Australian General Semantics
Society
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 ~