Erich Fromm envisioned it in 1947 when, in his “Man for himself”, described as the fourth malignant character type, the Marketing-oriented one. Since then, his theory got reinforced through several means, even scientific ones. But it’s not just that his vision was crystal clear. It slowly became a de facto standard.

The more carefully you look around, the more you will realize its presence. More to that, you will realize its presence even within you. Since it is most desirable to act and live according to this principle of “I am as you want me to be”, you will most certainly discover it even in your own tendencies.

Egalitarianism also got heavily involved in this. Fromm himself foresaw it when talked about equality being in fact replaceability. It turned into undifferentiation, and then into indifference. All that is unique or special in man, is undesirable, and not needed. At best called weirdness.

We are told that in order to be successful (for whatever that means), we need to learn how to market ourselves. And then you realize that you are not making friendships any more, but you are networking. This one being now (academically) hyped through the theory of scale-free networks applied onto human relations. The extraordinary model of computer networks being used to state examples for human relationships. The inanimate being a seemingly valid model.

After being affected, learning, and continuing to live in it, this perpetual neutral attitude is leaving out all that man has born with, all that is originally within, in his unique individual being. Superficiality replaces all. The sole stable one is the ever changing behavior. Thoughts, beliefs included. One has only characteristics that can be sold. Ephemeral ones, of course. As it is enough to act like it is expected, doesn’t have to be like that. And it is not only the surroundings that doesn’t care if one is really like that, but being comfortable with the looks only. Even the person itself projecting that image doesn’t care. It suffices to look like it.

To always be like is expected, one has to exclude all contrasts, all possible contradictions within. Thus the only solution is to get- and stay empty. As all traits of character have to be removable. If there is an inner conflict between the originally inner trait and role to be performed, those original traits have to go. It is not the role that goes, it is the inner trait. It is the way to getting freed of individuality itself.

Here it is what did in fact provoke me to hit the keyboard. Part of the media in the country where I live in picked up the story pertaining to a study by the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and Media. They have studied “the effects of video games on young teenagers” as they say on “real children and families in real situations”. The results were intriguing compared to previous assertions on the topic: video games are means to diminish stress, and do not increase tension or aggressive tendencies.

It is intriguing, it is the opposite of how we were told before, it has news value in media. So far, so good. But then almost instantly a so called authority on matters of child psychology reacted. Until it is still hot, you might say. The guy is not young, belongs to the (media created) image of psychology guru. Meaning that whenever the issue of protecting children from any form of aggression shows up, he is there, bringing you the wisdom of unquestionable authority in the field. But this time I just found it quite hilarious.

The major argument against the Grand Theft Childhood research was Tom and Jerry. That it all started with Tom and Jerry. Tom and Jerry are the roots of all evil.

Now should I be concerned about letting my child watch Tom and Jerry? Is Tom and Jerry dangerous? Will Tom and Jerry “led to violence through easy identification with the aggressors” as the wise man says?

Then you might be in trouble. Might be. But that rarely occurs. I mean the trouble. There are so many ways to avoid getting in trouble. Eventually you can just walk away. But there is no need for that. The maximum you can get these days around those guys is boredom. So you walk away because of this.

On the other hand, here is my first axiom regarding the idea of a guru:

A person whose presence makes you feel uncomfortable.

I propose this to be your tool to test if it’s worthy to stay around him. It is hard to define exactly what this discomfort is like. The only thing you know is that you can’t explain it. I tend to be a non-believer when someone talks about feeling so good, so comforted around a guru. Whether that is the first time they’ve met or being around him for some time.

You might feel uncomfortable like this by simply reading something, or other indirect influence. But this axiom is valid only if you are affected by a living person, directly. All the rest pertains to the dead guru syndrome.

New Year’s resolutions are a sort of a custom. And such, lack of actual determination. You make those because everyone makes them at this time. Sure it is wonderful to give yourself a new chance. But are you really doing that?

1. The timing of these resolutions can be very much okay. But also it should be okay at any time of your life. If you prefer, at any time of the year.

2. The nature of the resolution is with great probability okay too. Supposedly we all know where we need to change, what we desire to change in ourselves, in our lives.

3. The will to carry them through is to be seen here.

All the enthusiasm is wonderful at this time. It gives the new hope. And seemingly, it gives some sort of energy to start the change. But it doesn’t last for too long. And then what? I think you know what follows from this point. Essentially, you slowly start explaining yourself why you don’t have the mood for it right now, postponing it, twice, and then forgetting about it.

Even the best reasoning weakens your will

What happened here? Instead of carrying through your commitment, you are using your energy to figure out the best explanations for why you should postpone or stop it. In the backgrounds, invisibly you are weakening your determination, your own will. These kind of explanations are rarely new to you. And now you have to wait a whole year to make new ones…

The will to carry through commitments is a rare bird. We all should be extremely careful when making resolutions. It is nice and easy to make them, it is tough and hard to keep them. Enthusiasm is not enough. It helps you with the decision, but soon it vanishes.

Will needs to be cultivated.

Determination empowers will. Some people seem to have it without doing too much for it. Others need to cultivate it. Cultivating it takes time. Not just one year.

Start with only one goal. One step at a time. Be clear and sincere with yourself when deciding. Start with something so easy to achieve that it makes you smile. If there is the slightest chance to be overwhelmed, find and easier one. You will be amazed how difficult it is to hold up your determination in carrying through the easiest commitments. You can even carry through a nonsensical action. I was once told about a will exercise to break a picker at noon, every day, for a month. The idea is to get in touch with your will. To bring it to the surface. Once you get along, you can go for the big commitments. But your will is fragile at first, approach it slowly. Never hurry, never engage in a commitment that overwhelms your actual power of will.

Remember not to give in to the temptation of New Year’s exuberance for resolutions. Even if everybody does that. If you will give up, it will weaken your will as any other unfulfilled commitment. Even if it feels so good to be in the collective enthusiasm. Enjoy the fiesta, but do not hurry to precipitated resolutions.

The “eternal present”

When it comes to spirituality, the importance of the present moment is often overemphasized. I am sure you’ve heard it yourself may times. “Be here and now!” “It is just the present moment that it is important!” And other similar statements that slowly become part of the common knowledge. But what to do with the past and the future? Are those sequences of time completely irrelevant? How to disregard them? Is that possible? Remaining focused only on the present moment, all right, and then what? What then? The flow of time is involved again and again. Hard to get rid of it, isn’t it?

What to do with your past and the future?

This concept doesn’t lead you too far. If that would be so simple, I guess there should be so many people fulfilled in their spiritual quest. If you just count those who were telling you to do so… All right, then this is what I suggest: let’s switch to a different perspective. Let’s reduce the triadic approach (past-present-future) to a dual one: there is the present and the non-present. The non-present can contain both past and future. But the two protagonists are enough for now. Now let’s see about those two in details.

1. The Present

Being focused on the present is being focused on activity. Acting is possible only in the present moment. And the syndrome accompanying the emphasized present moment is called restlessness. Maybe not a syndrome, just an attribute.

2. The Non-present

Being oriented towards the non-present means being oriented towards the concealing and unfolding of events. Towards what happened and what might happen. This, as the other side of being focused on the present, of being active, is on the contrary, being passive. Drawing away from activity. Being inertial.

As they are, in their natural state, both orientations are contributing to the paradox of being obliged to play whether as active or as passive players. None of those two are leading naturally to a neutral state. Remember, we are in the context of self development possibilities here. Meaning we should have an other option, there should be another possibility to transcend the paradox.

Being focused exclusively on the present doesn’t seem like a viable solution. Even if you hear it all the time that the “eternal now” is all that matters. The rejection of sinking into an inertial state is more accepted, as on the levels of social or physical health an active attitude is more desirable.

The potential of a third approach

Now we seem to get back to a triadic approach. Not to the one of the three time sequences (past-present-future), but to one that presents the potentiality of a third state, beyond present and non-present. This third state should be the solution for the paradox of restlessness versus inertia. As it is not possible to get out from the context of time perception, both present and non-present will remain. Seemingly the solution is to get an equilibrium between those two sides. But how to get there?

There isn’t much left but to accept.

The magic word is acceptance. Since fighting any of those two would not lead anywhere, but increase their effect on us, there isn’t much left but to accept. Fighting restlessness will obviously lead to more agitation. Rejecting the non-present, rejecting the past, trying not to remember, avoiding it, but nevertheless denying the inevitability of what future holds, leads to fear, despair, depression etc.

This kind of acceptance is not easy to realize. It is not easy to understand it. There are so many facets of it that needs to be considered. Still, there isn’t much left in terms of options to handle our time. Consider this an experiment to approach your time in different manner. Just a possibility among many in your self-developmental quest.

From the start, I will give you a clear hint on where we are heading to. Think of the Zen teachings, think of the Zen anecdotes. Zen has given us a fascinating methodology on how to handle the absurd. There are obviously many other ways, but I guess this is one of the most well known ones these days.

One of the few essential experiences

I said that facing the absurd is an essential experience for us. There are few experiences of this kind, which we could call essential ones. Like death. We all have to face death at some point. We may think of death as the utmost in terms of what we have to face. It is truly unavoidable, it is a great suffering, it is the unmerciful end. Death causes the greatest fear of all. But it doesn’t cause despair. That is the scope of the absurd.

Absurd leads to despair. Despair is the sense of being annihilated, the dissolution of our being. Think of the small stupid situations of our daily lives when we find ourselves in completely unreasonable circumstances. Those events might have reasons and reasonings for others, from other perspectives. But not for us.

However, the absurd might show up with greater intensity. Usually when we face the loosing of something important, may be even what represented the meaning of life for us. Or there are situations of facing great unfairness, injustice. In these situations, when we vehemently protest, we usually find ourselves exclaiming: “This is absurd!”

Learning to deal with the absurd is vital

Being cheated, being betrayed often leads to suicidal endings. The inability of facing the absurdity of the circumstances sometimes leads to tragic endings. But form the perspective of the absurd, as an essential existential experience, that showed up in our life, the suicidal ending is a completely wrong answer. The inability to accept the unacceptable is obvious here. But what is also obvious is that the major reason that led to this was not knowing how to face the absurd.

Why this isn’t then part of our mundane training? It would save us from lots of catastrophic endings. A possible answer is that it is way too uncomfortable to even bring it in discussion. On the level of personal development, personal accomplishment, the goal is to be reasonable, to achieve what is there to be achieved, relative to those who have already achieved what had to be achieved. There is no place here for anything that is unavoidable, inevitable. Everything has to be under control, under personal control.

Is there an easy way?

It seems that dealing with the absurd was banished to the other side, to what is generally called spirituality. Let spirituality deal with it. And spirituality does that. Every form, or frame, or methodology of spiritual development urges you to learn how to deal with the absurd. The most famous one nowadays seems to be the Zen way to do this. But Western traditions, usually the esoteric ones, are doing the same. In the tradition of Alchemy there is what is called Nigredo, a first phase leading towards future purification and transformation. The Christian tradition is also familiar with the Dark Night of the Soul.

Regarding the Zen approach, I would say that the point is often missed. We are extremely amused by the stories there. It can be funny, no question, but there is way more to it. Learning to face the absurd is a bigger task than even learning to face death. And just imagine how difficult is for a Zen teacher to find a way for his disciple to realize it, to learn it. Seemingly it takes time, a great deal of time.

Will stop here for now, saying that I am sometimes criticized by my readers that I am too serious. This time I might have really gone too far. So, to end this article in a lighter tone, here is a Zen anecdote:

Ikkyu, the Zen master, was very clever even as a boy. His teacher had a precious teacup, a rare antique. Ikkyu happened to break this cup and was greatly perplexed. Hearing the footsteps of his teacher, he held the pieces of the cup behind him. When the master appeared, Ikkyu asked: “Why do people have to die?”

Ikkyu, producing the shattered cup, added: “It was time for your cup to die.”

Some say it is the magic recipe. A good laugh a day keeps the doctor away. Or an apple. Just being able to laugh means that you have a sense of humor? Consider this guy over here propagating the mechanical laughter. Creepy. Laughter doesn’t imply the comic. Laughter can be pathological, laughter can be hysterical. But when it implies comicality (as the aesthetical category), it has a social value, a social function.

Aristotle in Poetica has the following definition on this: “Comedy is, as we have said, an imitation of characters of a lower type- not, however, in the full sense of the word bad, the ludicrous being merely a subdivision of the ugly. It consists in some defect or ugliness which is not painful or destructive. To take an obvious example, the comic mask is ugly and distorted, but does not imply pain.” (Part V.)

Considered a gospel by many great artists, it is also helpful to see here, that comicality must not imply pain. But it is not too gentle either. It simply acts on an other level. When the sense of humor notices something worthy to be expressed, it never hurts, but it warns. Thus, it becomes constructive, thus it contributes to the development of others.

Being entertained by disgust

Due to the overwhelming presence of the ugly in our current era, the predominant aesthetic category of our times is disgust. Accordingly, humorous entertainment tends to be focused on disgusting matters. Rarely considered or used as social warning. Mostly as a perversion. Louts are laughing on everything. But Aristotle warned that in the true sense, one should not laugh on everything.

Laughing is relaxing of inner tension

Laughing occurs when there is an inner tension. When the inner tension needs to be released. Laughing eliminates the surplus of energy. That tension is created by impressions that can not be reconciled. Every joke, at its core, imitates the occurrence of this tension. The punchline produces the release of that tension. Thus, you can get rid of the accumulated conflicting impressions.

Psychoanalysts consider humor a form of sublimated aggression. Which correlates here. Aggression can turn into violence when the inner tension is unbearable. But as you see, also a joke can help with that in a friendly, peaceful way.

What to do if a joke is not at hand?

More to that, a joke does not give guaranties to the sublimation to occur, or to the relaxing of the tension. It might be too late, it might be unfitting, inappropriate etc., maybe having the effect of increasing the tension. So, the outer source for that to happen is not always available. Still, there is hope. Our own sense of humor can save the day. In that case, we need to do the job ourselves. We need to make an effort. A conscious effort.

“The sense of humor is often mistakenly considered as given. It is confused with the ability to laugh. Although the relation is close, they are not the same. The sense of humor can be caught in action in rare moments. And it doesn’t imply laughter. As an example for this, in a recent reading my attention was drawn to the fact that Christ never laughed. There isn’t any evidence, not even the slightest one, that Christ laughed even once.” (in P.D.Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous, Ch. XI.).

And on the other hand, there are people so deeply involved with their own negative emotions that they never laugh. So sour, so severe and serious in a sick way.

A good, developed and polished sense of humor can be even more than just a tool to get rid of accumulated conflicting energy. By facing greater oppositions, existential paradoxes, meeting and facing the absurd can become a spring-board for spiritual evolution. More on that soon.

Obviously autodidacticism is very much present on many levels of our modern lives, in many forms. Learning languages for example, although you know that a teacher or a native speaker must show up at some point. I am not talking about this kind of self-education.

In what the common knowledge calls personal development, autodidacticism has reached nowadays its all-time high. By now, self-help can be considered not only an ideology, but also a movement. Behind this ideology there is a whole industry. Complete sets of business models are available in the fields of personal motivation, mind shaping etc. Scientific and pseudo-scientific explanations are there to serve the cause.

Authenticity is seemingly not a requirement

Autodidacticism seems to perform well here. Tons of books, audio-video materials, also courses and trainers are available. If those authors have reached the goals of personal success designated in their own methods – seems to be irrelevant. Most of those methods being popularized through global channels, it is somewhat understandable. You don’t really have a connection with the author. Your choice is just to follow the recipes and see for yourself if it works. Authenticity is present here just as the promise of future success and in the false form of convincing marketing. Actually your sole choice is to be a habitual autodidact.

Saturation and isolation

Currently the influence of this conviction is placing its marks on forms of spiritual development. “The Age of Masters is over” states Jodorowsky. And he might be very much right. Not that there is no more need for guidance and authenticity. But the habitual autodidacticism led to a psychological complex. This is what I would like to call the Autodidacticism Complex. The autodidact reaches a level of saturation and isolation where a misconception is installed. The misconception of being able to learn anything on your own. There is no room left for an outer point of support. Maybe support is too much, let’s just say point of reference. There is only space left for yourself.

How far should one go with autodidacticism?

It looks like a new religion was born and we did not even noticed it. Such an intensity in believing the infallible efficiency of the success recipe makes it resemble to what we used to know as dogma. The authoritarian presence of the teacher is also there, whether in person or by books, DVDs and nowadays on-line seminars. It is just striking how belief plays such an important role here. Just like in religion, except no god(s) are involved. Same old, maybe better, maybe worse. If this is where the revolt against the older world got us, then we got nowhere.

When I wrote the “How much of a secret is The Secret?” I felt that my biggest concern is “The lack of moral considerations” (see point two here). And this I still sustain. Maybe even more. I suggest you watch the videos (links below) and see for yourself about some secrets in details. See the reactions of “The Secret” ’s preacher to the simple question of “Do you feel sorry for those people?”. Quite shocking. Oh, and there is Bob Proctor involved as Schrimer’s close friend, who categorically denies any responsibility. At least he had the decency to say (under some pressure though) that he is sorry for the money loss of those people.

• David Schirmer Exposed – Part 1
• David Schirmer Exposed – Part 2
• David Schirmer Exposed – Part 3

His own words from his reply video confirms that he considers ‘The Secret’ part of his belief, saying that he was hurt in his beliefs. Much truth has slipped out.

(I first found the videos linked on Steve Pavlina’s blog)

[These days 'The Secret' arrived in my small Easter European country. I've heard it being advertised intensely on the radio, seen it on the local Internet portals. So, I am curious about the local reactions (although I might be able to predict a few).]

Update. Here is Part 4, thanks to the comment left by John:

• David Schirmer Exposed – Part 4

In straight accordance with your age, you are now in a distinct phase of your life where you are redefining yourself. Self-definition is an ongoing process, for as long as you live. Our lives are subdued to a historical presence and an existential reality. The historical presence is also subdued to live in a comparative reality. In every time sequence of our lives, the comparative approach is remodeling our identity. And comparative approach is dependent on the cultural, social and historical context. This dependency is what creates the frames for us, mostly in how we can manage to define ourselves. This self-definition needs to be ever reassuring in order to keep our balance. We live now, so is the actual context in favour of this need for self-definition? With all the progress of the modern world, is it easier today to define ourselves?

What actually started me to be preoccupied about this question was an interview a saw with Alejandro Jodorowsky. If you don’t know who this guy is, you should look around a little bit. The effort is worth it. His true art and expressiveness in all of his endeavours are extremely inspiring for all seekers of genuine self-transformation.

This interview is available here. I suggest you watch it all, for at least his unmistakable style. The part that is really pertaining to this topic starts at about 6:30. He is being asked about his ramifying artistic activities. His reply goes like this:

“Things have no definition now. Why should I have a definition?”

“… Because I’m an artist. I am not a zombie… In our civilization now we are becoming zombies. Doing only one thing, like a machine. But we are not in the old time… of the fixed telephone. We are in the time of the iPod. The telephone isn’t any more a telephone. [pulling out his mobile from his pocket] With that you can send messages, take photos, take pictures, listen music. What is that? What is the name of that? Is a telephone? Maybe not. If you use it like a telephone, is a telephone. If you use it like an e-mail, is another thing. If you use it to take a photography, is another thing. Things have no definition now. Why should I have a definition? …”

Being a fan of his movies (but not only), I consider him one of the very rare artists able to constantly actualize his visions, his message. And I guess, for that he needs to be able to constantly redefine himself.

His analogy with the mobile here, I find to be expressive for our present times, frames – social, cultural or historical. There are so many ways to express ourselves today, that maybe never were. But does this make it easier? Is it easier now to define ourselves?

If you consider blogging, – because this is what most of us are doing here, – this can be another way for self-definition. Blogging exposes our need to write about things we are interested in, for some or many of us even to write about ourselves. And this is not just a way for other people to find out about us, but a way for us to find out about ourselves. Why not, a way to help us defining ourselves, more or less consciously.

… the need for a strong ego …

I often hear that it is a requirement for spiritual development that you have ‘a strong ego’. Sometimes it is even aggravated by making it a necessity of such great importance that it is useless to start any spiritual practice without it. Why is this considered so important? Is it so that there should be no spiritual development unless having a ’strong ego’?

Giving it a second thought, the idea is not completely wrong. You must have seen people involved so much in some “spiritual” practice that they truly needed some grounding. On the other hand, I would not consider that – whatever they were doing – spiritual practice. Rather some form of escaping from their life. Nevertheless, the ’strong ego’ advocacy I tend to see as the other side of the coin. Usually it is propagated by disillusioned former “spiritual practicers”.

Comparative reality vs. existential reality

If spiritual development starts where personal development ends, which I like to call the moment/space of the soul, then this is where the ’strong ego’ theory is no longer valid. Spiritual development is all about neutralizing the influence of what previously you’ve built. So far, you’ve been searching your place in the world, coming up to expectations, building your identity. Your whole existence was marked by a comparative reality. All built up in time with great effort and a lot of energy invested. Now you will hardly let it go. But spiritual development requires you to turn towards an other form of reality, the existential reality.

Worse than the fear of death

Your identity is your own comparative reality. It is your money, your status, your charm etc. that you can hardly let go. Your identity is your biggest obsession. You do not want to live without it even for a second. Loosing your identity seems far worse than death itself. If there is the slightest chance to see your identity saved in some form after death, then you can deal with the fear of dying. But loosing your identity seems far worse. It is the biggest of all fears.

Spiritual development turns you towards existential reality. ‘Existential Reality’ is the label that is attached to the way reality really is. It is a positive existence. The spirit is always expressed or symbolized by light. Light has a positive existence. Darkness is defined in comparison to light. Darkness exists in a comparative reality, doesn’t have a positive existence.

So, just like that, your identity – that you hold on to even more than to life itself,- doesn’t have a positive existence. It must be strange from the point of view of existential reality how obsessed we are with it, how desperately we hang on to it. To something which is not.

My dear friends and readers! I haven’t been posting for a short time, but believe me I had the sweetest reason on Earth for that. Just take a look at the picture. It was/is one of the most extraordinarily wonderful experiences of my life!

Will be back to blogging after a short while, now I need to be with my family.

Cheers!

To be clear from the start, I am talking here mostly about what is often called ’spiritual evolution’. According to most of the believers in the ’spiritual evolution’, there is a finality involved in this. The final station is sometimes called enlightenment, spiritual realization, even redemption, and there are lots of other terms going around for this. So, what is said to be a certainty here, is that evolution will occur. Is that so?

This view over man’s evolution sees it as a necessity. It is a must. It means that you will reach the glorious finale whether you want it or not. It is all just a matter of time.

But I said from the beginning that the existence of evolution is a certainty. Am I contradicting myself here? Maybe. But maybe not. I think that accepting the possibility of evolution is not the same with considering it a necessity.

The evolution of man is a possibility. Thus, it is a matter of choice.

Choice is the true first step. At this first step you have the chance to realize a glimpse of freedom. Right from the start. You are free to make your own decision here. It is not obligatory at all.

The concept of the human being seen as a machinery is not a new one. But in spite of that, it is one of the most avoided ones when it comes to self development. So let’s take a closer look at it. There must be something about it, as this avoidance seems strikingly disturbing. The sentiment of freedom, knowing that we are acting freely, being able to decide about our lives – this is how we like to picture ourselves. Is this how we really are?

Man is the most wonderful and complex machine

There have been odes dedicated to the perfection of the human being, at all times. Being the most wonderful and complex of all known living things is quite flattering. Essentially, those sworn on the mechanistic view of man are not against this. I often hear from the side of the humanists quite the contrary, saying that even comparing man to a machine is outrageous. But this is untrue. The mechanistic view of man states indeed that we are machines, but agrees on the attributes. They also say that man is the most wonderful and complex – machine.

One of the basic statements of the mechanistic view is – and this is one cause of the major differences – that there is no deliberate action on the side of man. Because a machine is unable to come up with a true initiative by itself. All that the machine does is reacting. It reacts to the stimuli that reaches him. It reacts according to how previous learning proved to be efficient. So there is no autonomous deliberation and nothing of that kind. Just reactions.

I will not enter into more details about the mechanistic view of the human being now. But will focus on what they are teaching us in terms of self development. Here are the four rules to be followed by all self development addicts bold enough to consider themselves machines.

1. Learn the machine

The first thing to be done is to learn the machine as thoroughly as possible. Mapping the machine, learning the descriptions, picturing the interactions between its parts, figuring out its correlations, understanding it. Doesn’t this bring the knowledge of predictability? What is more to be hoped from learning the ways of a machine then predicting its reactions?

2. Fix the machine

If you’ll learn about its possibilities, you might notice that right now it is not performing as it is expected. So it might need some fixing. Fixing the machine takes guts. Being bold enough to interfere here and there, just to get a better performance from it. The first rule above is a prerequisite. Learning it, knowing it will give far better results when fixing it. Otherwise you might mess about it and cause some serious damage.

3. Make it work

If you’ve been successful in fixing it, now it must perform as expected. Put it to the test. If it doesn’t work as expected, go back to step two above. Rule no. 2 is the prerequisite here. But if you are persistent enough, you will get the results. And then your machine will enchant you. Even more, it might impress you. And it might impress other people too!

4. Keep it working

You’ve learned what kind of machine you have, you are able to fix it and tune it and you were able to make it perform. It is working like a charm. But not forever. All kinds of fuels are needed. Also it needs servicing from time to time. These kind of efforts are still and will be required from you. But now you have something special. Your machine works at the most of its potential. Maybe it is time to give a purpose to it. Make it work For You.

Make it work For You. Why not? You learned it, you fixed it, you made it work, you are keeping it functioning. Maybe it is time to think of the engineer, the mechanic, the driver or the passenger. You deserve it after all the work. But wait a minute! What if the passenger wants to get off? Homo ex machina?

” … according to your like or dislike”

What I know for sure is that etymologically it has its roots in the Sanskrit verb ‘to act’. Then the definition as ‘the fruits of your past actions’ seems to stand. Actually this is about the nature of circumstances in your life that show up in time, one after another. And then according to your like or dislike, those circumstances are said to be good or bad, herein

• ‘good karma’, or
• ‘bad karma’.

Indian philosophy states that non-acting is impossible. We are acting even when we are in a complete passive state, relaxing, resting, even when practicing some form of meditation to stop the flow of thoughts. We are always doing something. Thus, when talking about karma as ‘the fruits of our previous actions’ we seem to think in a way that resembles the law of cause and effect. So, if we always act in an obvious or subtle way, then we are always causing future effects to occur.

“Every good deed you do will someday come back to you”

How then good and bad karma shows up? This is where we start to touch a new area, the area of morality. Morality intervenes as the factor of promise and hope here. By acting properly, according to moral laws, we will cause similar kind of effects to manifest. Every good deed you do will someday come back to you – goes the saying. Nevertheless, the bad ones too. But then the question of morality gives birth to endless other ones. What is considered good or bad? What is truly a good deed?

Original sin as collective karma

Then there is also what is called ‘collective karma’. Just a quick example. What is known to us as ‘original sin’ is in fact the pack of thoughts, desires, compulsions and deeds waiting for the proper moment to manifest. All these left to us as inheritance from our ancestors. So whether we are aware of it or not, we are carrying all those, laying there repressed in some form in the collective unconscious. The scale here is extensible from the small family to the wider categories of society your are part of.

“Why now? Why me?”

The next outstanding factor in importance here is time. The necessary reactions to our actions are recorded somewhere in the unconscious, waiting for the proper circumstances to show up and manifest. Regarding the timing of their occurrence there must be some sort of priorities. At this point is when you say: “Why now?”. Followed shortly by: “Why me?” (sic!).

But don’t we have our own concept of destiny?! What’s with all this karma stuff? The Western concept of destiny goes like this: you are predestined to this (live like this, act like this, be like this). Predestined by who? By God. God’s ways are hidden to you, just believe that he knows better what is good for you. The essence of authoritarian morals so scorned and repudiated. Which repudiation gave birth to relativism in terms of morals. “None shall tell me what is good or bad for me, I will figure it out for myself!” And by now there is barely any kind of morality left us here.

You are the only one responsible here

Now take a look at the Indian way of handling this complexity. Karma is your destiny, your are predestined to face its effects, but who predestined you to them? You yourself. And their religion accepts this, even more, makes this a cornerstone.

We are not the kind of people here to live like that. We need some sort of realism based on pure descriptive factuality. Our religion is now called science. Whatever. But I can give you a way to look at the karma concept that might fit for some of you into the Westerner way of thinking. I like to define Karma as the permeability of the unconscious.

Karma as the permeabilty of the unconscious.

Changing our lives to the better is an essential drive for us. Succeeding in doing that varies though at each of us. Why is that? I say it is because of the permeability of our unconscious. Some of us get a happier love life than others. Some get richer easier than others. Some learn things easier than others. But this can be turned to our benefit for sure. It is called self-knowledge. Herein learning in which ways your unconscious is permeable and where is more thick.

The story goes like this: there was a doctor who invented a peculiar way of helping his patients. I am not sure if he was using it on all his patients, but he did on some in great need of his help. His new way of relieving his patients from their sufferings turned out to be soon quite popular among his fellows in the small, but so much the more solidary, community. In fact many of his friends started to follow his recipe and act alike. Let’s see now his recipe.

When one came and told him about the serious health condition, he just listened carefully. And when it was time for giving the prescription, he just said the following: “I am giving you one day.” There were patients who were given two days. Even one week. Nobody was sure about the number of days the doctor is going to give them. Only one thing was clear: he was giving days to them from his own life.

After a while other people started to follow his example and made similar gifts to the seriously ill ones. And soon this turned into a custom in that community. So, when the offers were made, they all went to the rabbi and told him about it. Then the rabbi offered their gifts to God asking Him to agree on giving those days of lives to the one in need.

Now the question: Would you give a day of your life to someone? If so, who would you give it to?

In actual times, in the modern world, development and evolution on a larger scale is called progress. Since Heraclitus stated that “everything flows” – “Panta Rhei”, we accept the universality of permanent change. Change seems real, stability an illusion. Due to this belief in change, progress got a central place in our world. Actually, progress puts pressure on us, progress seems to become the ultimate obsession of modern men. But where does it lead us? Do you see progress heading into a good direction? Is progress truly beneficial for us? Or do you see it more like marking time? Or maybe we are just going round and round?

We put our faith into progress these days. An ever ongoing process, a linear one that brings us progress – this is how we see our lives. This linearity is in contrast with our ancestors circular, ever returning view of life. The symbol of evolution is now the arrow. The arrow that points to a direction. It seems to me that this is one sided as it only points towards the future.

What about the past? Why should we turn away from the past and the accumulated experiences? Is it good for us to only get ahead? Do we have reasons to willfully avoid the past?

Understanding always brings change

The utmost in efficiency that one can achieve is to able to understand. Understanding is by far much more than knowledge. When true understanding comes, it changes you, it transforms you. And also it transforms what was misunderstood or not understood before. Understanding transforms poison into medicine.

Understanding aggression transforms it into a force that will help you. It will not weaken you any more, but will give you the strength that you’ve always wished for.

Recognizing the nature of aggression is essential

As stated before, the true nature of aggression is not violence. It is a complete misunderstanding to identify them. Aggression is one of the essential principles that is present in our lives. By its nature, it is always present whether you are aware of it or not. There are destructive manifestations of it, but also, there are harmless and constructive forms in which it shows up.

Few psychological orientation truly help us in understanding aggression. One of them is the analytical psychology founded by C. G. Jung. He realized that the forces that are influencing us unconsciously can be approached by discovering the collective dreams of mankind. These collective dreams are presented through myths and often even through fairy tales. Here I am going to draw your attention towards the possibilities that mythology reserves us in order to comprehend the principle of aggression.

The two archetypal facets of aggression

Although we are accustomed to look at aggression as a masculine manifestation, the ancients recognized its feminine side too. For modern people this might be something surprisingly new. Both of the facets were disliked and feared. The masculine facet was called Ares by the Greeks and Mars by the Romans. The feminine facet was given also the name of a male god – will explain it immediately – Hades by the Greeks and Pluto by the Romans.

Mars – the masculine archetype of aggression

In the myth, Ares is son of Zeus and Hera, an unloved child from the very beginning. Unruly, disobedient, boisterous, Mars was unloved not only by gods, but also of men. God of war, but not the one who incites wars, not a moral factor. He is representative of the passion for conflict as such, without taking sides.

The rejection Mars faces from the very beginning shows us the lack of understanding towards the principle of aggression. This is the most obvious sign that no other approach will work with him besides understanding. Let’s stop here with Mars for now and get an introduction to Pluto.

Pluto – the feminine archetype of aggression

The overwhelmingly patriarchal ancient Greek and Roman society gave us the feminine principle of aggression in form of a male god. In other mythologies on the contrary, this principle was accepted as feminine, ex. goddess Hel in the Old-German mythology.

Hades is the god of the underworld, his name means “invisible” or “to make invisible”. He was so feared that when the Romans actualized him to their own system of gods, they gave him a new name, Pluto, thus becoming also god of the riches under the earth.

Understanding this archetype is much more difficult than the one of Mars. We can say that it is somewhat new in the general consciousness. An arguable but significant argument here is that even the planet Pluto was quite recently discovered. And there is still an ongoing debate on whether it should be considered a planet. But this is not important for the perspective of getting familiarized with the archetype by the name Pluto.

The main characteristic which differentiates Pluto from Mars is its withholding and hidden presence. Instead of exposing and showing off, it is oriented towards the interior, towards itself. It is much more insidious and perfidious. Its destructive power is much bigger than the one of Mars. By the time Pluto was discovered as a planet, there was also discovered the element called Plutonium used for the most destructive bombs ever made by men.

But Pluto also has its constructive and beneficent aspects. As god of the underworld it represents the immense energies hidden within our unconscious. It represents the potential of complete and effective transformation.

For now, I really hope that you enjoyed this short article on approaching the principle and archetypes of aggression. In the future I intend to develop more the topic as it constitutes part of the framework of vertical thinking and of Vertegram.

Instead of closing conclusions, I am living this open with a few questions:

• How do you think these principles are present in the actual warfares around the globe?
• Can you recognize significant differences between the different warfares carried through in our current days?
• Can you recognize beneficent, positive manifestations of these principles? Can you give examples?

Aggression is not identical with violence

When aggression started to be seen more from its negative side? Probably since commodity gained more and more space in our lives. Or probably since moral values started to be misinterpreted, started to be one sided. Non-violence, as we all know, is the very basic principle of every moral scale of values. All religions are defining it as a cornerstone of their dogma. Also, all spiritual paths and methodologies are considering it the foundation of their ethical requirements. On the other side, there is a surprisingly big amount of violence oriented towards those of other religions or non-believers. And in terms of spiritual development methods there is the destructive attitude towards what is often called “the ego”. So, those institutions and frameworks that are propagating out loud their manifesto against violence, they themselves are in contradiction.

Eradication of aggression is a mere illusion

The more we tend to avoid it, the more painfully it will return into our lives. Avoidance, suppression, repression doesn’t seem to work. But admitting this – is not likely to happen soon. Not individually, not on a larger scale. And repressed aggression shows more of its shadowy side these days. On the individual side we face new symptoms and maladies of self-aggression that weren’t there before, at least not at such a large scale (like cancer, allergies etc). On the larger scale, with all the effort “to fight for peace” there are desperate wars carried out all over the world, and there is a completely new form of violence called terrorism, a cancerous malady of humanity, unseen before.

Life is a battlefield (too).

I am not saying that this kind of violence wasn’t there before. There was violence even on the streets of our cities before. The problem is that there was never a bigger effort to eradicate it like there is one nowadays. But it is rarely and accidentally effective. On the other side, those that say that “life is a battlefield” are also right. Sometimes in a positive sense. Mostly when it shows up in the form of competition, in carrying out responsibilities, standing up for demands worth carrying out. Overcoming commodity is a daily challenge for many of us. Society demands from us that we start every new workday, even if it doesn’t promises too much. It demands a daily self-sacrifice.

When we’ll start learning?

No one wants to have anything to do with aggression. Not really. It is annoying. Very. But still, we continuously have to face it. There are wars permanently going on, there is violence in the streets, there is violence on the TV. Actually, there is no TV without violence. The first thing that needs to be realized is that whether we like it or not, aggression will always be present in some form. Until we do not accept this, there is no chance for any clearing up.