Colette Obrien

Known for his headlong leaps into the void,the fool counterbalances worries and concerns.  Why else have the courts of kings and emperors included at least one fool for he lightened the atmosphere giving a much needed breath of fresh air to the anxieties of the ruler. 

If the ruler of a domain is our ego selves, the fool is that archetype that turns things on their head, makes us laugh, and for a moment, forget our fear. 

Life in a physical body is fraught with danger.  Though we may not be aware of it every moment of the day, the struggle for survival is present in the body every moment of the day. Fortunately the creator of this grand experience has granted us several boons.

Like the child who puts his blanket over his head and believes his mother can’t see him, denial is an effective tool.  Another useful one is distraction; I will pay attention to acquiring things– or any number of other goals– and won’t be aware of the danger.

However, it isn’t possible to completely avoid the fact that we’re mortal and vulnerable to so many forms of suffering on the road to our final destination. 

The fool is the friend who, throughout our life, helps us to walk more lightly , knowing it is temporary and, well, he quips, why not? What have you got to lose that you’re not going to lose anyway?

Encouraging us to risk all in order to experience life fully, he represents purity of action. Only looking forward, never back, never strategizing or over thinking a movement, he seeks to discover, always willing to take a chance, come what may. The fool lives to live. He frightens us a little because nothing frightens him. He is a liberated spirit.

But . . but . . . our fearful selves object, one must not be fool-hardy.  Right-O.  And what pray tell is the difference?

If I am offered an opportunity for an adventure, my fool will say go for it no matter what, while my rational self will insist on considering the possible consequences of that adventure.  Between the two of them a decision will be made. 

If I’m in need of new life experience, I will leap.  If I’m tired, or ill-equipped at the moment to take on the challenge of an adventure, I will decline the invitation.  I would feel fool-hardy only if I didn’t consider both sides. 

I would be even more fool-hardy if I didn’t give license to the fool to take an active part in my daily life. . . who wants to be safe all the time is already dead!

Webster defines repulsion as;  to drive back, or the mutual action by which bodies tend to repel each other.

The first nano-second after the big bang, that first combustible kiss, matter repulsed in all directions, creating the universe as we see it today; separate suns, moons, galaxies, etc. all floating together in a soup of onemess-or as it’s popularly termed “Oneness”

Opposite of Attraction, repulsion is the energy of individuation.  Though repulsion can manifest as dislike, hate, and any other of a long list of negative adjectives the mind applies to what one does not want to be associated with, it is at root, a movement that separates objects. 

How much kinder it would be, if in our my need to distinguish ourselves as separate entities, we could simply create space between us rather than have to apply hurtful names to the other, and or, physically force them away.

Every unkind act is grounded in the need to individuate, yet that drive can better be accomplished by consciously knowing self from other rather than making the other wrong so that we can be right.

The yoke is not more right than the white. It is merely different, and that difference is essential depending on what one is cooking.  

When the sun began to shine it had gotten hold of itself; it individuated.  The difficulty about this concept for humans is that our egos get confused between the need to distinguish ourselves, and that we’re not the only ones who need to do so. As an old sage once said, “You’re the only one but you’re not the only one who’s the only one.”

As love is the force of attraction that connects life, repulsion is it’s counterpoint, separating matter into distinct entities that can then experience one another. 

The Ancient Maya story of creation speaks of the a time when everything was one.  All was black and from out the dark one golden eye appeared and then another; the male and the female creators could see each other for the first time and they were so delighted they decided to keep dividing and dividing until the world was as we know it today.

It’s still all one but the one has been separated into the many; one beach many grains of sand, one ocean many drops of water, one universe, many galaxies . . .

What if the Big Bang were the first kiss?

Aphrodite’s favorite child is Eros, or as the Romans named him, Amour. What does it mean to be the child of the goddess of Love but that he is her messenger? When that powerful goddess chooses to unite 2 objects by sending her son with his quiver of arrows, union is assured. Eros is the connecting force sent by the essence; Aphrodite.

The planet we inhabit revolves around a sun in a spiraling galaxy. On earth, the constant creation of life depends on a cycle of seasons; each one following the other in a continual round.  For life as we know it to endure, there must be a time of birth, growth, and destruction.

Aphrodite/Eros assure creation. Without the attraction of objects to one another there would be no new life.  The earth would stop spinning; the sun, having lost an admirer, would wobble out of control in dark despair and lose its place in the galaxy; with the loss of one of its members the billions of other stars would also loss hope/connection, and very quickly, what began as a first kiss, would end in a rout of unconnected atoms.

Thus spoke an incurable romantic. 

But seriously, love connects everything– it is a force–and maybe what physics calls the electromagnetic force is what we call love. Maybe the reason that we as humans cannot resist Eros’ arrow is because it’s correct to be so humbled; to realize through the experience of inescapable attraction, we’re being moved by a greater force than our small wills, and that that force is benevolent.

Wikipedia:

• In physics, attraction may refer to gravity or to the electromagnetic force
• Interpersonal attraction – the attraction between people which leads to friendships and romantic relationships.

At the level of physics, attraction describes a force that draws 2 objects together; is that the same thing as 2 people being attracted to one another? In other words, is there volition in the apparent choice to befriend another, or is it fated ? As human beings we believe we’re choosing when we relate to another, but is that a fact, or our ego’s claiming power when it, like a leaf on the wind, is being moved by something outside its awareness? The proverbial can of worms; fate or free-will.

When shot by Eros’  arrow of love, choice is not an option; we Fall in Love.  Most of us have had the experience of that trickster character and his mischievous arrows; even the Greek God Zeus trembled at his name.  The individual ego is flooded with love/attraction for an object, and cannot stop thinking or feeling about that special other.  What suddenly made that other so attractive? We call it mystery, chemistry, projection of our idealized lover, meeting with the soul-mate, but by whatever name we call it, we are helpless to resist and like the moth to the flame, we go. Burning with desire, we becoming fools for love.

The last time Eros shot me, I determined, resolutely, that never again did I wish to be so wounded.  Though painful in youth, the experience of being overwhelmed by the need for another as an adult was excruciating.  Like body-surfing an ocean wave,  it was exhilarating but when the wave pulls you under and twirls you around and around and won’t let you up for air, it is not so much fun.

 I love to love but do not enjoy being in love.  Like Zeus I know better than to believe I can prevent Eros from shooting me, if he will, but what does that mean, and what is the difference?

Do we really ever choose who to befriend, or is it all fated, karmic? And like the extreme of Falling in Love, is all love/attraction a kind of given that we experience but do not ever actually have a choice about?

Who the heck is Eros anyway? More tomorrow.

Because love is defined by Webster as; a deep and tender feeling of affection for another, and continues for a long paragraph only to describe the same thing over and over, it is no wonder we’re confused.

Many cultures have several different words for the kinds of love; intimate/sexual love, love of parents, love of children, love of siblings, love of animals, love of objects, love of ideas, love of country, etc..In English there is only one and it is woefuly inadequate.  Webster would have us believe that all kinds of love are a FEELING.  

One usually has a feeling asociated with the experience of loving, but is that what love is? What if we looked at it as a verb; not as a feeling, nor limit it to the kinds of love there are?  As a verb it connects.  What kills love is disconnection; the executioner.

As a verb, love is the action of connecting two or more objects–of any kind. We are seldom, if ever, aware of the fact that every atom in the universe is connected to every other, and that applies to everything in existence. It is, we are, ALL ONE.  And since love is connection, how is it possible to kill love?

Fundamentally we cannot, but what we can do is break the conscious bond.  The unconscious bond is there all the time no matter what we do, but as humans with choice–with consciousness–we can choose to make a connection to an other that is beyond the fundamental law of the universe. 

Most of us wish to do that.  Most of us love to love and to love in all the ways love can be experienced. We enjoy caring, of having an object matter to us, and of mattering to another. 

1. The first and fastest way to kill love is to care more for the feeling than for the object we’re connecting to; self centeredness or basic narcissism.

2. Another useful tool is to strangle it by gripping the object tightly; fear of loss, another form of narcissism.

3. Then there is the tried and true ax of jealousy and possessiveness; need I repeat–narcissism.

4. Neglect works well; self-obsorption.                                                       

Love’s executioner is one’s self.  Like an ax, self-centeredness in its myriad forms separates one from the love object and breaks the conscious bond.  Love is dead.

 Where I live on a mountain songbirds are unusual, yet as of three days ago, a beautiful singer has wakened me each morning. The sound is delirious and draws me happily from my bed.  Hope does spring eternal, he seems to say, and believing him, I venture once again into the world with a light step, wondering what this day will bring.

 How is this possible after 60 years of days to still be so inspired?

Writing about Snow White in the last post, I suggested that being open and accepting whatever comes -which doesn’t mean we have to like it, by the way–is a way of living that has merit.

 The songbird reminds me of the attitude life has; life as an object like myself which has it’s likes and dislikes; it’s seasons, its moods(the weather), yet in that continual round Life always returns to spring and spring is hope eternal. Not each moment, for there are the other attitudes as well, but it always returns and no matter how sad, or dejected or discouraged or tired I am, it will return eventually and I will hear the song bird and be glad to be here and curious about this day.

Troubadours, those classic purveyors of song, grace the woods with their melodies and call us to venture once again into the unknown; into spring where we may be foolish again, we may be careless, as in Camelot; the Lusty Month of May: when everyone throws self-control away. And everyone makes divine mistakes.

May our mistakes be divine; that is, accepted, as we traipse(spelling?)through the tulips yet again in search of love.

http://validator.w3.org/feed/check.cgi?url=http%3A//colette-obrien.com/feed/

Being a Gemini, a woman, and an artist, one of my favorite pastimes is doing several things at once. Right now I’m writing this post, cooking beef stew,  and watching  Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs .  Made in 1937 , it is one of the first full length animation features, but the story is far older.  Originating in Northern Europe where the Brothers Grimm heard it and wrote it down after generations of being handed down by word of mouth at the fire in the evening, it is a timeless story of human life. 

Snow White, the image of the young feminine; innocent, beautiful, curious, loving, and above all; accepting of everything that comes into her life, exemplifies the archetypal process of life which includes encountering the dark side; those things that we call “unacceptable.”   Snow White accepts everything, including the dark, and though it appears at first that she made a mistake to let acceptance be her guide, in the end she triumphs. What are the factors that bring about that triumph? The seven dwarfs are elements of her unconscious that protect her; Doc-intelligence, Sneezy-physical sensitivety, Dopey- the fool, Bashful- emotional sensitivity, Grumpy-the cynic, Happy- the optimist, Sleepy-the unconscious.

WYDE76BQ33MB

 The individual Self (Snow White in this case) accepts the witch/queen, with an open heart. That naivete will apparently be the end of her, however, aided by the sub-personalities(the seven dwarfs) a protective coffin is built, through which she can still be seen, so that eventually her love finds her and brings her back to life.  In other words, love can never die, hope can never end, acceptance breeds life.

Living with an open heart, we are able to take in all that life brings.  All things become possible.  When the heart is closed, nothing is possible.

Rejection is defined as; to throw away, to refuse to take. To reject something is to attempt to exclude it from the whole.

A popular idea in modern culture is that “we’re all one”.  Assuming this to be the case, it follows that to “exclude something from the whole isn’t possible.  We can wish it wasn’t so; we can try to throw it away, but where is away? Everything that is, is.  If it isn’t possible what actually occurs when we reject?

Rejecting physical objects isn’t too problematic. I throw away garbage from my house to the recycle bin, and it’s taken away to the dump.( A great word for the place where rejected objects end up.) The objects are still part of the whole but are no longer in my house.

When I reject a person the trouble with rejection begins to show itself.  If I’m someone who’s aware of responsibility to other’s feelings, I will experience guilt with the rejection of another and that creates pressure on my mind.

The trouble is even more obvious with mental objects; ideas, beliefs, concepts.  When I reject an idea where does it go? The great dump in the sky? No, it goes to the personal unconscious. I may no longer be conscious of the idea I rejected, but because it’s still part of my psyche, it still has influence.  As with guilt, pressure occurs. We might even say that the consequence of rejection is guilt.

Every person, place, thing, idea, concept the mind has rejected causes a judgement to form which is the pressure to constantly reject that object; to keep it in its place in the unconscious.  When an object has been pushed out of the house– out of our conscious awareness–it is still part of the whole, since everything that is, is.  But like the physical dump, we can smell it. Everything rotting in that dump is perceived by the environment, and like the state of the earth today, on the verge of disastor, our individual psyche’s become unhealthy dump sights.

Acceptance has the opposite effect; the conscious mind has no pressure from an overfilled unconscious–the dump. It is open and free to observe without judgement as judgment derives from the rejected objects.

Acceptance is not a passive state but one of inclusion that, when necessary, discerns if an object is garbage and needs to go to the dump or if it can be tolerated and remain in the house. More later on acceptance.

Which side of the bed do you want to wake up on?

Wakened from the dreamworld to the rising of the sun (even if it’s behind clouds) opportunity calls like a bugle at revely.  What will this day bring, for every day is new? 

How we greet it is up to us. Do we view it  with dread that more will be asked of us than we feel capable of managing; with a sigh of boredom that this day will be like hundreds of others, a repetition of mundane activity; tired, heavy, physically unwell do we pull the covers back over our heads and wish the sun did not rise; or with hope and anticipation of adventure and exploration. 

Attitude is everything.

However, how much control do we actually have over the outlook we wake up with? The old saying, “He got up on the wrong side of the bed” has merit.  Today I woke up on the right side and greeted the day with optimism and joy, but that is not the case everyday. So what determines which side of the bed I get up on?

Health, rest, chemical balance, hormones, dreams, fears, worries, negative or positive patterns of thought  . . .   including unseen influences outside our awareness; astrology, elemental shifts in the earth, cycles of the moon, the weather . . . !!! So many things influence which side of the bed we get up on that it seems virtually impossible to name the reason or reasons for a sunny attitude versus a dark one.   

It appears we have little choice, yet though we are at the effect of so many different things, we also determine many of them ourselves, and it is to that list we must look for help to find the way to choosing our attitude.

The List:

1. Good diet, exercise, and rest. Knowing our individual chemical and hormonal balance, and monitoring changes over time. Avoiding habits that harm physical well-being.

2. Getting to know and take care of emotional needs. Saying “no” to overextending.

3. Maintaining mental fitness through stimulation; learning new things, dialogue to exchange ideas and some form of mindful practice like meditation to learn how to control thoughts. 

What we control is what we take in and what we keep out of our body/mind. 

As for the rest . . . learn to accept. Tomorrow; acceptance, what is it?

Following up on yesterday’s post about intimacy is the old; if a tree falls in the forest conundrum.   If no one hears it, did it fall? If no one sees me do I exist?

At around 2 years old children must work through the developmental issue–the conundrum– of whether they’re special or not; whether they exist as a unique entity.  Every other sentence, is “look at me . . .” As parents, it’s exhausting however, if the child isn’t adequately reflected he turns inward to see himself- and like Narcissus in Greek Mythology, he’s forced to hold up his own mirror to realize his existence. He now lives in his own eyes but lacks an ability to see others.

If the child is seen by his parents the conundrum is resolved in an ability to know he’s the only one, but he’s not the only one who’s the only one.

Held in solitary confinement or being stranded alone on a desert island, will drive anyone mad. The ego cannot hold  it’s grip on reality without support from the environment. Like the child unreflected, the solitary human will turn to the unconscious for validation which is the definition of madness; the boundary between the ego consciousness and the vastness of the collective unconscious is broken and the ego is drowned in archetypal images.

Psychological existence is dependent on visibility. If, like the tree that falls in the forest, he falls and no one hears him, he doesn’t exist–to himself.  And since no one else is there to see him fall, to anyone else either.

Whether physical existence is dependent on visibility is a question for tomorrow.

http://www.inpurplish.com/?p=1610