your "terms" and, of course, you only want to see what you can get out of the deal. Maybe by airing your dirty laundry I can finally clean up your messes. You haven't become very handy in cleaning things up, but you sure can make the messes. Maybe I need to get a little help from others and stop completely relying on you.

ego: Alright, fine! But don't come crying to me when you get your head handed to you because you said something stupid and you get clobbered with it. If your gonna do this then I can't protect you anymore from the consequences.

Mike: Really!? Oh happy days! Are you saying I'm finally free of you!

ego: uh... well...wait a minute, let's not be too hasty now, Mike, I mean... of course I'll help you sometimes...just maybe not as much.
I mean... who knows maybe one day you'll become a famous "pod master" or maybe "Master of all Pods" or something like that. Wow! Think of that! And when that happens you're gonna need me, Mike, make no mistake. Yep, I'd better hang around then, just in case.

Mike: Oh good grief...(sigh)

Man, did I ever have shitty mood this morning. Funny how everything seems to deteriorate when your in a shitty mood. In fact, maybe our experience of 'world' is more a product of mood than any other aspect of self

We often like to speak of our experience of self and world by describing thoughts and feelings. But what about mood?

Often mood comes upon us for no apparent reason and we can't really place exactly what thoughts or feelings preceded our mood. Mood permeates our being to the core and it's the filter through which the world is, seemingly, lit up with light or veiled in darkness.

Yet, even though we often cannot identify the origin of mood, if it's negative we will desperately seek an exit strategy. We desire mood be positive at all times and those who fail to exhibit positive consistency of mood we label as "moody." We're really NOT seeking happiness, but a consistent positive mood.

Mood is ubiquitous and omnipresent. Mood gives meaning to every experience and IS experience. The whole shebang!

Psychology tends to consider moods as crucial to functioning. This is why the exalted "Psychiatric bible" (Diagnostic and Statistical manual of mental disorders or DSM-IV) tends to classify impaired functioning under two chief headings: disorders of mood or disorders of personality. Yet I don't want to discuss "mood" from a purely psychological perspective, but rather from an experiential or existential, lived-in experience.

Regardless of psychology's assessment, we tend to pay less attention to mood, than we do to specific thoughts or emotions. However, it seems we are more acutely aware of our mood when it is negative and this may relate to Freud's pleasure principle, in which we feel naturally inclined to move away from pain or discomfort and move toward pleasure or comfort.

This is because mood is all-encompassing and deeply pervasive to our entire Being. Mood is "who" we are.

Moods can last for hours and even days and often we cannot specifically pinpoint what particular emotion, behavior, thought, physical condition or external situation has resulted in our mood. Once we find ourselves sunk into a specific negative mood, we may find it excruciatingly difficult to exit and thus, feel existentially ‘trapped' in our mood. We tend to rate our moods along a positive/negative spectrum and mood can often change instantaneously with little notice. We often tend to label moods as up or down, pessimistic or optimistic, with many derivatives in between.

The most important aspect of moods is that they tend to shape our world. In fact, the famous (and somewhat infamous) western philosopher, Martin Heidegger, has posited the theory that moods have the distinct capacity to manufacture or construct our 'world' experience.

Mood IS the world.

We don't necessarily experience a world that then results in a mood, in accordance with what we experience, but instead press our mood upon the world and that is the world we experience. The important point is that mood and world interact as ONE.

Psychology holds that mood is the combination of interior states based primarily on cognitive interpretations of an external ‘world.' Yet, Heidegger's philosophical interpretation of mood (or "affectedness" as he refers to it) is different from most definitions of mood since it tends to expose, or "disclose," the world to us based on our mood and has little to do with what we believe we experience as a result of participating in the world.

Mood is an 'attunement' to the whole of humanity. However, Heidegger does not make the usual reference to any conventional term like mankind or humanity. Instead, he refers to humanity as "Dasein," which is the German word for Being-in-the world, hyphenated to demonstrate unity.

World and mankind are one 'unit' or composite, which can never be divided or split. However, in our moods we obsess on parts of the world as the origin of our mood and thus fail to realize it is our mood that gives splits off our experience of a world. Therefore, the world might be consistent, yet, we have no way of knowing since it is our moods that change and the world changes accordingly.

Mood gives us our ‘experience' of time, outside chronological or intellectual time.

Nevertheless, I feel that Heidegger's most important contribution is related to the terms authenticity and inauthenticity.

"The authenticity or inauthenticity of a mood is determined by whether it discloses the truth of Dasein [Being-in-the-world] or conceals this truth".(Quentin Smith, Heidegger's Theory of Moods, Michigan Univ., Phil Dept.).

For Heidegger, "Dasein," or Being-in-the world, is to be understood as a wholeness or unified state with no partitioning. Thus, mood's that reveal that wholeness as Truth are authentic, while moods that conceal this truth from us he considers inauthentic. Our moods tend to "disclose" and reveal truth. Truth cannot be found in the world, yet the world is not to be separated from truth as we and the world are of a unified status. Our moods either inform of this unity or depart entirely from it and we experience this in relation to our mood.

Our mood can have us magically engaged in our "being-in-the-world" or withdrawn and isolated from this truth.

For Heidegger the chief mood of existence is anxiety. Anxiety can be authentic or inauthentic. Inauthentic anxiety attaches to the activities of the world, the hustle and bustle of trying to make a living and seeking happy diversions from the doldrums of living. This anxiety conceals being-in-the-world or our truth. Authentic anxiety is related to death and not-Being, and is a deeper closing in on our very existence. It is what drives us to seek solace in religion and spiritual practices (this is my interpretation and not necessarily Heidegger's)

Yet, although he is considered the "philosopher of anxiety" he also deals with joy. However, this is directly related to authentic anxiety, "Although with the sober anxiety, which brings one before one's individual ability-to-be, there goes an unshakable joy in this possibility" (Being and Time, p 310). To correspond with one's Being-in-the-world, or the truth of this unified wholeness; to have this brought to mind completely unconcealed and disclosed to us, is a mood of magnified joy.

I believe this often occurs with those diagnosed terminally ill. They feel compelled to engage with world and make it "disclose" its truth. This is often a very liberating experience.

This does not necessarily require any belief in an external "source," such as god or pure awareness. However, frequently spiritual paths facilitate this conceptualization as a way toward the self's experience of being-in-the-world as a 'wholeness.'

Nevertheless, we cannot deny that many have experienced this joy of unified wholeness without any conceptualized idea of god, universal consciousness, nirvana, enlightenment, awakening etc, etc, whatsoever. Although, because the experience is so unusual, the self seeks out interpretations for which to make sense of it. In any event, this blissful state is available to anyone at anytime and does not require any specified practices or ideologies for through which to experience. However, it does demand a deep engagement with your 'experience' of the world no matter how painful that experience may become.

Thanks,
mikeS