Australian General Semantics Society

 

September Sat 16th at Gavan's

 

The Day that Gautama (“the Buddha”), Dr Carl Jung, and Count Alfred Korzybski, came to lunch …

 

Distinguished company, indeed, but WE played a role!

Some timeless principles applied to contemporary issues.

We did not expect the mouthing of platitudes this time.

Led by Robert James

 

Author’s Note:

This discussion occurred after a memorable luncheon attended by our three remarkable guests.  The luncheon discussion was recorded for our ongoing (time-binding) edification.

 

Preface:

The conjunction of these three remarkable characters was made possible 

as a consequence of an application of time-binding: a general-semantics principle

with a wonderful capacity to transcend little difficulties like gaps in time-space ...

 

Some After-Luncheon Reflections

 

1)

CGJ: As I was saying, here in the West our so-called Age of Enlightenment dawned several centuries ago.  We began to look at things differently.  We even began to apply our new scientific methodology to the causes of suffering of men and women.  We made some great advances and replaced superstition with knowledge.  Today, men and women are better off then before but, still, suffering persists.    

 

a.  How does scientific methodology make us better-off than before (eg for our parents)?

b. Why does suffering still persist in your own life?

c.  How much of this could be relieved by better application of scientific methodology?

 

2)

CGJ: ... I encountered patients suffering from the strangest ills, without apparent cause.  They were not physically ill, organically diseased.  Their mysterious mental suffering seemed unnecessary. 

 

a.  Is much of our illness really "unnecessary"?  What do doctors say about this?

b.  Is it often caused by "semantic maladjustment" or "misevaluations"?

c.  Is mental illness and distress really "without apparent cause"?

 

3)

CGJ: I took note of their words and actions and eventually saw that their illnesses often made sense according to their own internal logic.  I came to understand their ills served a “secondary gain” purpose.  Symptoms were really a way of coping with painful aspects of their lives.  Their symptoms were distorted internal responses to environmental challenges.  These were not ideal adaptations, to be sure, but they allowed the patient to cope after a fashion.

 

a. Is illness really "a way of coping"?  What's the (or an) alternative to "coping"?

b.  What sort of "secondary gains" can apply"  Where's the time-binding in this?

c.  Does this ever represent an effective evaluation of reality?


 

4)

CGJ: Our main legacy, for which some reviled us, was, ironically, the upending of a key notion of our Age of Enlightenment.  Our charting of unconscious forces scared many people. 

 

a.  Do you ever catch a surprising glimpse of your own subconscious?

b.  Do you think the subconscious is important in your life?

c.  Are you ever scared of your own "unconscious forces"?

 

5)

CGJ: With God having been dethroned some time earlier, we now in turn dethroned the ego from its privileged seat of rationality.  We showed that other actors – unconscious drives and motivations, emotions – sometimes held the human stage, even if we weren’t consciously aware of this shadow play. 

 

a.  Is the "ego the master of its own house" in your life?

b.  Do you have surprising dreams? Can you remember them?  Where do they come from?

c.  Can we regard dreams as a part of our personal "reality"?

 

6)

CGJ: Let go of suffering.  Just like that?

B:      This letting go can be aided by the cultivation of wisdom, ethical behaviour and mindful awareness.  Essentially, our suffering arises from the illusion that the individual self is enduring and needs to be protected.

 

a.  Do you have problems "letting go" - holding on to part of yourself too long?

b.  What about in relationships - Can you "let go" of resentment, indignation, jealousy?

c.  Are principles like the "cultivation of wisdom" enough to achieve this?

 

7)

CGJ: So it is never enough to think we know what we are doing; we need to become aware of these internal forces, see where they are leading us and then act accordingly to put ourselves in control.

 

a.  Are you the master or the slave to these "internal forces" ?

b.  Can you identify an "internal force" that's important in your life?

c.  Can you "objectify" such forces?  Is it useful to do this, or dangerous?


 

8)

B: We are not in control of our lives.  Existence can't be dictated by human beings.  Life is a moving target.  So are we, moment by moment.  Nothing is permanent.  When I realised this it wasn't frightening.  On the contrary, it was ... liberating. 

 

a.  Do you feel that you're the master of your own destiny?  How so / Why not?

b.  How do you blend the need to be both directive and responsive in your own life?

c.  How can we be liberated by uncertainty?

 

9)

CGJ: Nothing is permanent.  Yet, to ourselves, we always retain the view that we remain the same person, don't we?       

 

a. Do you remain "the same person" over time?

b.  How do you apply indexing / dating to your "concept of self"?

c.  Do you agress with Jung that our personality is intrinsic, ie "Nature" rather than "Nurture"?

 

10)

CGJ: I see therapy as really a process of taking up responsibility for managing our changing selves to the fullest extent we are able.  

 

a.  Is therapy really a metter of "managing our changing selves" - Is it as simple as that?

b.  What about time-binding: Doesn't Science and Culture have a role in therapy?

c.  If we have to "manage ourselves", isn't there a role for "Destiny" ?

 

11)

CGJ:    My old friend Freud said something like that.  Where id was, there shall ego be.

 

a.  Freud was all for the basic instinctive drives and urges - Must we be bound by these?

b.  Can we overcome eg childhood trauma by exercising the ego to prevail?

c.  Can we change our "inner nature" by determination, training and practice?


 

12)

CGJ: Frustrated desires can paralyse and poison us. 

 

a.  Do you suffer from "frustrated desires"?  Do you feel poisoned by them?

b.  Can frustrated desire be managed by adopting "civilised behaviour" and restraint?

c.  Can we be "objective" in describing desires and management options?

 

13)

B: No longer need we be prisoners of past deeds of ourselves or others.  We can be in the world in a new way.  Perhaps for most it’s best to start with small things.  Take that pipe of yours, for instance.  If you were of a mind to quit smoking, you might start with examining your desire for smoking.  Become aware of when and how it arises.  Observe it.  Feel the desire.  Feel your attachment to it ...

 

a.  Do you feel like a prisoner of past deeds (or omissions to act) ?

b.  Is there some part of your life that you'd like to change?  Why can't you?

c.  Are you effective in examining your own desires?

 

14)

B:      Yes, it is a case of learning the soft way to resist the seemingly irresistible.  But the soft way is not the easy way – it can be immensely difficult to overcome the habits of a lifetime. 

 

a.  Are "exercises or the mind" sufficient to bring about fundamental change?

b.  Do you know people who have overcome eg serious addiction problem by mental effort?

c.  Can you be "extensional" about observing your own habits?

 

 

15)

CGJ: How fortunate then that we may be given many lifetimes. 

 

a.  Have you ever had a sense of "having lived before"?  Do you know people who have?

b.  Seems like the ultimate in time-binding! Any reason why it should not occur?

c.  Can time-binding via scientific method deliver "eternal life"?


 

16)

B:      On the innermost level, reflect on how we don't want to let go of our egoistic, selfish, self-important view of self and who we think we are.  As we walk the spiritual path to enlightenment, ego-clinging is what we are really attempting to shed.  We want to let go of and empty out our separatist tendencies and our selfish agendas. 

 

a.  Do you have a clear sense of "who we think we are"?

b.  Could you envisage changing this perception as circumstances require?

c.  Do you sometimes feel lost in your "path to enlightenment"?

  

17)

B:      Although much in the universe is unfathomable, we are obliged to realise our Buddha nature.  The ultimate goal of our lives is to be happy. 

 

a.  Is it good enough to agree that "The ultimate goal of our lives is to be happy"?

b.  Were you surprised to hear the Buddha say that?

c.  Isn't this the natural conclusion of time-binding?  And of Humanists?

 

18)

CGJ: It all starts when we ask the question, ‘Who am I apart, from my history and the roles I have played'? 

 

a.  Can you separate who you basically are, from the roles you have played?

b.  Are you concerned about your history, ancestors, community etc?

c.  Are you conscious of the roles you play?  Are they part of your identity?

 

19)

B:      Will my life pass swiftly by as I wander upon this world like a hungry ghost, or will I undertake the work necessary to achieve salvation, which is already within me?  Carl, everybody should become their own psychologist and learn to control the undisciplined mind in order to lead it from suffering to happiness.

 

a. Do you feel like a "hungry ghost"?

b.  Do you actively try to be "your own psychologist"?

c.  Is it important "to control the undisciplined mind"?


 

20)

B:      Suffering arising from attachment to obsessive desires is certainly painful and completely unnecessary.  Enlightenment is a state of becoming freed of limiting desires.

 

a.  Is the term "obsessive desires" an exaggeration of factors in your life?

b.  Does it cause happiness, or can you be truly happy with "being driven" to a goal?

c.  Is this always unnecessary?  Don't some of us really need to be strongly focussed?

 

21)

B:      Enlightenment is an unchanging achievement, but there are different stages of enlightenment.  You could think of it as a process.  After all, it took me many lifetimes to reach my final stage of enlightenment. 

 

a.  If we talk about "achieving enlightenment", isn't it a destination, rather than a journey?

b. Can enlightenment be an everyday experience?

c.  How can time-binding assist us to achieve progressive "stages of enlightenment"?

 

22)

CGJ: Nevertheless, suffering that is worked though can enrich and deepen a human life, by generating greater knowledge, openness, sensitivity, compassion and passion. 

 

a.  Do you know people who have had great suffering?  How have they survived / developed?

b.  Can you recall some personal suffering which has had a benefit to you?

c.  When do we "need to be cruel to be kind" to ourselves, and to others?

 

23)

CGJ: People think they want this, or that, but all along they are looking for someone else or something else to save them. 

 

a. Have you ever been "saved" by someone else?  Do you know people who have?

b.  Have you ever wanted "to be saved", but found your own resources to be sufficient?

c.  Do you ever find yourself wanting to blame others when you should take responsibility?


 

24)

CGJ: Neurosis is always a substitute for legitimate suffering. 

 

a.  Always?

b.  What could the good doctor mean by "legitimate suffering"?

c.  Should we think of "neurosis" as "habitual misevaluation"?

 

25)

B:      All beings already have everything we need to live the existence allotted for us.  We just don't realise it.  This is the world of samsara. 

 

a.  "All beings" ... "everything" ... Dangerous words!  Could they be "true"?

b.  "Existence alloted for us" ... Sounds a little anthropomorphic, doesn't it?

c.  Is it useful (rather than "true") to consider that the world has been created for us?

 

26)

CGJ: If we live long enough, the life passage eventually arrives where we have to face what we have avoided so far in our journey.  Some people live too much in their heads and block out or avoid dealing with their emotions.  These patients have to really feel their emotions first, painful as it is, in order to get better.  Other people are constantly swayed by emotional reactions.  Their task on the other hand is to work at developing a rational framework to better deal with their emotions.  

 

a.  Are there parts of your life where "emotions" have been largely excluded?  Why?

b.  Are there parts of your life dominated by "emotions"?  Why?

c.  Could you benefit from a better balance of "eros" and "logos"?  Should it be "eros-logos"?

 

27)

CGJ: Your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart.  Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakens. 

 

a.  What do you "think" of this?  Should we say "think-feel"?

b.  Is this realistic in terms of taking an extensional view of "reality"?

c.  How can you "awaken" by looking inside?

 

Quite simple, really!

 

~ 0 ~

 


<- Back