7 March 2011

Posted by Anna Notaras | File under : ,
"We all have the reality we make by ourselves" is no longer a queer statement. The new age 'teachers' out there try their best in explaining and proving how the power of our thoughts leads to the creation of our reality. To a certain extent, psychology supports that too. It's not always a mystical concept or approach, but it can be a very grounded one as well, simply by observing mere facts. Yet it raises many questions and endless quarrels, like I've come to experience myself.

Isn't it more like water circles?

The critical point in my view is: to what extent do we actually consider reality to be our own creation?
Is it 100%? In this case, it perfectly validates the idea that each of us is a god. A god in his own world. Perfectly isolated, since that 100% leaves no room for anything else. Human interaction is thus meaningless and absolutely futile. Even more, we play no role at all in other's well being, since they are 100% responsible for what they have in their lives. It's no maths, just common sense. Whatever we chose to do, it will not interfere with other lives. Therefore, why would we need a life with human interaction and with all that sentimentalism, involvement, duty, loyalty etc? Also, we can throw away any spiritual idea about oneness and about the connection of all living creatures. Or human creatures, if you wish.

Personally, I find a horrendous aberration this 100%-thing. This is not even directed by one's choice of  spiritual or philosophical beliefs. As I said, it's common sense. Or pure, easy maths, if you wish so.
In a certain article I read about Stephen Covei's 90/10 rule. Definitely a decent, meaningful one! 10% is for what happens to you in life. The 90% signifies how you respond to it. One can't control the 10%. One can't control, for example, a flight that will be late. But they can act foolishly and negatively, thinking they will miss a job or a meeting, arguing with everyone on the phone, causing themselves illness because of the anxiety and so on. In such situation, the harm extends to those in contact with such person, if their defenses are down. The family will feel hurt, they will withdraw or act upset in return, the colleagues and boss might lose trust and be suspicious of that person... But if the troubled one faces the problem and deals with it consciously, on the spot, he will eventually realize there is of no use to be stressed. And everything else has chances to remain the same, undisturbed.

So what about the 100% and its supporters? Oh, you think there are none...? I'm afraid I have to contradict that, as I've met a few. I can't answer why they like to believe it so or why they prefer to lie themselves, and enthusiastically spread it to everyone. I can see, however, that it serves them very well when they have to defend themselves. And blame others. "It's what you made of it!", they throw in the other's face. "It's your problem", says the admirable believer in a reality shaped entirely by his will and actions. Empathy suddenly appears to be a concept that never existed... These are the people who are not moved by the pain and tears of others. Those who won't understand the condition of emotional trauma or weakness, mental illness or anything related. The betterment of other's lives are a concern totally out of their world.

Put these people next to the truly caring ones. The first ones only live for themselves, naturally. The second group will prefer to search for hidden fault in themselves, at least for making sure they haven't caused any harm anywhere; and they are the most likely to actually do something for the others, instead of sterile phrases about how one should be aware of his total control over what happens. Total control? Seriously?

On to another level, it's good to teach one to fish instead of just feeding him with a fish. But is it still useful to teach fishing if the man in question has no hands? Or if there is no water nearby? Better teach him first how to cultivate a vegetable... And maybe one day he'll grow some amazing crops...

Yes, I do believe we are responsible for what we have in our lives, especially when we are aware and able to choose how we respond. It's a terrible exaggeration, however, to say this responsability covers everything.


Post a Comment