Hate crimes are the tip of the iceberg

iceberg

We all have our unique points of view (from long causal chains) and it may happen that the system around you (which has its own causal chain) might get seriously hostile to you (it’s relative, like an unfolding drama).
The hostility may be a direct abuse or even through utter neglect of you or whatever you are offering.

THERE ARE 2 BROAD BRANCHES:
Blaming of self/self is responsible —————- Blaming of other/other is responsible
The 2 are not water tight compartments though, they are oscillate.
Also at a broader level the basic emotion is the same, but the center of gravity of the individual may differ widely based on the conditioning he/she received. The arrow of it points to the self or the other and accordingly has consequences.
We usually do not look into self-destructive types much and usually a lot of them stay totally invisible, however the other-destructive types usually hit the limelight.
So the phenomenon itself is much broader, we only see the tip of the iceberg which is the people who commit really prominent hate crimes against others.

INNER FEELINGS:

* So the first feelings to arise are: SADNESS/HURT which comes from THWARTED DESIRE or FAILURE.
* You then re-examine, re-evaluate, try again with a new strategy and if you either fail to break through or you realize the situation is quite hopeless from your analysis you fall into GRIEF/DEPRESSION.

So depression is the lower part of the iceberg while hurt is the tiny upper part.
Similarly grief is the lower part of the iceberg while sadness is the tiny upper part.
Sadness is the ‘pain of loss’ or ‘failure’ or ‘realization of the impossibility of achievement’ of a quick immediate goal.
Grief is the failure/loss/’impossibility…’ of the entire context/ground on which you are standing.
“FUTILITY” then arises, which is when you cannot conceive of a way out no matter how hard you try.

FEELINGS TOWARDS THE OUTER: “Which mirror the inner states in an attempt to amend”

* In the first encounter with ‘hurt/sadness’, the outer feelings could be:
– ‘ANGER'(if you think the other was unfair or you were unfair, which implies you have a firm fairness structure in you) = translates into you projecting the anger into suppressing yourself or suppressing the other – violence to self or violence to the other.
– ‘CONFUSION’ (if you cannot figure out what happened/no structure in which to understand) = Here you invest all your energy in a hyper-vigilant state of other-awareness and most of the time, you behave like a zombie when in this confusion.

* Then secondary outward feelings develop on repeated failures and pain:
– Anger turns into HOSTILITY/HATE/CONTEMPT = directed to the self or the other.
– Confusion turns into RESENTMENT/FRUSTRATION/RUMINATION = directed to the self or the other.

* Then tertiary feelings happen when the previous step once again fails with intensification of pain:
– The hostility turns into BLIND RAGE/AGGRESSION/MURDER – towards self (self mutilation, suicide) or the other (hate crimes, murder, mass killing)
– The endless frustration turns into TOTAL NIHILISM/PSYCHOSIS – here it is only to self because he/she barely has the strength and structure to affect others who may just desert him/her.

So to sum it up, I have laid out a model here. It isn’t complete but I wanted to demonstrate the complexity of these phenomena. What we call serial killings etc. are the tip of the tip of the iceberg of some of the dynamics and mechanics I have described here.

Conflict of values

conflict-of-values

This is a very vast and deep topic.
David Hawkins had a very interesting abstract picture regarding how values emerge: Context -> Meaning -> Value -> Goals.
So context creates meaning, meaning creates values, and values create goals.
I am going to narrow my analysis here, but the same could be applied to any set of conflicting values.

A conflict which I often face is between orienting myself towards “likeability” or “truth”.
When I agree with everything someone says, usually, I am not “liked” per say by that person, but I get a background of ‘acceptability’ in their life.
It is primarily a strategy to avoid conflict and rejection.
So “Conflict avoidance” and “Rejection avoidance” are some of my values.
Now, if I go out of my way to please a person by showering them with compliments, astute positive observations in a sophisticated subtle way (if you are too overt about it, it will backfire, make you look desperate and they will avoid you) or buy them gifts and basically give them a lot of loving attention, then I enter the “Likeability” territory.
So that is another value I have: “Secure Likeability points”

On the other side of the spectrum, I want to speak the truth to people and not filter anything out, whatever it may be.
It may be a combination of things I like and do not like.
OR I may want to ask for something I need from them.
This is my value of: “Truth”
Now, this is a dangerous territory.
Because, things are not equally weighed.
You may give 10 compliments and get +10 points, but if you are critical of something they are sensitive about, it may shut down the whole conversation and result in instant rejection or may greatly reduce all the goodwill accumulated.
And once they get defensive, now if you persist in what you said, the inclusion will be lost and it will become a war.
And this would go against my value of: “Inclusion”

Also, once I trigger something in the other turning them into ‘defense’/’attack’ against me, I have lost the inclusion and lost the trust in that moment.
This makes me fearful and makes me defensive too, in both cases, esp. in the attack case.
This goes against my value of: “Safety”

Always agreeing to everything the other says, is not “interesting” and neither is it “genuine”, and it also lowers the value of my agreement because I give it out to everything the other says. Also I may never express my own opinion about the issue.
So me doing that violates 4 values of: “Being interesting”, “Being genuine”, “Being valued”, “Being heard”

But I also value “Listening”, so I may not interrupt the other when they speak.
There are also some other values like: “Fair Participation”, “Fair involvement” & “Respect, i.e. both the people in conversation get to express all that they had in mind, both were equally involved in each other, both were equally heard, and both contexts were embraced.

My social life and interacting with others tends to invoke this chaotic soup of values in me which then drive my actions.
I am looking for a way to resolve this chaos.
There are 2 ways of resolving this in my understanding:
1 – Commit to certain values, polarize, and discard the rest
2 – Shift the center of gravity to a higher value structure that includes and transcends all these values.

Every heartbreak is a disillusionment

Broken-Heart

Every heartbreak is a disillusionment.
Essentially every break up is a break up with a certain alive context in our experience.
Our life consists of multi-layered hierarchical contexts.
For instance, it could range from a context as small as losing your favorite wallet to as large as losing all frame of reference/your ego/your beliefs/your religion/how to live etc.

I’ll focus on breakup in the context of relationship here.
It removes the context of what you thought the person was and what their relationship to you was.
That frame of reference is lost, and to the degree to which that frame of reference was integrated in your whole way of being in the world, to that degree you are now put in chaos.
It is a separation, a kind of ripping apart, and that is painful.

It has disillusioned you, and revealed your previous conception as illusion.
But neither does it totally reveal what that person really is.
It leaves you in a limbo of not-knowing/chaos/grief.
You don’t know if it was your fault or their fault.
You don’t know if this is in their best interest or not in their best interest.
You don’t know if this is in your best interest or not in your best interest.
You don’t know if you should try to get the partner back or let them go.
You don’t know if you should even try another partnership or just abandon that whole path of trying to secure a relationship.
You don’t know if you can trust your perception anymore, because it has just proved itself to be empty.
You stand at the precipice of the unknown with a fallen frame of reference.
It can throw you into an existential crisis too with questions like – how can you trust anyone? How does trust even work? Are we just under the mercy of god, who acts like a chameleon and suddenly changes color casting a cruel joke on us?
Then it just comes down to faith.
In time, the void of this chaos is filled with a new structure, healing happens, and you have grown.
Isn’t this how all growth happens – Isn’t all growth disillusionment in a sense?

Another facet I would like to include here is about success in terms of proven lovability.
And this variable would affect the intensity of your breakup too.
Failure is tolerated only by a person who has succeeded previously.
What if you have never succeeded?
What if nobody has ever loved you, no matter how much efforts you put?
Will you try again? Where would this hope come from?
Would you once again trust your bursts of irrational hope? or just give up?
The most painful wound of this sort can happen when the parents are on the extreme end of conditional love or if they just keep the child alive and barely functional as a duty/obligation and thoroughly neglect the child and kill its spirit.
I very strongly feel, romantic love is a replay of that original bond.
Because that is when we were THAT SENSITIVE to feel it in THAT INTENSITY.
So it is THAT memory that makes us seek partners with a kind of LOVE MAP structure (that has a lot to do with our parental conditioning, unless we overcome that with extraordinary spiritual effort).
Children who were loved by their parents well, have tremendous resilience to rejection, break-ups etc. Like a positive spiral they are quite unlikely to go through a break-up in the first place because they attract the conditions that mirror loving environments and perpetuate that.
Almost seems like a cruelty of nature, where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer – even in the love department.
The only way out that I have seen, is to overcome the ignorance that keeps you repeating the same things and to just constantly keep growing.

Different ways of dealing with others

When watching YouTube videos of influential speakers, I often read through a lot of the comments too.
What I have noticed is a broad pattern.
I haven’t totally thought through this, but I was excited to present my immediate findings.

Firstly, I’ve seen the more popular/contentious you are, the more the intensity of fans and haters.
In people’s responses I see the following trends:
The speaker say Person A makes an argument, assertion or simply presents his view “X”.
Now lets say people B, C, D, E react to this.
* Person B says “X is wrong, X'(X complement) is true”.
* Person C says “X is wrong, Y is true”.
* Person D says “Not only is X true but it is also supported by Y”
* Person E says “X is true, but Z is truer than X”
The responses of B,C,D and E represent the 4 broad types I’ve noticed.

Here is a more algorithmic form of the response types:
For X then X’ = Position X’ (Oppose X) – Reactionary
For X then Y = Position Y (Invalidate/Deny X, Present Y) – Blind
For X then Xx = Position X+x (Clarify/support X with x) – Bolstering
For X then U = Position U (Transcend X and dissolve it in a larger frame U) – Transcending

Love and Fear are self-fulfilling prophecies

To fear is to expect [attack/destructive forces].
And to expect/anticipate attack is to attract attack.
One behaves like one is already guilty, and deserves punishment.
This frequency is picked up and attracts beings who punish/attack.
It is a recursively reinforcing circle/a loop/a self-fulfilling prophecy.

To love is to expect [nurture/enriching forces]
And to expect/anticipate nurture is to attract nurture.
One behaves like one is already blessed, and deserves nurture.
This frequency is picked and attracts beings who nurture/enrich.
It is a recursively reinforcing circle/a loop/a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You can only give, what you have received

In terms of childhood personality programming, I’ve had the following empirical observation:
RULE:
“You can only give, what you have received”
Whatever you have received, forms the ceiling of your compassion.
There is no absolute standard here, its all relative.

For example:
If your salary is $60000, and fulfilling all your needs takes up $30000, leaving you with an excess of $30000 for free spending.
In this situation, you can easily feel compassion for anybody earning less than $30000.
But, can you feel compassion for a person earning $100,000? – No right? – because it is much beyond your income.
Another example:
Say you score 75/100 in math. You feel compassionate towards someone who has scored 40 or 60/100.
But will you feel compassion to a person who has scored 90/100? – No right? – because it is much beyond your score.

I’ve seen the care we have received in childhood sets our standards for later life.
For instance, if your partner asks you something that is far above the care you have received, then you simply call it unreasonable/unjustified. Whereas if they ask you something that you have consistently received yourself, then you may immediately do it without any expectation because you feel it was “totally reasonable”.

What determines what is “reasonable” and “unreasonable”?
It is totally relative to what you have received.

Once deep contemplation awakens in you, you access much greater standards of compassion, than was provided to you by what you received as a child/formative years.

Algorithm for solving all problems

Personal:
Look at the emotions now (look at the contraction)
Ask – what is the cause of them? – find the mental stories and write them down.
Ask – what would be the antidote for this? – find the antidote mental stories
Transpersonal:
Ask – what is the wisdom about such a situation/event/condition happening to someone?
Ask – what is the wisdom that someone would need to process/complete/let go of this?
Final Step:
Complete the process and Let Go!

General masses vs. sociopaths vs. contemplators

GENERAL MASSES
In my experience, for most people, their emotions like desire, anger, liking, aversion etc. is all mapped to specific outer stuff.
There is a recognizable structure in their emotional mappings to the outer world.
But when you question them, they will always only point to the literal person, object, some situation happening, and attribute causation directly to the outer.
They cannot see their own structure, because they are seeing through that.
All their emotions are outward mapped onto a specific world image, projected from their structure, which is completely invisible and thereby absolutely true for them.
When you question them, they do not introspect, rather they might try to attack you/avoid you/ignore you/deny everything you say/attack the finger that points/ manipulate the finger etc.
This is because they cannot see what you are pointing at, at all.

SOCIOPATHS:
Sociopaths are on the far end of this spectrum.
They see the world through a hard integrated simplistic structure, that is opportunistic and looks to exploit everything for itself.
Their self structure is almost totally invulnerable to influence.
Nothing can change their reality orientation from outside since their eyes are always looking outward only.
So if you point to a structure they have, its as if you are pointing to something that does not exist. They would simply view that as an attack and try to attack your view.

Broadly the spectrum is:
Total self-reflection (total self-incrimination)—————– Total self-projection (total blame)
The spectrum could also be viewed as:
Sociopath ——————— Contemplator.
I would say, sociopaths are closer to animals, in the sense, their nature is unchangeable and immutable.
They cannot reflect on themselves and see ‘self’ as object.
So their whole world is their playground and they will demand everywhere and manipulate.
What are people on the other end of the spectrum called? – I would say, contemplators.
The following introspective functions are present in contemplators:
self-contemplation, self-examination, self-observation, self-questioning, self-reflection, self-scrutiny, self-searching, soul-searching, self-analysis, self-awareness, self-consciousness, self-recognition; introversion, self-absorption, self-centeredness, self-concern, self-involvement; self-actualization, self-discovery, self-exploration, self-fulfillment, self-realization; self-knowledge, self-revelation; self-concept, self-image, self-perception; contemplation, meditation, reflection, rumination

Contemplators cannot outrospect/project easily and operate from seeing all of reality as their responsibility including serving others.
Their self is likely prone to getting into ruminative thought loops, chaos, getting caught in logical paradoxes, conflicting desires, traffic jam energies…and so on.
The mindset of total self-projection, the state of the sociopath, is the state of mind one has when in a stage performance or when facing a big threat like a wild animal. One’s attention is then totally outward focused and that gives a taste of what a sociopath mind state is like to the contemplator folk.

Generally, when does inward focus happen then? – It happens in boredom, when there is 0 outer pressure, and when there is no threat OR if the threat is inescapable, then you retreat into total inward focus.
Another way to look at it is that sociopaths are like one-time programmable only chips, after that they function without being influenced. They are like clay that has hardened into rock.
The contemplators on the other hand are permanently programmable chips. They are ever malleable and changeable.
Contemplators stay permanently as clay.

I would think, sociopaths can comfortably roam around in the social world, because they are immune to all influences, and their total outward focus is the ideal state for survival and self-protection.
A contemplator on the other hand tends to avoid the social world, because he is very impressionable and malleable, and his outward focus is only when there are threats (i.e. he freezes into a structure temporarily only when there are threats), else he stays in his total malleable state.
So freezing into various forms and staying that way in social environments is ok if it is temporary, but to do that every day is burdensome for the contemplator.
That is why taking up one profession is difficult for a deep contemplator, because that is like forcing a malleable entity take up the same configuration/structure every single day for most of the day.
It is denying him the freedom he feels inside him everyday.
Contemplators are living in the meta-programming world itself.
Surviving in a world full of solid people is annoying for the contemplator, because he is exceptionally free and flexible but can never interact with others in that freedom.
The only way to interact with most people is to create quasi structures and interact with them within the acceptability zones intuited.
The contemplator is formless i.e. he has no intrinsic form and he is continuously aware of his freedom.
Whereas the sociopath is like a rock, a solid form, and he sees the entire world through this filter.

Love = Knowledge, Extent of Love

When another person understands you, it’s their love/connection that understands.
When you understand another person, it’s your love/connection that understands.
If you understand others, but they do not understand you, then that is because your love is much greater and encompasses them.
Love = Connection = Light = Knowing = Understanding.
There is no difference between love and knowledge, and love is light, and light is knowledge.

We all love the child

happy-child-680x454

We all love the child
Who dances like nobody is looking
Who sings like nobody is listening
Whose joy radiates and influences others
Who is spontaneous without a care
Who involves himself into you, giving no heed to your history
Who celebrates each moment in the mood of wonder
Who looks at the ordinary like it’s extraordinary
Who bears within him vast potentials
Whose total absence of self-consciousness is refreshing
Who invests in the moment like there is no tomorrow
Who trusts you so fully to be oblivious in your arms
We recognize the child, because that is us
The lost part of us, the treasure we have lost
Which we are seeking to reclaim