Post No. 168 - A miscellany on leadership, growth orientation, Charmaine Wilson, acne and security theatre ...

I'm being lazy in this post, and combining a few things together in the one post :)

What I am going to cover is:

• a few thoughts on leadership, from watching the film "The Core";
• a few thoughts on the implications of different spiritual growth orientations;
• my response to being an audience member at a Charmaine Wilson proof-of-survival event;
• an interesting post I heard recently on the ABC; and
• a forwarded post about "security theatre".

I recently re-watched the film "The Core", which I watched once before when I wasn’t in the right mood to suspend disbelief. This time, I actually enjoyed the story-telling - and I particularly noted one theme, on leadership. Bruce Greenwood's character tells Hilary Swank's character (I obviously paid a lot of attention and memorised the character's names ... not) that she hasn't been given leadership because she has breezed through everything. She is told she needs to know failure - and she does so later in the film. This is a bit like the saying to the effect "those who have never made a mistake have never tried anything". I will think about this - I might even add in to the Rangers training materials when I get back to that ...

Clearly, being in charge is important to Hilary Swank's character, and she learns the difference between "being in charge" and leadership. That leads me to my next point: what is important to you?

If you are, perhaps, predominantly of a Bhakti Yogic path of spiritual growth orientation (see here for my previous post where I commented on the various forms of growth orientation), what is likely to be important to you is people, relationships, interactions, love. On the other hand, if your spiritual growth orientation is along the lines of the Jnani Yogic path, then perhaps truth is what you consider above all else. On the Raja path: perhaps being all that you can be is most important, and if you are on the Karma path commitment, honour and work would be what you consider most important.

EACH of these preferences is valid - as valid as any other. I find debates on topics such as "what is better: X or Y?" extremely annoying, as the truth is each is equally valid, and which is better depends of the people involved and the circumstances. Of course, that probably doesn’t make for what people consider "good entertainment" ...

Now, being focused on one spiritual growth path does not mean that you are necessarily incompetent in another, as you may have already travelled that path and decided to be a more rounded soul by travelling one or more other paths.

Of course, you may actually also be incompetent on other paths, as you may not yet have travelled them :)

Interacting with people on other spiritual growth paths can be source of disharmony - for instance, a person on the spiritual growth orientation path of Karma - actually, I'll simplify that, for the rest of this post, to "karma path person". So, a karma path person may see respect for privacy as more important than establishing emotional closeness, whereas Bhakti path person may see establishing closeness as a need that overrides all other considerations such as respecting other people's space. Neither is right or wrong: have to work out way to let each do their own thing. Of course, someone who thinks they are the Bahkti path and interprets that as meaning they are seeking to be loved (i.e., only receive, instead of also - equally - give) will annoy everyone on all paths. [1]

Recently I heard a stereotypical situation mentioned (as an example of a stereotype, more or less):a woman's car breaks down; the stereotype-woman wants to vent emotions about it to her (stereotype-male) partner (they’re stereotypically heterosexual, also), while stereotype-man wants to go fix the car.

(As a digression, I was recently involved in a conversation about the conflict between head and heart, and the comment was made that, although it is often best to follow one's heart [provided one has a modicum of spiritual maturity], the conflict between head and heart can be useful, as it shows the areas you may have past hurts to be tended to, or areas where you can learn or grow.)
From the point of view of stereotype-woman, once she has vented, the rest of it is just details to be sorted out; but from the point of view of stereotype-man, the venting is just details and the work of fixing the car still needs to be done. Both are right, and both are wrong: the stereotype-woman is wrong to consider fixing the car a simply details (it can be demanding, hard work - and expensive), and stereotype-man is clearly (well, clearly to me :) ) wrong to consider the emotions caused by the situation as trivial details. (By the way, I've had unreliable cars - and died in my previous incarnation as a result of a plane engine failing: lack of mechanical reliability has been, to me, almost terrifying, before I dealt with some of my past life issues - and it is bad enough just having to think "if I go to do the shopping, will I get stuck and lose all my cold goods?" let alone, as was the case for me when I was working in inland Queensland, "what will happens in the hours before another car could come along?" [I always carried water, blankets, etc for such an eventuality]).

This stereotype situation can be looked at from other points of view as well.

From an energy point of view, both right: after venting, they still have the issue of the car failure and what could have contributed to it to deal with (this is the same problem as getting drunk to forget something, usually pain: when the drunk sobers up, the problem is still there, and they have been weakened by getting drunk, and maybe had the problem exacerbated if they have picked up a lot of negative energy while their aura was blown wide open), but on the other hand, the emotional energy may have led to the problem.

If I may jump ahead to where I have the temerity to offer advice, I would suggest BOTH need equally to look at situation objectively.

From point of view of paths, karma-path-person wants to fix the whole situation, Jnana-path-person wants to know what happened and why (whether this is from a physical or psychic focus depends on the person's worldliness vs. spiritual focus), and so on. Each may not understand why the other is focused on what seems to be not important.

Doing a little more hypothesising on this theme, someone who is focused on solely one growth path may find someone who is focused on a few paths at the same time confusing. The former may be inclined to say to the latter "Whoa! Hold on! Just choose one thing, and look at that." On the other hand, the latter person may "know" that any situation has multiple aspects to it, just as a jewel may have multiple facets, and they all need to be looked at to understand the situation properly (which, it will no doubt surprise you, is my position :) ).

Now a few random thoughts which could possibly be related to my life experience of being on one particular mix of spiritual growth paths, and interacting with others who have a different mix:

• I tend to not need a lot of people contact - just my partner and my friends (including those family members [I count myself as part of four families: adoptive, birth and two through relationships] who are friends, which excludes the few who are red-necks). In fact, I find people who fear being alone a bit ... sad. On the other hand, I NEED solitude and time in the bush (wild bush, not the manicured parks and gardens near where I live) and on water, or I feel that I am psychologically dying. I feel a great sympathy for stereotype-tribal person who withers and fades away when locked away from their land in a prison (for an example of this, see the quirky film "The Gods Must Be Crazy" [2]). I haven't had any worthwhile bush time for long time now ... but I am hoping to do so this weekend :) (On this, I also find people I am trying to teach who easily get bored frustrating: they are less likely to do the simple, repetitive practice that is necessary to develop skills - the sort of thing that people who make things look easy have already done ...)
  
  This, too, could simply be that my need for people contact has been more than adequately met, at the moment, but my need for bush-time has not, and hence that need predominates - so it is a case of having multiple needs, but one tends to be most predominant at one time or another. As an example of that, consider food and drink: we need both, but if we are hungry and thirst, and then drink (or eat), the need that will be most apparent will be our hunger (or thirst). Maybe the same sort of effect applies to those who are working on multiple growth orientation paths: when the more urgent needs of one path have been tended to, another path's needs become more pressing - and so we cycle on, over a period of hours, days, months, years, decades or even lifetimes ...
  
  A similar effect can be observed with karma: many people tend to bounce about between extremes (e.g. primly "good" in one life to compensate for a prior life of "badness") before they - eventually - find a way to maintain a dynamic equilibrium between their various competing needs/behaviours/etc.
• Next, I don't have to justify myself or my views to anyone. I am owed respect inherently - which includes the right to have my privacy respected, and I have the right to be as irrational as I choose to be - provided no-one is being harmed. Of course, I need to be prepared to accept the consequences of that. For instance, if a partner asked me why I am doing or not doing something, and I chose not to answer, I have to be prepared to accept the possibility that such may destroy the trust/closeness that is a basis for that relationship, and hence end the relationship. I am, in this case, more thinking of other situations. For instance, when I left my first job as an engineer, after 7 years (which ,incidentally, was they day they (a) said they thought I was a good engineer, and (b) was the day they told me if I had stayed another two weeks I would have been paid pro-rata long service leave), I was fed up with engineering. At the send off, one of the directors said he hoped I stayed in engineering after I moved interstate, and I did not respond to that. As far as I was concerned, that was my business, and FORMER work colleagues had ZERO right to know anything of my future plans.
  
  Related to this, I have come across people regretting the loss of interaction between neighbours. I've lived in a small community where such interactions were good, but that was in the boating world, when I was living on a boat. If I was living on the banks of a river, interactions might be similar. In the 'burbs, however, I am cursed with having to cope with other people's bigotry: I don't want interactions that comprise other people telling me I should not exist ... This was probably worst in Menzies' Australia in the 50s and 60s, during which time Menzies made a comment about not needing to take some sort of repressive action (I have forgotten the details - sorry, and don't have time to look this up) as nothing could match the controlling behaviour in people's living rooms.

Now, moving away from spiritual paths from the point of view of yogic pathways, I spent some time (along with a few dozen others in the audience - there is NO special or particular connection between myself and this person) with someone recently who was on a related, but slightly different spiritual pathway to me: Charmaine Wilson.

Charmaine is a fantastic medium - and I consider some particularly good points of her session to be:

• the beginning and end talks about depression, how there is no shame is being depressed and the importance of dealing with it;
• that mediumship is not a perfect, exact science (as Charmaine said, she gets an image and may tend to interpret it in a particular way, whereas the significance of the image is something else; the example given was of getting an image of a bridge, which turned out to be because the spirit had been president of the (card-game) bridge club ...), and Charmaine did acknowledge when some connections were not very strong and left some attempted readings pass;
• that it is possible and good to be connected to your own spirit;
• some cautions about ways some people rip others off (e.g. by claiming that the "client" [rip-off victim!] has a ghost haunting them, and that the "client" [rip-off victim] needs to pay the pseudo-psychic [i.e. rip-off merchant] more money).

I have come across such rip-off merchants and "tricks", so it is good that a warning about such was given last night. It is also good that she attempted to defuse the fear of spirit matters, and mentioned that people pass over to the Light easily. I do, however, disagree with her on this somewhat: there are some people who don't pass over, and do need rescue. That is not Charmaine's area of speciality, whereas it is mine, and I consider my experience more relevant in this case (whereas is someone I wants a good "proof-of-survival" reading, I would recommend [strongly!] they go to her, not me :) ). Charmaine is dealing with spirits who have passed over, and are coming back to pass on messages; I deal with the ones who have got stuck - who, I should be clear, are NOT always or even often malevolent. My teacher gave an example of one "haunting" he was asked to work on, where the client said the spirit was doing evil; when asked to give examples of the "evil", she mentioned things like chairs being pulled out when people went to sit in them. What was the source of this "evil"? A young child who had found he was invisible ...

Have a look at some of my past posts on this: http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2010/06/saturday-morning-rescues-blog.html, http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2010/01/film-review-lovely-bones.html, http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2009/12/shades-of-exorcism.html, http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2009/10/service-to-guide-souls-of-dead.html, and http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2008/05/mediumship-part-three-last-part.html.

Also, Charmaine stated that it is not possible to be "possessed by malevolent spirits", and that events of the type shown in the film "The Exorcist" don't happen. Well, I agree that things like spinning heads don't happen, but there are "malevolent" spirits. More commonly (and perhaps less threatening or disturbing to some), there are energies and people which we are not in harmony with. In much the same way as two colours may clash, the auras of two people (possibly both incarnate, or one discarnate and one incarnate, or both discarnate) may clash. It is possible, and desirable, that one protect oneself against such disharmony - a statement made in exactly the same spirit (pun not intended by me, but I won't speak for the guides helping me with this!) as Charmaine's comments that being depressed is not wrong or terrible, but it is important to treat the depression.

Next, I was listening to ABC Radio National's Science Show programme, and heard a segment on acne. This programme hypothesised that the (evolutionary) purpose of acne is to ensure some partners survive the violence of sexual competition. That comment was based on "primitive" tribal lifestyles, where death rates are substantially higher than in "civilised" society (have a look at my post on Neanderthal Predation theory (at here). I have to say, in a milder way that pretty much matches my recollection of being teenager as being a decidedly unpleasant experience. Apart from my personal angst, there were all the "Queen Bees" and "Wannabees" (who I would term alpha females), alpha males and other bullies and bitches to put up with ... I'm glad I am personally finished (a long time ago, now) with that time of life.

Now my final point. I am including the link to this blog post as a matter of public interest. The author has requested that it be spread far and wide, and I will do so. There are major problems with the responses in Western nations to security threats: for some good comments on what is described as "security theatre" (as opposed to real, effective security) in this and other areas, I suggest you consider also checking out Bruce Schneier's website .

So ... the blog post is at: http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html

A few other links relating to Bruce Schneier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Schneier;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_fear;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneier%27s_Law; and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failing_badly.

Update:
There has been another blog post about this: see here.

Love, light, hugs and blessings

Gnwmythr

Notes:

1. Now, with the qualification that I am NOT considering people who have been seriously injured in some way (e.g. been the victim of childhod abuse), and hence genuinely NEED healing, when I make this comment I am thinking here of people who are immature, or insecure, or otherwise needy, and seek an external cure, rather than seeking to cure the flaw within. Subject to my qualification, having a sense of being loved cannot be created from without: you have to at least be open to the possibility that you are loveable.
   
   I am also thinking of one woman who I heard as describing a new lover as "not selfish" because he stayed up all night rather than getting some sleep so he could do his work as he was paid to do the next day. (She hadn't thought about the work issue, by the way, only her personal pleasure.)
2. I was staggered to read, at this link, that there had been four follow up films! The second one wasn't as good as the first, in my opinion, and there were others after that ... Please note the views about the faults of the film: the Wikipedia listing includes, for instance, the following comment: "Richard Lee, an anthropologist who studied the Ju/ʼhoansi, argues that the film's representation of the group was a "cruel caricature of reality" given the decades of highly problematic social changes".

This post's photo is yet to be posted.

Tags: leadership, growth orientation, Charmaine Wilson, rescue, mediumship, proof-of-survival, sexuality, competitiveness, violence, survival, security theatre, selfishness,

First published: Tuesday 16th November, 2010

Last edited: Friday 19th November, 2010