Dear Friends,
It may look like hidden masochism liking the Zen stick and who knows maybe
it is. Investigate with awareness? As for excluding people with too high
resistance to my wishes, ideas and preferences - what could be fairer than
that? The only proviso I suppose is to do it with gusto and deep honesty.
I like the point about the irresistible force meeting the immovable object.
It gets a bit more complicated when the balance of forces are unequal
between people of authority and poor, confused souls.
I feel the issue is not that we don't know but that we don't even want to
know that we don't know.
As for me, I like to stir and I like to play.
People are crazy and times are strange
I’m locked in tight, I’m out of range
I used to care, but things have changed
-Bob Dylan
Best wishes,
Robert
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Kay Needham <
familyconstellationinfo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
**
Thankyou Hania for sharing your wealth of experience in these matters. I
would just like to share another way of looking at the situation that:
That makes me feel sad when I've heard Bert or others sometimes stating
something like there is no help for those who have too high resistance
(that was my impression when I observed Bert rejecting working with some
people). That's an act of exclusion.
I have to say that my biggest Zen sticks in life have been from such acts
of exclusion by masters in their field. I think the resistant ego is an
unstoppible force that needs to meet an immovable object. Each ego is
basically deep down, asking to be conquered. Wikipedia describes this
phenonemon as pure physics. I have seen stars born this way
...............taking away the spear to strike the shield.......Food for
thought?
The Irresistible force paradox, also called the unstoppable force
paradox, is a classic paradox formulated as "What happens when an
unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" This paradox is a form of
the omnipotence paradox, which is a simple demonstration that challenges
omnipotence: ("Can God create a stone so heavy it cannot be lifted, not
even by God Himself?"). The immovable object and the irresistible force are
both implicitly assumed to be indestructible, or else the question would
have a trivial resolution ("it destroys it"). Furthermore, it is assumed
that they are two separate entities, since an irresistible force is
implicitly an immovable object, and vice versa. Another common answer is:
"The former is consumed by the latter, with an immeasurable release of heat"
The apparent paradox arises because it rests on two premises―that there
exist such things as irresistible forces and immovable objects―which cannot
both be true at once. If there exists an irresistible force, it follows
logically that there cannot be any such thing as an immovable object, and
vice versa.[1][2]
[edit]Origins
An example of this paradox in non-western thought can be found in the
origin of the Chinese word for paradox (Chinese: 矛盾; pinyin: máodùn;
literally "Spear-Shield"). This term originates from a story (see
the Kanbun example) in the 3rd century BC philosophical book Han
Feizi.[3] In the story, a man was trying to sell a spear and a shield. When
asked how good his spear was, he said that his spear could pierce any
shield. Then, when asked how good his shield was, he said that it could
defend from all spear attacks. Then one person asked him what would happen
if he were to take his spear to strike his shield; the seller could not
answer. This led to the idiom of "zìxīang máodùn" (自相矛盾), or
"self-contradictory".[1] Another ancient and mythological example
illustrating this theme can be found in the story of the Teumessian fox,
who can never be caught, and the houndLaelaps, who never misses what it
hunts. Realizing
the paradox, Zeus turns both creatures into static stars.
Kind regards
Sadhana
________________________________
Because of that - many people wouldn't benefit a lot from only simple
attending a workshop; the internalised and unconscious shame and fear would
block their ability to tune to the Knowing Field.
That makes me feel sad when I've heard Bert or others sometimes stating
something like there is no help for those who have too high resistance
(that was my impression when I observed Bert rejecting working with some
people). That's an act of exclusion.
I'm simplifying. That way - someone might say - the evolution works (and
the Orders of Love state it by the way of family system conscience works),
eliminating those who have not enough power/determination to break through
obstacles.
But that makes me feel rebellious; not to deny obvious "conscience made"
obstacles but to not give up when some people have such obstacles that they
need more work in individual process.
I have a lot of respect to the fact of so called "heavy fate" and to the
truth that we need to step out if someone is not ready, or that we need to
respect if the family unconscious loyalty would take charge and the client
wouldn't chose Life but Death (for example).
