|
Another "Can the LoA be bad for people?" question! Though this is actually an excerpt with the real topic being mental health, but someone made a great suggestion to see how the LoA responds to these ideas and if there's any compelling arguments to be had here which might be possible with [or without] metaphysics coming into play. It still retains some of the aggressive tone aimed at some people's reaction to the subject of mental health, which doesn't properly translate into the LoA converted version. The subject of this question is described as "one who severely abuses any substances to escape or excessively dull reality; hurts themselves or allows themselves to be by being in an abusive relationship; or even is an abuser themselves.", with the primary consideration being abuse or recovery after. Mental constructs are first defined, then enacted, then refined. Mental constructs have the outcome you believe they will. If you're unsure they will work they will be random, as you are instructing your mind to create them by believing they will be so. If you think they will work often, or not often, your mind will follow your parameters as you define them. [ [...] Consider a person who has been wanting and trying to use the LoA to change their life, specifically regards getting over or adjusting to life after a traumatic event, and they're being told they're the only thing stopping themselves. instead defined by myself as having a negative construct which is interfering, which doesn't have to lie directly in the control of their active conscious nor was necessarily a construct created directly by them [...] ] You think someone in captivity doesn't want to escape? Now imagine mental captivity. You don't know what is holding them, but you KNOW they are being held. Wherever the original flawed behaviors in the subject originated you know one of the purposes fulfilled by this imprisoning construct is to preserve and maintain its own existence, otherwise it would have been dispelled the moment the subject was told or understood they could change anything, or even upon the subject simply becoming tired of their condition. So what is the conclusion? Tell the subject they are imprisoning themselves. If they reject the idea their own subconscious will undoubtedly try to convince them you're correct, as self sabotage is the nature of a damaged mind. Eventually their rejection will succumb to agreement: they will believe the parameters of your construct. A construct which is immediately presented with the entire duration of their condition's worth of evidence suggesting there is no hope, they cannot change; because it's reasonable to assume anyone will have desired recovery since first encountering whatever ails them. The results of said brilliant and thoroughly internally supported construct? They begin further fueling their own inferno, because you keep telling them that they are. They must be. They are. They must be. They are. You batter someone who is already being tormented until they finally succumb to accept what YOU know inside must be true, if they wanted to change they would. Tell a normal person to just change a simple habit, something meaningless and even only temporarily. How many people can just do it immediately. How many people take awhile or extra methods or efforts. How many people don't change.
|
|
I think it depends. IMO taking responsibility for everything in your life is by far the most important thing to live a self-empowered life. But it's true that one may feel offended by the idea if one's emotional setpoint is chronically low. To understand this concept, it is helpful to look at the emotional guidance scale.
If one's chronic setpoint is one of 16.-22. on the emotional scale (Discouragement, Anger, Revenge, Hatred/Rage, Jealousy, Insecurity and Fear), then it is better to tell him that it's someone else's fault that he feels bad. Because look how blame (15.) feels better than the other emotions down the scale. I had some topics where I felt insecure, fear and jealous. And I deliberately choose to blame the government, other people, friends, strangers, the economy etc. Because it feels better. And one must go through those emotions first to move up to joy and happiness eventually. This principle is also one of the most important rules in marketing. "Do NOT tell the customer that it's his responsibility that he is overweight/without a partner/without money etc.... though you know it is. Tell him that it's the fault of someone or something else." So blaming circumstances and other people is a good thing often. But if one is genuinely interested in helping other people, one must come up with the truth eventually. Blame cannot be the destination. If the destination is happiness, then blame can only be a stopover. Another point is that you cannot spend your whole life worrying about what other people might think when you say/write something. So it's true that some may feel offended by the idea of taking responsibility when they read it on Inward Quest. But others will find it tremendously helpful. It all depends on the emotional setpoint. Offering help from a state of fear and worry about what others might think, or if they could be offended etc. doesn't work anyway. Because there are and always, always, always will be people that won't like what you have to say. And it doesn't matter what it is. You could say "I love humankind" and some might feel offended because could think you are not genuine or something. The possibilities are endless :). So the solution is to don't care what others think, find ways to feel happy yourself and then help others from a place of self-confidence and good intentions. Or to summarize the whole idea: Make your own self happy first, and then offer help without having ulterior motives to feel even happier and even more fulfilled yourself. This way it's a win-win situation. 3
Fantastic answer. Ive had a situation recently where ive blamed others for some misfortune, "gradually" ive now come to realise that ultimately I caused this. But the "stopover" was very usefull, it acted like a buffer,a damper, something to tide me over until I was ready for the truth. The blame was in a way a very integral part of the whole process. Not something negative in itself,IF the final destination was the truth.
(22 Aug '13, 02:32)
Monty Riviera
1
I like your explanation here...I never thought of using negativity to one's advantage like this before...it makes a lot of sense. Moving to "blame" because it's an emotion that makes one feel better than 16-22 is probably a tool that most don't even consider to use...everyone assumes that you just have to feel joy and love. But using your method here one can probably move up the ladder progressively and relatively quickly without the added stress of failure.
(22 Aug '13, 08:21)
Pacal Votan
1
Great answer, @releaser99. If I keep in mind that everything I think and feel really is OK, it helps keep me from forming the mental blocks and self-loathing that lead nowhere. All is well. :) I keep that emo scale in my notebook with all my FBs and such, and follow it to find that one better-feeling thought when I feel lost or confused. It's an extremely helpful tool.
(22 Aug '13, 16:41)
Grace
You all are welcome all. @Pacal Votan "move up the ladder progressively and relatively quickly without the added stress of failure." The specific process to apply this idea is "Moving Up the Emotional Scale" from the book "Ask and It Is Given". I find it is valuable to first spot your current emotional setpoint on a topic and move up gradually, only one setpoint a day. Here is a guy who describes the process. And this is also roughly how I do it: http://goo.gl/YHbhcv
(22 Aug '13, 20:00)
releaser99
showing 2 of 4
show 2 more comments
|
|
They are responsible for their own emotion. No one can "make you" feel anything that includes resistance and being self-sabotaged. Anything being said is just sounds coming out of a human's mouth. It is completely neutral. It only feels positive or negative if it goes along with your preferences, but in reality it is all neutral. If someone doesn't like what another person is saying, instead of ignoring it leaving that negative perspective lingering, or arguing against it, they can ask themselves "how does this information benefit me?" and automatically it is positive. If you are assume that everything, including words that you strongly disagree with, is there to be of benefit to you - then there is nothing that can be "truly" negative. So, in summary: "Does telling people they're responsible for their own traumatic events create great resistance and self-sabotage?" Only if they allow it to, by holding a negative perspective of taking full responsibility for everything in their life. |
|
I do believe this to be the case of experience. Coercion is a better way. Jesus example of sheep is a good one in this case. If you try telling the sheep, "Don't go that way." it will make no difference. However if you tap them with the staff lightly they turn and are just as happy going in the correct direction. Little nudges in the correct direction work well. Masters have used this for years, the student believes he discovered the secret. But now we get to telling someone that is stuck that it is his fault and he should do something else, now that is just like rubbing salt in a wound. It makes the person feel helpless, he knows he is stuck, he wants out and the last thing he wants to hear is it is his fault! It is like calling him stupid. |
If you are seeing this message then the Inward Quest system has noticed that your web browser is behaving in an unusual way and is now blocking your active participation in this site for security reasons. As a result, among other things, you may find that you are unable to answer any questions or leave any comments. Unusual browser behavior is often caused by add-ons (ad-blocking, privacy etc) that interfere with the operation of our website. If you have installed these kinds of add-ons, we suggest you disable them for this website
