Saturday, 28 April 2012

Post No. 380 - Naivete (inappropriateness)


One of the most dangerous things in the world now is, in my opinion, that of naiveté - specifically, people who think everything is fundamentally alright, so that they should behave as if everyone was already spiritually evolved. People aren't, and there are times and circumstances when that is no more appropriate than discussing University calculus with a kindergarten "student" (and hence the bracketted title - inappropriateness).

The trigger for me in writing this is the desire of some, in an open, public discussion (non-Wiccan/pagan) group I am associated with, to ensure that EVERYONE is able to come along safely - which is a matter of considerable, intense debate (including around the wording of an anti-violence policy, much of which came down to personal responsibility vs. collective responsibility) as a result of some incidents of ... "inappropriate" behaviour outside of group meetings (yes, you read that correctly: OUTSIDE of group meetings and activities).

I've come across this sort of problem (and other disruptive problems) in some groups, and the best analogy of the problem that I can give is to consider a person with a gun shooting other people (like the mass murdering criminal in Norway who is currently on trial).  When that is sort of behaviour is happening, unless you are someone with an INCREDIBLY powerful aura (and having read of some of the actions of people like Bishop DesmondTutu, or, even more notably, Mohandas K Gandhi, I know that such people do exist - and I'm NOT one of them :) [1] ), you need to take the gun off them, or stop them. (This happened literally in the case of a group promoting peace and communal living in northern New South Wales recently. They were threatened by a violent person, who wound up being shot by the police after an attempt to Taser the violent person failed. I think that group in NSW still needs to exist and continue working as it was - it's work obviously provoked the person [or any negative entities that were controlling him], which probably means that they are on the right track, but, by the same token, the police still need to exist in this world as it is now, although with appropriate reviews of training etc. The news report I read on this is here.)

The same sort of damage can happen on a psychic level - which is, in a sense, even worse, given that so few can see or accept the existence of non-physical energies. When you get to the desperate stages of dealing with a sociopath or psychopath (or two or three, and I have come across situations where groups have been disrupted by multiple such people - by the way, read the links: I'm not using these terms pejoratively, these are particular disorders), the problems at least become somewhat more clearly manifested. (I have heard advice that it is up to the group to confront such people: if the sociopath(s)/psychopath(s) do not have too much power, that MIGHT work ... IF the sociopath(s)/psychopath(s) do NOT have too much power ... ) Personally, this is where I think people with some psychic awareness and skill at dissolving negative psychic energy (in a hurry - which is exactly the sort of pressure-cooker skill one needs for rescueing uncooperatives) have a DUTY to get involved and do what they can. That's why I'm still there, but I will probably tootle off when the war is over ...(incidentally, I can count the number of people who know the energy work I am doing - which includes making a tetrahedron to protect the group - on less than the fingers of a hand: this sort of work is something you don't brag about, you just do it.)

Even more so, however, I think it is important for an element of realism (pragmatism?), and for ALL to acknowledge that not everyone can necessarily be part of a group. In the same way that some people, for the safety of themselves AND OTHERS are placed in mental health care institutions (well, they SHOULD be about mental health care, and not just managing awkward or inconvenient people - see the film "Nuts" with Barbra Streisand and Richard Dreyfuss for more on that), not everyone can be part of a group. I therefore disagree with the view that, if a group cannot ensure all who wish to be part of it cannot be safely part of it, the group as a whole is lesser. Some people (namely, the aforementioned psychopath(s)/sociopath(s) ) cannot be part of a group: they need to be isolated for the benefit of themselves (karmically) and others (health, wellbeing and safety - and human rights) UNTIL THEY REALLY CHANGE (which WILL eventually happen, but that might take several lifetimes of being isolated first).

Incidentally, when such people have been isolated, don't forget them: send them healing and, if you can, clear the negativity around them (not to do so gets into the head-in-the-sand problem I have written about elsewhere), but don't try to make the group function as if the world was an ideal place. It isn't; we are in the Kali Yuga, not the Golden Yuga, and there is a difference between noble idealism or a self-sacrificing example (e.g. Gandhi's hunger strikes) and foolishness or even stupidity (if I think of a good example, I'll add it).

I also have to point out that I have been a beneficiary from an attitude of inclusion. I actually left one of the groups I have concerns about a few years ago, and that led to a discussion which led to a few elders of the group talking to the person who had been discriminating against me and, ultimately, that person, despite their considerably greater public popularity than me, being told to leave (not just because of his behaviour towards me, but also his offensive behaviour towards others).

I also want to acknowledge the growth that I have seen in some people who are advocating the "include at all costs" approach. In the case of the example that led to me thinking of writing this post, at least one of the people concerned (who I am aware took the Bodhisattva Vow in a previous life, which is about making sure all humans attain enlightenment, so this person is being very true to their commitments) has made very considerable growth, and looks well able to handle the stresses and strains of running a meeting to resolve the internal split.

There's a point of balance between opposing views, and the balance point moves in response to the dynamics of the situation. In assessing that moving balance point, one of the things I definitely wish to avoid being is one of morons who, because they were lazy manipulators in a previous life and are overcompensating now, think they have to be hard, rather than realising that there is a win-win possibility :) One meets all types of people in a wide range of situations, and my training as a Priestess covered many problem people, but my training in the School of Life covered many more :)

As a final, more pragmatic note, this set of experiences is also possibly an argument in favour of closed groups, or defining/separating functions very clearly: part of these problems came about through mixing discussion groups and social events. 

As a final. final note, I can view all this from my favourite lens of maturity, and say that naiveté and other forms of inappropriate idealism are forms of immaturity. I find myself moving more and more towards pragmatism ... provided it IS genuinely pragmatism with teeth, as it were, and not a cop out to what is easiest in a situation! It is possible to be TOO pragmatic, and thereby sacrifice the moral idealism one SHOULD have - after all, the motivation of many of the people I have concerns about is a desire for GENUINE peace, and they have some advanced, brilliant teachings on this - and communication. So ... pragmatism vs. idealism ... ah that old thing of balance, and dynamic balance at that, eh? :)

And now, a few links. Enjoy, and THINK

Love, light, hugs and blessings

Gnwmythr
(pronounced "new-MYTH-ear") 
May the world of commerce and business be recognised to be a servant, not a master, of the lives of people.

Notes:
  1. In Marco Pallis' book "Peaks and Lamas", first published in 1939, republished in 2004 by Shoemaker & Hoard, ISBN 978-1593760588 (my copy is older, from a lovely, packed-to-the-rafters-with-books second-hand bookshop) there is a discussion about the Tibetan view that, if one is biten by a dog or attacked by a wild beast, it is because one did not have - and I'm simplifying and using my words here - a strong aura (or, you could say, you lacked in what they would describe as "authentic presence").

Tags: attitudes, group dynamics, immaturity, maturity, peace, self defence, society, violence,

First published: Laugadagr, 28th April, 2012

Last edited: Saturday, 28th April, 2012
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , ,